User talk:PeterSymonds/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions with User:PeterSymonds. 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.

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

RfC/User on PCPP

Hello. Please be aware that I have opened an RfC about the conduct of PCPP (talk · contribs).--Asdfg12345 01:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

John Paul Caponigro

hello, you have deleted my page due to copywright infringement. I am John Paul Caponigro and I wrote this content. It does appear in other sources, such as my website. how can we resolve this issue?

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/John_Paul_Caponigro

you can email me directly jpc@johnpaulcaponigro.com

thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpaulcaponigro (talk • contribs) 19:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't received a response to the e-mail I sent, so I'll duplicate it here, in case you didn't receive it. In order for you to release this content, you will need to e-meail the volunteer response team at permissions-en

lists.wikimedia.org with this template: WP:CONSENT. After review, a volunteer will make the appropriate changes to indicate permission has been received. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Now whats the problem

Seriously, what does not conform to wikipedia standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlind0 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Help Needed

Hi mate, I am contacting you after a long time. This time another gentleman is vandalizing the article on Marwat through multiple socks. Though I have tried to persuade him not to insert vanity entries in this article but now he has found a new way of doing it. First he created an article on Leading Families of Lakki Marwat and then on Ghazni Khel (Clan) and inserted all the same entries over there, which by the way is a word to word duplication of information already given in the parent article on Marwat except all the vanity entries of petty relatives of this editor. He also created an article on Marwat's Histroy which was once again the same stuff and I also nominated the same for speedy deletion and was removed accordingly. Now, like an earlier vandal this guy has also started to threaten me on the deletion discussion over here [1]. Please look into this issue and take appropriate action against these one time editors coming through anonymous IPs. Some of them are Meenakhel, 119.153.92.236, 218.22.11.67, User:Mahabat, 119.153.88.69, 119.153.94.184 119.153.81.206 and a few more. One can see the pattern that the person is logging from the same IP area. I hope like past you would take serious note of this threat about destroying my article. Good Day. -- MARWAT 12:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing, I think it would be better to start a sockpuppet investigation, so we can take appropriate action and ask any checkusers if necessary. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

He is silent for now. Lets see if he comes back with something new in his kitty then I might file a sockpuppet investigation. thanks. -- MARWAT 07:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi PeterS,

Deletion log); 12:23 . . PeterSymonds (talk | contribs) deleted "User:Shirt58/Milan Brych" (U1: User request to delete pages in own userspace (CSDH))

Thank you for that. Sincerely appreciated!
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion started by sockpuppet

Hello, one of the sockpuppets you recently blocked has started a deletion discussion here. Since the nomination was not done in good faith, is there any chance it could be closed? Laurent (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, done. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP deletion

Please restore any out-of-process deletions and make no more out-of-process deletions. Maurreen (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The only deletions that Peter has made recently were made as a result of patrolling C:CSD. NW (Talk) 03:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If I am mistaken, I apologize. Maurreen (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This deletion was a few weeks ago, I acknowledge. But if it followed our procedures, that is not clear. Maurreen (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sexual enslavement by Nazi Germany in World War II

Hi you deleted Sexual enslavement by Nazi Germany in World War II under A10. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A10 states a "recently created article" and I am fairly sure this article was not recently created and hence should not have been speedied. Also it appears it may have been moved and hence was a redirect. Could you please undo this deletion. Thanks. Polargeo (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually this is more worrying than I thought. This long standing article appears to have been moved without discussion and then gutted of most of its references and replaced by a lot of unreferenced text to show a biased POV by User:Linksnational. I think the changes should be undone and the article put back where it was so a discussion about such major alterations can take place. Polargeo (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What alerted me to this is Linksnational removing several related see alsos (including this article) with no edit summary from an article I have on my watchlist. Polargeo (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no edit history for this page (well, two edits, including the tagging). It appeared that it was copy-pasted from German brothels in World War II, so the edit history appears to be elsewhere. If the move was a mistake, it can be moved back over the deleted target without issue. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that it was moved from Sexual enslavement by Nazi Germany in World War II to German brothels in World War II earlier in the day that you deleted it. So in that case you speedy deleted the redirect left from an article move. A10 is for articles not redirects. The reason it had little history is I assume because the article had just been moved. But you are right because you deleted the redirect I can just move it back, thanks. Polargeo (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a redirect; it was a copy/paste. :-) PeterSymonds (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I just don't know how that happened then bacause there has been an article under that name for over 2 years. I have just moved it back. I suppose what must have happened is the article was moved then someone did the cut and paste over the redirect and then it was incorrectly tagged for deletion under A10. Anyway all done now. Polargeo (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Frome move

Thanks for moving Frome, Somerset to Frome. Any chance you could do the same for Talk:Frome, Somerset to Talk:Frome? --Simple Bob (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was daft of me. Fixed now, thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Rescue 15 ...

