User talk:MacGyverMagic/Archive 13

CopyVio on Korea/Tsushima Strait

• Hi! Don't know the ropes yet on CopyVio, but a new map was loaded into two articles this week, that clearly looks like a work over of scanned copyrighted materials, and I suspect the editor to be on the young side. Can you take a look, and 'also' give me your opinion on my reasoning on the proposed merge as well. One link cites the other, so the Talk:Tsushima Strait will do it all. Thanks. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 3 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reply- copying over now. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 3 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)

thanks!

Hey Mgm, thanks for your support of my RfA, and thanks for the encouraging words! Oh, regarding reverting the vandalism on your userpage last week, no problem; I'm just glad I noticed it. Have a good one! --Spangineer (háblame) July 4, 2005 03:49 (UTC)

Permited

<s>{{Did you know}}</s> Did you you permitted has 2 t's? Joestynes 4 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)

Hey! It's gone! Dang cache. Joestynes 4 July 2005 08:41 (UTC)

Anionic addition polymerization

Originally, this was a stub with just a chemical equation. I put it up for Cleanup, but obviously nobody wanted to touch this subject. Then I did it myself, but my school days were in prehistoric times (more than 40 years ago) and my field of interest lies more in botany. Therefore, this article could use a review. Since you are a chemistry student, you're probably the right man to do it. I also wanted to write the chemical equation for the polyether formation (with red curved arrows showing the movement of the electrons) and the chemical formula for ethylene oxide, but this probably requires a special software. Anyway, look into it if you can spare the time. JoJan 4 July 2005 14:58 (UTC)

Dank je voor het vlug antwoord: Ik heb het verzoek doorgegeven naar Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Hopelijk zijn er daar specialisten in polymerisatie-reacties. JoJan 4 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates

re: your vote on Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Templates. User:Stevertigo created the WikiProject and then did nothing further. I have now started to turn it into a real working WikiProject, and I would appreciate it if you would reconsider your vote. BlankVerse ∅ 4 July 2005 20:18 (UTC)

Are the BOTs GOING WILD

• You seem to be A BOT WIZARD of sorts. Is there a BOT that would delete a page in user talk space created there by someone else? I've been working with Mr Tan to ameliorate and minimize some of the friction he causes with other editors, and I created a 'off page' of email humor derivation, which has some funny (to us native speakers), yet educational value (Idioms seem paradoxical) to non-native speakers of English that seems to have vanished. User:Nichalp left me a message which seems to refer to the 'now' redlink.
• Ahhh... 'It' has somehow 'now' been appended to the end of his talk cluttering the bandwidth, and a redlink now resides where former User Talk:Mr Tan/English page was placed. Any idea how he would delete and append like that, or was this a misguided BOT? Thanks User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 4 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)

(sorry to butt in here). Fabartus: Mr Tan put a speedy-delete tag on that page, saying "The content was moved to the mainstream talk page", and an admin (quite reasonably) deleted it. This edit seems to be Mr Tan moving the content you describe to his normal talk page. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk July 5, 2005 00:25 (UTC)

DYK nomination: shrimp farm

I have expanded the suggested factoid, giving two of the many reasons. BTW, I chose this particluar factoid on purpose, because (a) I've met several Wikipedians who didn't know this, and (b) I consider it far more interesting than something like "...that only two species of shrimp account for 80% of the global production from shrimp farms?" or "...that China is the largest producer of farmed shrimp, but Thailand is the largest exporter with a global market share of over 30%?". As long as it's factual, I believe that a factoid may make blunt statements that make people go "Huh? What's this? Why would that be?" and then hopefully go read (and improve, I hope) the article. But as I wrote, feel free to bypass the nomination. Which articles and factoids to use is up to the person who takes care of DYK. Lupo July 5, 2005 11:24 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping me learn something about vfd & db! I appreciate it, as knowledge is the greatest gift you can give a person. Happy (e)travels. ~ Dpr 6 July 2005 11:12 (UTC)

