This is an archive of past discussions with User:Fran Rogers. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Krimpet, you deleted this image on 15 November 2007 on the grounds of CSD 18. There is one problem, however, with this picture at Commons as it has been put under a {{PD-art}} license which requires a source to be mentioned. Can you tell me if any source information was provided at the original image page you have deleted? Thanks for your help, AFBorchert (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding :/ The original image indeed said nothing other than {{PD-art}} regarding its source... no other information was provided. krimpet✽08:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Support
This user supports Krimpet for her deletion of the visual appearance preference userboxes.
You've always come across to me as a thoughtful and kind admin with at least an ounce of common sense, even when you opposed me on my third RFA. Such was the reason why I supported you during Bedford-gate; you're a decent person who came under attack ostensibly for being female. Consequently I'll be willing to give you support when you come under fire for such actions in the future, especially if Bedford Theresa has a go at you; he lost his bit for being sexist, and he seems to be still beating the dead "womenz=evil!" horse. Sceptre(talk)19:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
CommonsHelper Helper
Hi, is your script working? I have it installed as per the instructions, cleared cache etc, but I don't see the Move image button in image edit pages. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I haven't checked it for a while, admittedly... it's a rather old tool now, made obsolete by new features in the CommonsHelper tool itself; I suggest using that instead :) krimpet✽08:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Broken for me, too :( It's a pain having to use CommonsHelper on its own. I think it broke when all that TUSC stuff came in - Alison❤08:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know it was still actually in use! I'll try to give it an overhaul - don't want to let my userbase down :) krimpet✽08:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 4,675 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 141 unreviewed articles. Out of 186 total nominations, 28 are on hold, 14 are under review, and 3 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film, and drama (28 articles), Sports and recreation (27 articles), Music (22 articles), Transport (18 articles), and War and military (13 articles).
There are currently 4 articles up for re-review at Good Article Reassessment. Congratulations! There really is no "backlog" here! :-)
GA Sweeps is Recruiting Reviewers
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
ThinkBlue (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for July, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. ThinkBlue had a whopping 49 reviews during the month of July! ThinkBlue was also one of our two reviewers of the month from June, and has been editing Wikipedia since December 1, 2006, and is interested in articles dealing with Friends, Will and Grace, CSI:Miami, Monday Night Raw, Coldplay.
Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of July include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Sweeps Process
The GA Sweeps process has recently reached its first year anniversary. If you are unaware of what GA Sweeps is, it is a process put in place to help ensure the integrity of the ever-growing number of GAs, by determining if the articles still meet the GA criteria. Experienced reviewers check each article, improving articles as they review them, and delisting those that no longer meet the criteria. Reviewers work on a specific category of GAs, and there are still many categories that need to be swept. In order to properly keep track of reviews, a set date was used to determine what articles needed to be reviewed (since any future GAs would be passed according to the most recent GA criteria).
The number of GAs that were to be reviewed totals 2,808. Since the beginning of Sweeps, the progress has reviewed 981 by the end of July 2008 (or exempted them). For a table and chart breakdown of the current progress, see here.
With more than twenty editors reviewing the articles, progress is currently a third of the way done. At this rate, it will take another two years to complete the Sweeps, and active involvement is imperative to completing on time. We are always looking for new reviewers, and if you are interested in helping in speeding up the Sweeps process and improving your reviewing skills, please contact OhanaUnited.
Did You Know...
... that the goal of GA Sweeps is to reviewed all articles listed before 26 August2007?
... that the entire category of, "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" has been swept?
... that of all subcategories, "Recordings, compositions and performances" in the Music category has the most articles (240 articles in total)?
Hey, just wanted to say Hi. I saw you were an admin and RIT alumni. I'm a 3rd year majoring in New Media Interactive Development (Web Development). It's cool to see other people at RIT on Wikipedia. Nice to meet you! :)
For your bot, you should have it go through the "blocked non-exit nodes" cat regularly and remove the tags if it's been unblocked or switch it if it's back to exit (and notify an admin). Also, it seems to have stopped working period. Kwsn(Ni!)08:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I was looking for the List of Fictitious Movies article and discovered that you had deleted it last year. I respectfully disagree with this decision. However, most of my experience in Wikipedia is simple editing, so I'm not quite sure of the proper protocol to contest a past deletion. The article on contesting and reviewing deletions is a little confusing, and I don't know if it even applies to such an old deletion.