Thanks for dealing with this sock so quickly. I'll continue to monitor the situation to see if he comes back yet again under yet another username. If he does, what is the best way to go about raising the SPI again? Astronaut (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Filing a new case is the same as you did before; the new case will just overwrite the existing content. Just remember to create the new page with the master account's name, to keep the pages centralised. Hope that helps. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi there. What happens to the user pages of the editor and the IP editor that I reported for possible sockpuppetery, now that you've closed the case? On their user pages the "sockpuppeteer" tag is still visible. Shouldn't these tags be auto-removed? Amsaim (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I wish there was a way we could auto-remove them, but unfortunately that doesn't seem possible at the moment. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you reopen the highyack07 case?

highyack07 is back as another user: User:Train12. I got lucky doing recent changes patrol to see that he editted a new userpage. I don't know how to reopen the case and did not want to revert your action. The case is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Highyack07. I have a feeling Wikipedia has not seen the last of him. He has an ego that he wants to feed. He seems to like Robert McNamara and the name Train for his persona. --Morenooso (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. You can re-open a SPI case yourself by following the instructions at WP:SPI. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was unsure how to do it. I have a feeling this guy will be back. Since he used a Train12, I wonder other TrainXX users or even highyackXX exist?--Morenooso (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at that SPI page. I did not see a tab listing how to reopen the case. This may be above my computing power as I am fighting a head cold. I think the case should be left open as highyack07 is a power trip. I bet he might have other accounts and will be back. --Morenooso (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

WikiThanks

Thank you for your help today, Peter, it is very much appreciated! -- Avi (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) PeterSymonds (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Codendi.

I have been surprised by a so speedy deletion of my article page about Codendi. It is said that there were nothing notable about the application : in my opinion, it is a very useful open source ALM, and more than 50.000 users have downloaded it from the community web site. Codendi is mentioned in other articles from Wikipedia, in which you can find other specific softwares which all have a dedicated article. I thought that Codendi was missing. So could you please advise me to achieve an accepted article, in order to complete this information about Codendi? Many thanks, Fedwa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedwa (talk • contribs) 14:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, the article was deleted by community consensus, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Codendi. The sources did not demonstrate the subject's notability, which you will need to do if you want the article to stay. It has been protected against recreation for the time being; please take any new article to deletion review, for review, if you want to recreate it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wizdome page deletion

What about the Wizdom page caused deletion because of: "(A7: No indication that the article may meet the guidelines for inclusion (CSDH))" ? Please assist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstaradonis (talk • contribs) 19:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello; the article did not demonstrate notability of the subject, per our notability guideline for music groups. See our reliable sourcing policy for information on improving referencing, and our related verifiability policy. Remember that sourcing should be independent secondary sources which clearly demonstrate why this band is notable for inclusion. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse_of_Page_Protection_tools

You are one of Durova's friends. Please revert yourself. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 21:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly. The current thread is going nowhere. I am an admin, and that is an admin noticeboard; although I sympathise with whatever has occurred, it isn't the right place to pursue discussion. A request for comment on user conduct would be more appropriate, if you wish to pursue the chat. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If it makes you happy Shoemaker, Peter can undo his close of the thread and I'll promptly redo it. Comes to the same outcome so why bother? Pedro : Chat 21:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Pedro. Shoemaker, with regard to your accusation, I haven't been an active participant at WikiVoices for at least a few months now, and haven't participated in a recorded episode for about the same duration. Whatever you may feel about WikiVoices, or anything related to it, my close was not solicited by anybody. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Durova

You are discussed, briefly, in this case. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 21:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Or, more accurately, you are being slagged off, briefly, in the above case..... I suggest you refactor your comments at the case Shoemaker, but that's just me I guess. Pedro : Chat 21:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Jahangirabad Media Institute

I do not understand what Unambiguous Advertisement was there in Jahangirbad Media Institute page. which line did you feel as advertisement? there was only factual information with supporting links. no line is saying JMI is great or even good.