Missouri Bowling Deletions

I listed all the articles in vfd before seeing your more simplistic, single entry (damn, wish I'd thought of that), so they're all there, just a few entries below yours. I also told the articles' creator that this kind of information is better suited for a personal website rather than an encyclopedia earlier. Thanks for the quick response, first time going through the vfd nomination process so it was pretty sloppy. TheMidnighters 6 July 2005 14:18 (UTC)

Wiki-Nerd

Hi. If memory serves, the original title was "Wikinerds." Same text, though. Thanks for making it go bye-bye. - Lucky 6.9 6 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)

Inflammatory, mistaken user

Hi MacGyver. You've been a big help before, looks like I need some more from you though..

I am somewhat dismayed by the fact that some users, who appear to be minors or around that age tend to ruin the experience for everyone. I have already experienced my first "edit war" when I tried to write a centrist article but was under "revert" attack by an extremist. Maddening, isn't it? Fortunately, you helped quite a bit and that issue has been settled. Now, I find myself being accused of being a "sock puppet." After researching what that was, I looked into it and found that a user (named Carr) thought I was the same person as another user, who has an extensive profile under his IP address (203.198.237.30)[1]. We are indeed very different people and I would not put such information about myself online. However, Carr felt it necessary to mark my page and 203.198.237.30's page as sock-puppets. I removed the notices from both pages, wrote a note to 203.198.237.30 informing him of the situation, and told Carr that I was not that user. He then proceeded not to respond, but write on his user page the following text (which I deleted):

User:203.198.237.30 and User:RJSampson are one and the same. Don't be fooled by his using a different IP after he was busted and User:203.198.237.30 was tagged as a sock. This Sampson is a sly customer and likes to make out to be someone he isn't. Now that he's been busted he'll try to be more careful but it's too late! And of course he used User:66.179.35.4 to show that User:203.198.237.30 was not his!

Full disclosure: 66.179.35.4 is my work IP address. 67.116.210.178 is my home IP address. Those are the only ones I've edited from. A co-worker looked at an article I wrote (The Truth About Hillary) and removed a word he thought redundant because he wanted to try his hand at editing. Another user reverted the change. I do not know where IP 203.198.237.30 comes from.

Regardless, I do not like to be slandered. I came to enjoy our site and share knowledge, and frankly, the malevolence and immaturity I've encountered has been disheartening. My co-worker now wants no part of this site, and as he's a brilliant engineer.. what a loss. Is there anything that can be done to deal with people like this? Can this user be dealt with? He clearly won't talk to me. With your help, I dealt effectively with the "reverter" by building consensus and citing sources, but this is different and I don't want my username trashed by someone with too much time and little self-control on their hands. Let me know when you can.

Thanks so much, again, for your help on the last issue, and this one as well.

Warmest regards, Richard Sampson RJSampson 6 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)

Dear MGM,

I want to write you an addendum to the above. I attempted to write another letter, very politely, to Carr asking him to refrain from mentioning me as a "sockpuppet" on his page. Simply put, I expressed that if he wanted to discuss the issue, to do so with me directly instead of indirectly by slandering me publicly. I don't know why I even worry about this, given that it's unlikely anyone will see his user page, but it bothers me than that I can no longer enjoy this site on the basis of it being a place to learn and share what I've learned. I've looked at Carr's contributions to Wikipedia, and they are predominantly devoid of content. What he has shared, however, is a desire to stir up trouble with a list of who he thinks are sock-puppets. That seems to be a loaded charge on this site. I'd like to request that corrective action be taken, as I've tried everything to resolve this in a mature manner. Apparently, by making a disclosure to Carr regarding my IP address, he has simply replaced the IP address he formerly accused me of being (which I pointed out to him was registered to Hong Kong -- I live in San Diego) with that which I gave him. Furthermore, I'm worried that he may attempt something inappropriate now that he has my IP. In trying to resolve the situation as an adult should, it appears that I have put myself in a position of vulnerability. I'd like to continue using Wikipedia in peace. Please help if you can.