I'm asking you -- my rival in this -- for help so I don't appear as a stiffnecked troll or something.
Basically, the point I wish to make is that Wikipedia continues to maintains Lists of fictitious plays, books, musicals, and other media; I would argue that the list of films is exactly the same as far as notability.
What is the proper steps to take in this case? Thanks for your help.
[//toolserver.org/~krimpet/rbhelper.php?db=enwiki_p Rangeblock finder] produces Rangeblock finder. However, [[tools:~krimpet/rbhelper.php?db=enwiki_p|Rangeblock finder]] produces Rangeblock finder. Both appear to be the same, but one is obviously different from the other.... --MZMcBride (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
This is actually a bug in the tools: prefix - it encodes the question mark into %3F, causing Apache to look for a file called rbhelper.php?db=... rather than supplying GET values to rbhelper.php; my suggestion would be to avoid using the prefix. (The rickroll is actually my 404 page. :p) krimpet✽18:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Ohh, sorry about that. :/ When Grawp was e-mail bombing people with Emailuser a few weeks back, I went through your block log, filtered it to what looked to be all your Grawp blocks, and re-blocked them with e-mail disabled... but it looks like PPGtest slipped through. My apologies :) krimpet✽18:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a million Lara - that ketchup-drenched plate on there before was an embarrassment to Western New York as a whole. <_< krimpet✽18:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Any idea why the CH2.js script is no longer working? I used it for a while a couple of weeks back, it is still in my monobook.js and nothing has changed, but now it doesn't work when I click "move image to commons" tab on an image page. Doesn't seem to be browser specific either as I checked it in both Firefox and Safari. --TimTay (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Bank Image
You deleted a public domain image Image:Shawneetown bank.jpg (work of the US Government last November. I was unaware of this or I would have objected. Please restore the image and refrain from deleting public domain images. --Zeamays (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I took care of it, but next time, try just asking nicely and being more aware of the situation before snapping at someone; Krimpet deleted the image because at the time a copy existed on Commons, and it is fairly standard to remove duplicate images when a Commons version exists. Shereth17:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to restore the image because Shereth has been kind enough to restore it, but it isn't clear to me why it was deleted. --Zeamays (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
ABANDON ALL HOPE, ALL YE WHO ENTER THE BITWISE HELLFIRE
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, please see my talk page on meta ... specifically, this thread. I don't override blocks of other admins without good reason and I don't have the background. If this was not an intentional block perhaps you can talk to Dragon695 on your respective talk pages there? Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c23:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Blocking bug
Hi Krimpet,
I noticed you found the bug with the allow usertalk system, which I wrote. Would you be able to provide me with any tests you did, or other information? I'd like to get this sorted ASAP.
We had the same problem at Wikiversity. Could you please comment about it here for our information? It would be very useful. Its hard for us to keep up with some of these issues. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
See User talk:PatPeter; he is requesting an unblock. Claims to have stayed away for 6 months, and pledges better behavior. I have started a discussion at WP:AN. I would appreciate your input, as you were the blocking admin. Later. --Jayron32.talk.contribs03:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Krimpet, I’ve been conversing with Werdna (perma-link to discussion thread here).
There are two templates, {{delimitnum}} and {{val}}, that delimit numbers (add narrow spaces) in values like this: 6.0224438467(40)×10−23 kg. Unfortunately, both these templates must rely upon math-based techniques and both suffer from unpredictable rounding errors. For instance, coding {{val|0.29872813|e=-23|u=kg}} produces 0.29872813×10−23 kg (note the …29) but adding 2 to the value, {{val|2.29872813|e=-23|u=kg}} produces the correct 2.29872813×10−23 kg.