i protest on the deletion of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.161.100 (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It had a promotional tone, but deletion per notability guideline for businesses and organisations would have been a more appropriate rationale. An article should be verifiable with reliable, independent sources, such as newspapers, magazines, journals, and reputable websites. See the articles for creation process for more advice about this. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Carlos Trillo Name

I recreated the page. Callelinea (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Black Sports Agents Association

Hi Peter. I was just thinking about removing the speedy tag when you deleted it. Would you mind taking another look? It looked to me like it had some potential. Thanks, FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had a look at the sourcing, and the majority did not seem to establish notability of the subject, but of things broadly related. While there was a clear attempt to reference, I didn't see this as sufficient to claim notability of the organisation itself. As for the tone, it was written in an overly promotional manner, and met the critera for CSD, in my opinion. However, if you see potential, I am more than happy to restore it to your userspace, if you want to work on it (or guide the user while working on it too). Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, if you want to restore it to my userspace, I'll give it a try. Thanks! FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Done; User:FCSundae/Black Sports Agents Association. Good luck! :-) PeterSymonds (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? What was advitorial about this page? Do you delete things that you don't understand. I have a question do you understand the difference between fact and fiction. Or is this your way of discouraging new people from participating on Wikipedia? If someone is trying to fit the article to guidelines of wikipedia, and has not only enlisted the advice od admin put has taken their sdvice and applied it. I don't understand why you would delete the page during that process. Jaybrown33 (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see my explanation above; FCSundae will help you where he can. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Stoneleigh-Burnham School

Hi, I see you restored Stoneleigh-Burnham School. Thank you. Could you also please restore Talk:Stoneleigh-Burnham School? If memory serves, it had some discussion of potential improvements; maybe some sources. TJRC (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocking and Sock puppetry

Dear Mr. Symonds,
My name is Atlantia and I am a wikipedian from Greece. I believe you have recently blocked a user named Sarandioti (with range 85.74.0.0/17), but unfortunately when I try to make an edit as a nameless IP, I fall into this range too and thus I am unable to do anything. I personally don't mind as I have a global account and can use it, I just fear that maybe other fellow anonymus users from my region may try to contribute and be unable to.

I contribute regularly in the Greek wikipedia (my page) and maybe the administrators there can reassure you of my good will. I have no relation to the user Sarandioti and I use a personal computer located in my house, not some multiuser IP. I fully understand what Sock puppetry is (we have some troublemakers too in the greek wiki), but I am still worried that others may have the same inconvinience.

Thank you for your attention,
Atlantia (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC) (my talk page)

Hello. It's unfortunate that you, and possibly other innocent users, are caught in this rangeblock. It was imposed to stop one POV-pushing sockpuppeteer, and I have no doubts about your good will. After a suitable period, I will be happy to review the block; in the meantime, anonymous IPs who are blocked from creating accounts can go via the account creation process to edit over the block. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sarandioti again

The guy is out of control. Practically not a day goes by without a new sock being created. I have initiated an SPI here [2], but the backlog is huge. Cheers, Athenean (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I was out for much of the weekend. Looks like it's been dealt with by checkuser. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for upgrading my user rights to Autoreviewers. Cheers Davshul (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for your work. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Facebook protection tags

Hi Peter,

I accidentally removed the Semi-protected tag from the Facebook article while comparing content for a new article submission. It was not done in an attack. Can you please add the tag back to the page. Kiwi Commons: An expert in youth internet safety resources for parents and teachers. 22:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwicommons (talk • contribs)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You. Kiwi Commons: An expert in youth internet safety resources for parents and teachers. 22:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwicommons (talk • contribs)

Clerk request

A few weeks ago, I went to the clerking page that you suggested and placed a request. Since no one has gotten back to both me or the other user, I was wondering if you would be willing to train me since you seem to be back. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

ThinDesk (talk · contribs)

Why did you unblock the user? He did not submit a formal unblock request, or even ask to be unblocked. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

He requested an unblock in #wikipedia-en-unblock; Chzz (talk · contribs) will mentor him about his editing, and show him how to request a name change. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

He just spammed his own user page. I re-blocked. Feel free to re-unblock pending further mentoring. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

See comments on User talk:Fetchcomms. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the close

Your speed in closing the page was appreciated, thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm sorry the RfA was a bit rough in the last few days. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please

My comments were altered without my knoledge. I'd like my initial comment to stay here. The case is at AN/I. If I am blocked, I am blocked, but I'd like my comments to stay, as I've wrote them. Is it so much to ask for? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not getting involved—I'm just sick of the edit warring over that archive. Please take discussion about the propriety of those edits elsewhere. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just found out this could be done...