Thanks again, Rich RJSampson 7 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)

Res ipsa

Hello MacGyverMagic, I am only contacting you because a suspicious and overly aggressive user RJSampson who has written you about me trying obviously to get me into trouble.

I believe this user is the same person as User:203198.237.30. He claims very forcefully that he isn't and yet every bit of evidence points obviously that he is.

After posting a possible sockpuppet warning on User:203's User page who should get all hot under the collar but RJSampson? I didn't post it on his page but he's the one to complain not User:203.

All of a sudden after I posted the official warning notice, this user:203 all of a sudden starts posting again. A big coincidence in and of itself.

I was first alerted to the amazing similarities in these users on the page The Truth About Hillary.

I'd be happy to explain all my sources of evidence to you if need be, but in the meantime I think that what I am saying is not slander, it is my opinion.

I know that people who are computer wise can manipulate IP addresses and I think people should be aware of people like this who always must have there way.

User:RJSampson fits the definition of a sock puppet in several ways. Someone who never experimented with editing but knows how to edit perfectly on his first try! I believe the evidence is obvious if one is to look at it.

Anyway, I feel that I should be able to post my findings and opinions on the userpage. If you think I have said something too personal I can tone it done, but I still believe that they are the same user and I think others should be made aware of this.

Thank you for your time. Carr 7 July 2005 03:56 (UTC)

== Sockpuppets ==

Yes, please provide me with the evidence on which you base your findings. Also, remember that it's quite possible to be wrongly accused of sockpuppetry and that making such allegations is likely to create a hostile atmosphere. Be sure to discuss it with more people, on for example the administrator's noticeboard to get their view as well before you post such accusations. - Mgm|^(talk) July 7, 2005 07:53 (UTC)

Dear MacGyverMagic,

From what I understand having a sock puppet is not a problem in and of itself as long as one does not abuse this status by vandalizing or voting more than once.

As I stated before my attention was called to these users when I was watching The Truth about Hillary Clinton page.

I noticed that on June 22, 2005 an unregistered User:203.198.237.30 under (update) added the word conservative before the name of someone in the article and User:Pitchka reverted it.

On June 23, 2005 User:203.198.237.30 again puts back the “conservative” and this time I reverted the unregistered user. I had explored his user and talk pages and found that although it had been suggested months before for him to create an account he had refused to do so!

A short time later seeing apparently that an unregistered user was likely going to be erased User:RJSampson appears and begins editing the article his main bone of contention is adding the unnecessary word “conservative” into the article despite User:Pitchka’s explanation that it was not needed because the person was in Wikipedia and his own article would explain what this persons beliefs were.

After adding a lot of things to the article User:RJSampson for the very first time adds some information on his User page most likely to give more credence to his User name and establish himself. No problem with that in and of itself. However, if that person uses two user addresses and pretends to be another person to back himself upto form a consensus that becomes an abuse.

It was quite obvious to me that this user was the same for the fact that he was so virulent in including “conservative” in the article which was started under User:203. A person, RJSampson, wouldn’t be all fired up about Pitchka removing one word unless that person was the one who added it.

Also, it was clear that the same user inhabited both addresses because of the peculiar use of writing. You might find several people uses the same abbreviations if you were to look through many articles, but the rare use by two different users of “c/e” on the same article is fantastic. That usage is extremely rare on Wikipedia because I have yet to come across it by another user in all my days using Wikipedia.

I must admit his denials of not being User:203 almost seem convincing but then again User:RJSampson has made himself out to be things he isn’t several times.

Sampson liked not to sign several of his statements on the The Truth about Hillary talk page and on Pitchka’s talk page. That is a habit that User:203 also has, he didn’t sign several times on votes for deletion pages and others when I checked his past contributions.