I had told Werdna that all we needed was a character-counting parser function to use in these templates. Such a parser function would continually be asked the following question: “are there five or more remaining digits in the string?” If so, move over three more digits, add a space, and ask the question again. Details are at bugzilla:15677 and a detailed description of its functionality is here. He responded that the developer community discussed this request and apparently didn’t want to set a new precedent of creating new parser functions as it risked encouraging more such requests. He suggested that he might be able to write an entire magic word but had to back away from that offer, citing that too much is on his plate right now. He suggested I contact you or Mr.Z-man. I thought I would start with the first name on his short list: you.
Can you help in any way? Whereas it would be nice to see an easier-to-use template as is described in bugzilla:15677, looking at the number of articles that currently link to {{val}} and {{delimitnum}}, it would probably be better, if we were going to just make one template, to just re-write {val} with the character-counting capability. All it needs is to not choke on big numbers and not have rounding errors. The best outcome of all, would be to have both delimitnum and val. Greg L (talk)22:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I got some e-mail from this schmuck earlier today. The e-mail address was (drumroll, please): Grawp@live.com. Yes, another Grawp wannabe. The e-mail was nothing but a bunch of HTML code; I suspect this little freak was trying to send a Grawpesque browser-crasher. Just so ya know that the little darlings on Encyclopedia Dramatica and 4chan haven't quite gone away. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
That e-mail address indicates this actually is "the" Grawp (formerly User:JarlaxleArtemis). Thankfully, he doesn't seem to realize that it's impossible to send HTML e-mail through the Special:EmailUser function. -_- krimpet✽03:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice to learn that the Wiki-gnomes in the IT department were using their noodles on this one. I've blocked the account and if I get any more, I'll block them too. Nothing terribly offensive about a bunch of computer code, after all. :) Thanks for the update. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Confuzzed re: Grawp blocks
Greetings, Krimpet. I'm a little confuzzed, and wonder if you can help me understand: this appears to show that Dddike (talk·contribs) is indefinitely blocked. However, this appears to show that Dddike is an alias of Regushee, who does not appear to be blocked. I've no recent beef with Regushee/Dddike, though s/he certainly has made problems in the past. Are there two Dddikes, or am I seeing double, or...? Thanks. —ScheinwerfermannT·C23:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
When you block known Grawp socks, could you protect their talk pages from editing? Grawp and his wannabes tend to use unblock requests to insert HTML to crash browsers, and it's a pain to find a lot of unblock requests like that. Cheers Fritzpoll (talk) 12:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
And this morning, User talk:Dddike was (again?) maliciously turned into a browser-crashing mess by Dddike. I rolled it back, but...! (linked to Dddike talk page hist rather than WPlink to talk page, just in case) —ScheinwerfermannT·C15:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I take your point completely; but I think that we are so often up our own butts here that some constructively meant satire is a valuable safety valve as long as it doesn't get pointy. In the UK, where I live, for example, politics was never the same again after That Was the Week That Was comprehensively and sometimes cruelly debunked the status quo. I'm not suggesting that should happen here, because we have enough outside critics (if we care). However, the occasional well-meant sideways critique should not be treated as being evil; it's one mechanism by which societies tend to self-analyse and self-regulate. I think your addition is a good start, but might benefit from amplification to demonstrate that although the goal is to build an encyclopedia, there's no reason to be po-faced bunters in doing so. Cheers --Rodhullandemu23:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
A bit harsh
What evidence, exactly, justifies your block of Kristen Eriksen? In any event, the "e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page" options, without any evidence of talk page or e-mail abuse, are inappropriate, as they prevent her from appealing the block. John25423:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Jeremy the move vandal is still at it, sadly. :/ But on the bright side, I don't think RIT will be renaming itself any time soon, unless that plan to rename to South Henrietta Institute of Technology goes through... krimpet✽05:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I restored the image of Conservape-tan to the WP:Wikipe-tan directory not realizing that it had been debated and deleted once before. Face told me about it, and said that it might just get deleted again. Since you're the author, I decided to let you know that the image is back. If you don't want it there anymore, you can just remove it and that'll be OK with me. SoapTalk/Contributions21:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Dear Krimpet,
Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.