Would you please courtesy blank and noindex the disscussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt. I have been concerned that because I use my real name as my username, some of the more negative things said about me could actually be or become searchable in relation to me and thus have negative repercussions in my real life. Having Homeland Security tag me as a no-fly becuase of some things such as MichaelQSchmidt = Taliban jump to mind as a definte worry. And yes, because of the future potential for harm, I will look into a change of username. While I have been proud to edit as myself, this last week made me aware of the very real danger of doing so. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This request is quite fair; I've blanked it for you. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated, and thank you for your speed. Now I have to consider a suitable and safer username. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

RfA's are not supposed to be indexed by search engines, just so you know. But who knows, a Wikipedia mirror might leave them indexable. It never hurts to be extra careful. —Soap— 21:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes, editing with a real name is always a dilemma. Good luck with your new name. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Autoreview nominations

Just so you know, the users I nominated were generated using this database query. It was designed to only include editors who had edited in 2010, but I guess something went wrong. I'll discuss the matter with MZMcBride. For now I'll double-check their editing statuses myself so you and the other admins don't have to. Sorry for the confusion. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:PERM

I've answered that question.--DailyWikiHelp (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me...

Could you please allow me to have that...quiz I had on my userspace elsewhere? I understand, yes, I need a professional talk page to be a rollbacker, but that quiz is...interesting. Please have a little mercy, I'll be reverting it briefly, but just to move it elsewhere. Is that OK? I'm sorry about that, but how is that abuse? I am not hurting anyone. Please have a little heart, I'm just trying to enjoy life. I'll put it somewhere obscure. It was considered HUMOUROUS, by the way. If I put it elsewhere, and keep the tag, can it be saved? I'm sorry if it was cluttering. But can I still have it on a subpage? 2D/2J Maestro ^{what up?} 22:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

While it is technically allowed, you should try to avoid using your user space for unencyclopedic content as much as possible. Such pages are often taken to WP:MFD. While I appreciate you want to have a bit of fun in your userspace, I do think it would be better for you to keep the social aspect to one side, lest it interfere with your work for the encyclopedia. See also WP:MYSPACE. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: fun pages

I see. I used to edit my fun pages a lot, but now that I took up RCP, I edit them less often. Maybe only a new question every 3 days. I have a couple other subpages, but only one of them is for fun. Good thing I read your reply. I was bitter at Wikipedia all last night. Now, I'm better. 2D/2J Maestro ^{what up?} 12:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Great—glad to hear it. :-) PeterSymonds (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly inappropriate autoreviewer rights

Hello Peter, Re your granting autoreviewer rights for this user... his case has a complicated background which you can read here. The editor in question has been given a fresh start (which I supported) but considering the history, I would suggest a six-month trial period before granting him autoreviewer rights. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I hadn't seen that. However, does this really have anything to do with new pages? Autoreviewer does nothing but prevent new pages showing up for patrol; the pages seem fine, and autoreviewer does not confer any level of trust. It's just a practical device to help our new page patrollers tend to the backlog. My question is: Were inappropriate new pages ever a problem with these sockpuppet accounts? Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The only inappropriateness was that a considerable number of the new pages up until November 2009 were verbatim copyright violations and/or extremely close paraphrasing, but none of them violated BLP or Notability guidelines. I wasn't sure if new page patrollers also look for copyvio, so I thought I'd flag it up. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violations are a big red flag. Rights removed; thanks for bringing this to my attention. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter, the same user ,this user, attempted many times to deleted and remove one of the articles that I have been contributing to. This user's attempt obsession to delete and change the article has become more intense and very odd over time. Researcher88 (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2010

Autoreviewer rights

What a pleasant and unexpected surprise to see that you added Autoreviewer rights to my account yesterday. I didn't know I was even nominated; thank you for your trust! Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) Keep up the good work! PeterSymonds (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE READ THIS!