He makes out that he is a conservative and that he’s proud of Matt Drudge being so conservative and wants to show the liberals up and also makes out that he is a pious Christian to User:Pitchka on Pitchka’s talk page and acts all hurt when he apparently was called a name by him and yet he tells you that he leans a little to the right and says that Pitchka is a liberal basher writes a message saying he’s “pissed off” accuses people of being malicious suggests that he is in jeopardy from me because he revealed his supposed “secret” IP address to you. He writes negative things about Drudge while suggesting he likes him to Pitchka. Sends a message to Jimbo Wales telling him that I tagged his Sampson’s user page and User:203’s page with a Sock Puppet tag which was a lie. “However, Carr felt it necessary to mark my page and 203.198.237.30’s page as a sock-puppet.” I only tagged the non-registered 203’s page. Why would he says this? He says this because why else would Sampson know about User:203’s page being tagged unless he is User:203!

Also, he tells Pitchka he’s an “old fashioned Catholic” or something when he is apparently a Freemason, which might explain his behavior towards Pitchka because I see on his page he is very much against it. Catholics, especially old-time Catholics would not be members of a Protestant group that many clergy consider to be bad! This is another lie he has told Wiki users.

He also, makes out that he is an innocent and a perpetual victim in his writings and his tone falls short of believability. Example: “he removed a single word he thought to be redundant, which was subsequently replaced by another user. Perhaps this made you think I was a sock-puppet. The editor was a brilliant engineer and he was scared off by your foolish immaturity (I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HE IS REFERRING TO) and now wants no part of this site. Now I look stupid for showing him Wikipedia, and the site has lost a potentially wonderful contributor.” Can anyone possibly believe this? He pretends not to know too much about computers and Wikipedia when, in fact, it is evident that he knows more about computers and IP addresses than I do!

All this shows is that this user lies when it will benefit him He makes out to be what he is not which is what malicious people who are sock puppets do. Sampson is not an out and out honest user.

I looked up under Wikipedia/sock puppet and they point out that possible sock puppets are users that jump right in without any “learning” involved. With no experience editing takes a little time to get going, well not for User:RJSampson! He seems rather well educated in matters of writing and so does User:203.

When I put on a tag suggesting that User:203 was User:RJSampson. Sampson responded even though I had put it on User:203’s pages. It was only after I did this that User:203 began editing again after stopping on June 30th! This was User:RJSampsons obvious attempt to show that they were separate people.

I have no idea how one can manipulate IP addresses but I believe it is possible, in fact, I think that I read under sock puppets, when it was suggested checking IP addresses of user names for each edit and someone said that they could be manipulated and the idea was dropped. This is only from memory.

The main thing is just compare User:203.198.237.30 user contributions with User:RJSampson and you will see just by the writing that they are one in the same person.

Here are a few examples:

1. (c/e controversy and new allegations (summary) sections; ext link)

2. (fixed MY sentence with too many and's, and corrected my typo from c/e)

3. (slight c/e. added liberal and conservative. consensus seems to be it should stay, only one user disagrees. wikipedia mediator committee chairman (MacGyverMagic) also agrees it should stay)

4. (c/e ww2; move pic (rm?))

5. (a little partisan there pitchka, old pal (talk about pov revert) - and pls refrain from misrepresenting your non-minor changes as minor)

6. (grammar.. didn't mean to indicate below change was (m)inor)

7. (no claim of actual "rape" just mention of a quote clinton allegedly made (see below))

8. (r/w; rm redundant material (contained in proprietary software article))

9. (reinstated bit on "political views" - but rewrote)

10. (2nd sentence has too many and's; recent c/e has grammar errors & ambiguities, as well as factual errors (rape is never "asserted") and is too hyperbolic ("conspiracy theory" is over the top & unclear))

1. 203 2. RJ 3. RJ 4. 203 5. 203 6. RJ 7. RJ 8. 203 9. 203 10. RJ

I have read on other users pages lists of users that they believed were sock puppets! I am not doing anything that hasn’t been allowed for other users to do.

And considering that this User:RJSampson will write Admins at the drop of a hat and obviously try to get others into trouble every time they can’t get their own way on something I think that it is relevant that my belief that he is one and the same be included on my user page. He is manipulative just read his writings to you and the ones he has sent to others.