I see you have deleted the content on my userpage. It had been vandalised, but in the future could please check with people before completely deleting their pages? Thanks ;) --Iron Chef (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I closed the debate (like the one for Promethean's "no"-template) as Snow-keep. You should read the last comment by Stifle (talk·contribs) regarding the licensing though. Regards SoWhy12:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a "heads up" - Didiot was deleted by User:Krimpet hours after you closed the RfD as "keep" (and this was less than two weeks after the first RfD's "keep" close on the same redirect). I didn't think that an admin can trump two consensus closures - and this seems to indicate that the redirect needs to be protected. I'd leave a message on Krimpet's talk page, but it's semiprotected and my work computer rejects cookies... It just seems to be a shame that policy is being ignored here... Thanks for your time and understanding. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I deleted it due to BLP - it was a disparaging redirect with no sources justifying that this "attack nickname... used by advocates of open source software" is notable. BLP trumps a couple of low-participation RfDs, both of which only had a single "keep" vote, and one of which was closed early. If you disagree, you can start a deletion review. krimpet✽01:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Did you check the target article? It appeared not only to have the epithet cited, it even had it discussed in a NPOV manner (referring to the contention between DiDio and some Linux advocates). That seemed the justification for the "Keep" in the first RfD; I was surprised that a new RfD opened two days after the close... and urged a "Speedy keep" on the basis of WP:Speedy keep. Well, it seems that the IP started the DRV - I will check over there, but it seems to me that a bad precedent was set by speedying after the "keeps" following prolonged (in time) discussion, though. B.Wind (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Deleted User page
Deleted due to "Patent nonsense:"
1. Total nonsense, i.e., text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. This includes sequences such as "sdfgdsfkgdyhgdkhgdsklhsklgroflmaolololol;;;'dsfgdfg", in which keys of the keyboard have been pressed with no regard for what is typed.
and/or
2. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.
My personal user page had facts about me that were completely and totally true. It wasn't nonsense or gibberish. You may have considered it to be little silly, but it was still factual, and it was my own personal user page. If you have more accurate information about myself than what was presented on that page, I'd encourage you to edit it to increase it's accuracy.
Please restore it. If you don't want to, please give me specific reasons why. If it was in haste, no worries. That page has stood with little alteration (except for when I changed my hairstyle) for years. It mystifies me that you deleted it. Durty Willy (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Deleted User page
I see you still haven't responded to my request. My user page was never a candidate for speedy deletion, per the guidelines for user page ownership, CMT, and especially the Wikipedia AGF policy. If it was vandalized it should have been reverted, if it was in violation of user page guidelines, you should have contacted me or gone RfD. Please restore it or provide an explanation. Durty Willy (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, you blocked User: 203.111.235.50, which I have agree with, but the block log shows a strange duration.[1], sou you may want to double check what the outcome means and if it is what you intended. Or if such info can be readily translated into a time, I'd be interested to know how. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, if it isn't you, you'd need to provide documentation from the person in the picture that they've given their consent and that they're also over the age of majority, per Commons policy. (And if they did, they would probably be in serious hot water legally for providing pornography to a minor. Wikimedia would rather not get tangled up in these sorts of legal issues, especially over a photo that was small and of dubious educational value.) Fran Rogers (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Look, we're not buying it; that's clearly no pastel drawing. -_- Oversighters have removed the image permanently, so the discussion is moot. Please don't upload explicit self-portraits again. Fran Rogers (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Your attention would be welcome at Misty Willows' talk page. She has since been blocked, but is continuing to assert at that page that the image was not a picture. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I painted this possum with pastels, too...She's lying through her teeth. As I said when I deleted her latest upload on Commons (and blocked her, since she was warned), child porn processed with a Photoshop filter is still child porn. Fran Rogers (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I screwed up the /temp page I created to keep it protected while I deleted/restored... forgot to cascade protection. :p My mistake. Fran Rogers (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, good point. I wasn't sure whether to add it there, but I see the part I cited was under "remedies," so I'll add an entry. Fran Rogers (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Back in 2007 a rather irresponsible Commons user copied File:PazandakGrader1918.jpg to Commons without copying source or description info and slapping an unsupported license on the image different from that here. And you deleted the copy here as being a duplicate of an image on Commons. I've just taken care of the copy on Commons which had been listed for deletion there. Probably old news, but I wanted to mention it to you just in case to keep an eye out for such bad "copying" to Commons and not delete the local copy here if the Commons copy is badly flawed until/unless the Commons copy can be fixed. Thanks for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Defender 911
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Defender 911 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
I'd like to ask a question if I may, but I'll understand if you'd prefer not to answer, or would rather answer via e-mail. (I asked User:NuclearWarfare, but they suggested I give you a try.)