DUDE WHY'D YOU DELETE OUR PAGE MISS NAZISH. DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHO SHE IS!! PROBABLY NOT! THAT'S WHY WE MADE IT! SHE'S A CHARACTER IN A PAKISTANI URDU BOOK, AND HAS A HORRIBLE PERSONALITY. PLEASE RESTORE IT AS WE ARE NOT HARMING ANYONE. WE APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS TO MAKE WIKIPEDIA A SAFE PLACE AND WE ARE BIG FANS OF WIKIPEDIA AS WE USE THE INFORMATION ON IT FOR ALL OUR PROJECTS BUT YOU SHOULD LET THIS PAGE EXIST AS YOU NEED TO Be polite · Assume good faith · No personal attacks · Be welcoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weirdos1 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:FICTION. 174.98.98.148 (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP. If you still think it isn't "doing any harm", Wikipedia isn't right for you. If you create that page again, or another one similar, you will be blocked from editing indefinitely. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:PeeJay2K3

Hey, Peter. You blocked this editor earlier today in response to an apparent edit war at Bryan Glazer. I and another admin have looked at this and (after some misunderstanding on my part), this looks like it was the valid reversion of vandalism, specifically the removal of sourced content. PeeJay2K3 had added a source to justify the content here, which the IP editor ignored. Would you be willing to consider an unblock for this user? Thanks for your time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll unblock, but I'm not really sure I consider this a valid revert of vandalism. It looked like a content dispute to me, and there was no effort on either side to communicate or discuss. As such, I blocked both editors for revert warring. After reading, it's clear he wasn't intentionally warring, but I really do think that more of an effort should have been made to discuss it, rather than simply reverting. I'll communicate that to him informally on his talk page. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter, thanks for unblocking me yesterday. On a related note, earlier today another IP – who had previously performed the same edits – removed the content about Andy Anson from the Bryan Glazer article. I left a warning note on their talk page about the removal of sourced content. Then, a few minutes ago, the IP who was involved in the incident with me returned to perform the same edit yet again. I left a 4im-level warning on their page, but I'm hoping that an admin will be able to block them immediately anyway. I'm also going to request medium-term semi-protection for the article at WP:RFPP. Thanks. – Pee Jay 23:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hiya; you're welcome. Looks like Steven Walling has semi-protected it, so hopefully this should bore him enough to leave the article alone. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock help

71.247.31.127 is requesting an unblock; apparently the address is affected by a rangeblock that you levied. Since the IP's never made any edits except for the request for unblock, I expect that it's a registered user not logged in. Could you check the situation? I'm inclined to unblock, but I can't because I don't understand rangeblocks at all. Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Nyttend. Rangeblocks are blocks imposed on a certain number of IPs, so if somebody tried to edit with an IP on that range, they would not be directly blocked because the rangeblock would cover it. However, I'm particularly uncomfortable about unblocking that range, because of the vandalism. Fetchcomms offers good advice on the talk page. Thanks for informing me. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Sumeet Sachdev Khawaish Sets.jpg

Hi, you added an OTRS permission to File:Sumeet Sachdev Khawaish Sets.jpg but the file is lacking a license. Could you add it from the ticket and add author info etc.? Thank you Hekerui (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You're so fast :) Thank you Hekerui (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Fixed, thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - overwrote your comment in an edit conflict. You're welcome. :-) PeterSymonds (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just found the same issue for File:Tbpickens.jpg. Help? Hekerui (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That one's a bit more tricky—there are a number of things missing, including explicit copyright permission, and author. I've deleted it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:User talk:PeterSymonds#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stalin Hitler.png

Hello. Could you have a look at this topic? --Blacklake (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My userpage protection

Hello. I am in a dispute with user:173.56.75.220 at Jim Cramer. Could you unprotect my userpage incase he decides he wants to respond? Thanks. Beach drifter (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Done, but please ... no more feeding the trolls. Revert and ignore. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Martin Heidegger

I notice you reverted and blocked User:Cablecer for sockpuppetry earlier this evening, presumably as an obvious sock of User:Jonathansamuel who has a long history of identical socking there. Since then, another has popped up: User:Phirefer, with identical 10 null edits then back to the edit war. Since you zapped Cablecer, are you able to do the same for the new sock before I fumble my way through the unfamilar process at WP:SPI? Cheers, Ka renjc 20:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Egads! The nefarious Jonathansamuel is back! What kind of sick twisted mind would want Wikipedia to refer to Nazis as "Nazis"? I have heard some people speculate that he might even be a disciple of Emmanuel Goldstein. Thank you for protecting us from him, kind sir. Georgewbushisasaint (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Protection request