Anyway, I’m sorry my presentation is not more concise and ordered, but I think that it is rather obvious just the same. Thank you for your time. Carr 7 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)

P.S. Here is an example of User:203 words compare this to Sampson’s writings. See what I mean?

“An article with substantive or original content, or secondary content collated in an original manner, should not be deleted outright when flaws going only to formal or procedural aspects of the article have been identified. In the first instance, contructive alternatives other than outright deletion should be suggested. The absence of such alternatives stands against deletion in its own right - 9 May 2005.”

I have just now discovered another IP address which I assume is his! He told you this: “Full disclosure: 66.179.35.4 is my work IP address. 67.116.210.178 is my home IP address. Those are the only ones I've edited from.” But on Talk:The Truth About Hillary [2] a User:64.165.19.237 writes this, “You're a mean guy, Pitchka.” And using [3] the website he suggested to profess his innocents, we find out that User:64.165.19.237 is also from San Diego. The area he claims to be from. Carr 7 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)

• Firstly, having to deal with this kind of bizarre and immature nonsense is the last way I assume any of us want to spend our time. Fortunately I wasn't aware of this user's rants at all until RJ put word up on my user talk page. I then came across this witless post after viewing edit history (the hysterical edit summary comment flagged my attention). I'm not sure why he posted here (are you da man?), but anyone bothering to compare RJ and my respective edit histories will see for themselves that the only overlap out of hundreds of independent edits is on Truth About Hillary and Dolly Browning. 203.198.237.30 7 July 2005 09:14 (UTC)

I appreciate 203.198.237.30 posting to clear up this mess, and hopefully it will. It sounds like Mr. Carr's argument rests on his belief in me "manipulating IP addresses." I'm not sure how that is done, but I'd bet it's pretty illegal. I don't want to get Carr in trouble, I just want him to stop saying I'm someone I'm not. Seeing as I couldn't convince him, I wanted a moderator to ask him to remove his claim from his page. The worst thing that he has cited that I've actually done, apparently, was call Pitchka "mean" without logging in first (that wasn't intentional) from a different computer at work, but that was a talk page in any case. Regarding my political views, they are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Yes, I insist that we label Drudge conservative because it provides perspective for the reader (and I cited his own self-proclamation as such), and yes I lean conservative. But I'm no fan of his, though, (as Carr says) because I believe Drudge clearly has an bias & agenda without acting so. Wikipedia should NOT have an agenda beyond cold, hard facts and so my edits attempting to remove conservative bias may be perceived as liberal (and vice versa). Likewise, I'm a proud Catholic. I might add Catholicism isn't mutually exclusive with Masonry unless one is referring to the silly Hollywood or religious alarmist portrayal of it. My issue with Pitchka was never upon that, but simply because I felt he was trying to inject bias into an article I worked hard on (and I think he felt the same way. I believe Pitchka and I disagreeing is leading to a healthy evolution of an article that is as objective as possible) But again, none of that matters in this discussion. What DOES matter, is that user 203.198.237.30 and I (RJSampson) are different people, and I'm glad that user has finally spoken up to confirm this. None of Mr. Carr's evidence indicates otherwise, so he just assumes I have the magical (and very likely illegal) ability manipulate IP's. I consider the matter closed, and I hope all other parties will as well. Let's enjoy sharing information, not trying to discredit one another.

Regards, Rich RJSampson 7 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

• You try to be firm and ironic, go away for some sleep and look what you get: another steaming dose of moronic musings by Carr. I'm not going to waste my time by debunking this further round of witless assertions, but as RJ has already identified my geographical location as HK, in response to Carr's banal fascination with the hiatus in edits after June 30, I will point out that Friday July 1 was a public holiday for Establishment Day in HK. I spent the long weekend at the beach, or wishing I was, rather than on Wikipedia. Carr, are you really as simple as the nature of your "contributions" to Wikipedia appear to indicate? Move out of home man. Mgm, my commiserations for involuntary selection as designated driver, and for the blight on your talk page that this pointless discussion has become.203.198.237.30 8 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)