If an editor's account is blocked here, so that they cannot create new accounts, what happens if they go to another wiki, say Commons, and create a new account there, where they are not blocked? Would the global login system automatically create the account here, despite the block?
I don't think auto-creation is impacted when account creation is blocked, but I'm not 100% sure unfortunately. Best to try it out and see. Fran Rogers (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd add to that - as you've posted elsewhere on your antipathy to cruft, I feel this makes you non-impartial where it comes to editors such as Ikip, and hence involved. So I hereby ask you to reconsider the block. Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Addressing all of the above:
Peregrine, he didn't break 3RR as far as I can see, but 3RR isn't a hard-and-fast rule. Okip's reverts were over multiple pages, and weren't clear-cut reverts, but they were edit warring. (The only reason "3RR" was in the block message was because I used the standard drop-down reason: "Edit warring or violation of the three-revert rule". Now that I think of it, that's confusingly worded, since you don't need to break 3RR to edit war.)
DGG, he was asked to stop moving talk page content around by NuclearWarfare and Risker, and continued to revert them multiple times.
Casliber, my or anyone else's opinion on "cruft" isn't the issue here, it's edit warring. I haven't been following this whole BLP RfC at all, and I'm not interested in partisanship. [IO]kip came on my radar in the first place because of his rapid-fire spamming a few weeks ago (when I blocked him for twelve hours), so when NW and Risker started warning him, I noticed on my watchlist. I don't understand how this is "non-impartial."
This whole debate is polarising - generally folks feel a natural antagonism to those on 'the other side' - so when there is a block which has required some interpretation - e.g. as in multiple-reverting-not-exactly-3RR - I'd steer on the side of safety. If I blocked someone deletion-minded for a situation which could have been interpreted either way (i.e. equivocal reason for blocking), I'd let someone else do it to avoid any perception of impropriety. Especially with no warning first, even a succinct and unequivocal 'Knock it off right now or take a 24 hour rest'. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Fran, would you be willing to take this to an admin board for community input? Quite a few Wikipedians have expressed doubts about this block--not all of whom are Okip's ideological soulmates. You're right that edit warring blocks can be nuanced decisions. Might be best if a broader spectrum weigh in on the decision. Durova41203:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted [2] because it was on Commons, but it appears that the image on Commons was a copy-vio of the image on Wikipedia (i.e. was falsely attributed). DuncanHill (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted photo
You deleted my photo, supposedly on the grounds of it being a duplicate of one in the commons, but the one in the commons was a copy of mine, and now the only existing photo (and the one currently profiled in a very large number of articles) gives credit to the guy/girl who copied it from me (and, as an aside, has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism) and me, as the actual original copyright holder, appear nowhere. Would you please help me? DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)03:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Fran Rogers, I noticed your creation of filter 296. Unfortunately, we are really at the absolute limits of how much the filter can handle, and have been working very hard to compress the filters so that edits do not go through unchecked. Do you have any objections to me merging this into the already-existing filter 52? This would save valuable conditions. If you're trying to detect something in particular beyond just blocking the edits, perhaps I can be of assistance in crafting a more efficient filter. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Lilacine Amazon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Politizer talk/contribs 15:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
![[2]](https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=File:Tzitzis_Shot.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}