Could you protect two of my user pages from IP attacks: User:Tewapack/2010 WGC results and User talk:Tewapack/PGA Tours Career Money? User:74.12.97.51 has been vandalizing them repeatedly. Thanks, Tewapack (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Done, and IP blocked. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Tewapack (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

'The information about Jeff Perry's record being sealed is factual. He was forced to resign b/c he acquiesed an assault while on duty as a police officer in Wareham.'Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.60.145 (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and please help

Hi, Peter! Thank you. But the user wrote it again. Please help.--Longitudo (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Advice was given from a user. Thank you.--Longitudo (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Block from a long time ago

Hi there PeterSymonds, long time no speak. I have returned from my 4-5 month WikiBreak and im back to work, i noticed the first block i got was from you. However the case turned out to be that it wasn't me that created that alt account. So can you please add an note on my block log, because maybe next year or the following year, i will do an WP:RFA and i dont want that case to affect my RFA. Thank you in advance, ~ Dwayne Flanders was here! ^talk 15:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems a bit pointless, as anybody can ask me about it; but done. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Happy editing! ~ Dwayne Flanders was here! ^talk 17:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Reinstating the Collabera Article

Peter, On behalf of Collabera, I would like to know how we can get the wiki entry reinstated. The previous article was created by a member of our team who did not quite understand Wikipedia's policy.

It was done in a burst of excitement as we launched our new brand and identity (we were previously known as Global Consultants Inc). As a result we weren't able to substantiate the information with credible references.

2 years on, our company is one of the largest minority owned businesses in the U.S.

Here is a quick list of awards (2009 - 2010) to lend credibility to our need for a wiki article:

Named among The Global Outsourcing 100 and The World's Best Outsourcing Advisors announced by the International Association of Outsourcing Professionals (IAOP)

32 in the Top 100 Large Businesses in the U.S by DiversityBusiness.com

Ranked 66th on FinTech 100 (a listing of the top 100 global application/service providers to the financial services industry)

InformationWeek 500 list of top technology innovators

125th in Software Magazine's Software 500 (a ranking based entirely on revenues which should give you an idea of our scale)

35th among top private companies in New Jersey(NJBIZ)

Named in 3 IAOP 2009 global outsourcing 100 sub lists

Listed in GS 100 & ranked among top 10 service providers

I really appreciate your taking the time to look into this matter and would be happy to furnish more details as required.

Regards, Sohail (Strata82 (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strata82 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Unfortunately there are no reliable sources to back up these claims, so it was deleted. I am open to persuasion though. Perhaps create a new one through the articles for creation process, allowing experienced editors to guide you as you write it. Good luck, and best wishes. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter thank you so much for the response. I am kind of new to wikipedia myself and would really like to talk to someone before I create the article. Is there someone you know who could walk me through this? Once again I really appreciate your taking the time to look into this issue. (Strata82 (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

You're welcome. :-) I hope you stick around. Basically when you go through the articles for creation process, your pages are monitored by experienced users, who either chip in to assist or advise you on your talk page. You're more than welcome to ask at the help desk for somebody to guide you, or poke me.

Furthermore, you can request live assistance from the AfC volunteers via Internet Relay Chat. A direct link to the channel is here.

I hope that helps, and good luck! PeterSymonds (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer Privileges

Hi Peter! I understand that this user was given autoreviewer privileges recently. However, s/he seems to create pages that often borrow from copyrighted sources. See the following:

Perhaps until s/he is a more experienced editor/page creator, it might be best if his/her new pages were not exempt from patrol by new page patrollers. With more experience, his/her pages might be permitted the level of trust that goes with autoreviewer status. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 05:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I see, thank you for informing me. I have removed the permission. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it. Appreciated! — Spike Toronto 23:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouting

Sir I am sorry about the shouting. I didn't know that writing in Caps means Shouting I thought it meant putting emphasize on something. further more I would never make such a page again, even if it is a book character. Thank you for your effort to lead me rightly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weirdos1 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. :-) Thanks for the note. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Moelikespie101

I noticed you blocked User:Moelikespie101. I think this person is back as several other accounts, as indicated here: User:Zeuz101#See_Also. I'm not sure if this counts as sock puppetry, since the user more or less declared multiple accounts, but the user has edited the same article from different accounts (see Cell research). Regards, PDCook (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like others have noticed this and looked into it more than I have: User_talk:Beeblebrox#Obvious_sockpuppetry. PDCook (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)