The page i was working on for her got deleted. I'm Brigitte's niece, she asked me to make her a page. I was still working on it and had just put the references in it. But yea she owns BBCasting and i was granted permission from her to make it. --Loveless6288 (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the autoreviewer rights. It was something I'd been meaning to request but, as is often the way, I never got around to! Thanks again, JD554 (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to excuse my ignorance. I created a Wiki page for Vanguard Comedy Theatre but it was unfortunately deleted. I cited the company's web site as a source but am unsure why it was still removed. Again, I'm not quick to understand all the rules that go with Wikipedia so could you please explain how exactly I can put this page back up again?
Vanguard Comedy Theatre is a fast emerging comedy theatre company in Canada and has a talent roster larger than every other Toronto comedy company combined (over 130+ ). They produce more events and workshops with industry professionals from Saturday Night Live, Colbert Report, Daily Show, and more.
Because of this, I truly feel that Vanguard should be included in the comedy wiki and be recognized for the Canadian presence that it now has in Toronto.
If I goofed up somewhere, please let me know what I need to do to correct this so it can be relaunched on Wikipedia once again.
Thank you very much for your time, I look forward to hearing from you.
Hey Cotoia. Unfortunately no evidence of notability provided, so it was tagged for deletion and speedily deleted. In order to improve the article, you need to provide reliable sources from independent newspapers, magazines, reputable websites, journals, etc. See also our page on first articles, and our team of editors who actively assist growing articles here. I know this is a lot to take in, but I hope it is useful to you. If you need further assistance, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, PeterSymonds (talk)16:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a classic quote by him that everybody who watches The Wire knows. What's "implausible" about that link? That is in fact exactly what he says several times in every episode in which he appears... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.174.165 (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely nonsensical. How many "eee"s are right? Is that written anywhere? How many "eee"s are readers likely to search for? It's very silly. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)16:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it either, but according to MOS:DATE a non-breaking space followed by an en-dash followed by another non-breaking space is the correct format for ranges. I was taught an em-dash is the correct format. It is certainly not a dash alone. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do know one or two things about formatting, having written four featured articles. But it's such a trivial issue; I have no interest in wasting my time with further discussion at another venue. PeterSymonds (talk)16:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted the Association of BPM Professional International page and I just wanted to let you know that there was no commercial intent on the page.
We are non-profit organization, of volunteers, formed in 2003. Our main objective is to promote the Business Process Management discipline. The founder Brett Champlin (brett@thechamplins.com) is directly related with the creation forces of BPM in the United States.
Business Process Management is a discipline that I'm sure many use for commercial reasons. Of all of the BPM organizations, the ABPMP is the only that doesn't do so. Also, we are managed by a democratic elect board.
Because we have now a certification, it is important that people understand who and how is was developed. There's a rich story behind the certification that people taking it will for sure like to know.
I would like to ask you, if you can point to me, the aspects with the original post with which you had problems with, so we can address it. Not doing so, I believe will deny the community with much needed information.
Please feel free to address me directly - fpinto@filipe-pinto.com. Also, feel free to visit my professional site, http://filipe-pinto.com, so you see that there's no commercial intent on this post. I'm actually a history buff.
I know it's not easy to be the editor. I look forward to hearing from you.
Mr Symonds
You apparently deleted a page that a colleague of mine posted. He had asked me to check it over but it was gone before I had time to even view it. I suspect that it may have been his sometimes awkward use of the English language that had something to do with it -- or some particulary phrasing?. If you could please provide some indication as to why you chose to delete the page so quickly, that would be helpful.
Please note that the association in question is the only non-profit, vendor-independent organization in this field and it is run by and for volunteer practitioner memebers. We have no paid staff and voting members must be experienced practitioners in the field. We have created a "Guide to the Business Process Management Common Body of Knowledge" to document the commonly accepted practices in this arena and recently, following ANSI/ISO 17024 guidelines, have created a vendor-independent, methodology-neutral professional certification program for this discipline which until now had only proprietary training certificates from for-profit organizations available. Please see our website at www.ABPMP.org if you have questions about this group.
The reason for this effort to put a page on Wikipedia is driven by requests from members and our broader constituency. Apparently our chapter in Brazil has put up a basic informational page on the Portuguese version of Wikipedia and they feel that it has resulted in a number of professionals who had been unaware that such an organization existed contacting them and participating in thier events.
I would like to ask you to help my colleague with advice since you seem to be an expert on this platform. Perhaps we need to hire a marketing firm to format the information in a way that is more acceptable? As far as I can tell from his emails my colleague was simply trying to place an encyclopedic type "history of the association" article. I didn't see the text that he submitted unfortunately as it was almost immediately removed.
Anyway, if you can provide advice on how to add an informationoal article about our group, that would be appreciated.
Dear Brett Champlin. Unfortunately no evidence of notability provided, so it was tagged for deletion and speedily deleted. In order to improve the article, you need to provide reliable sources from independent newspapers, magazines, reputable websites, journals, etc. See also our page on first articles, and our team of editors who actively assist growing articles here.
It is unlikely that employing a member of staff will improve this situation, so I do not recommend that (if it is for the purpose of establishing a Wikipedia article).
While we do not forbid it, we do advise against companies writing their own pages. It may be better to suggest the article at WP:AFC and getting it published (or not) by an established and neutral user.
I know this is a lot to take in, but I hope it is useful to you. If you need further assistance, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, PeterSymonds (talk)08:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, you got there before I could report that the protection was no longer necessary. The discussion at WT:CRIC is now complete and the appropriate changes have been made. If the vandal returns, I will let you know. – PeeJay22:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, 2 years ago you semi-protected Bebo for edits and fully protected for moves because there were some page moves and some vandalism. I think enough time has passed that the page can be unprotected, and with it averaging 1 edit per 10 days over the last year, I don't reckon people care enough about Bebo to continue to vandalize it. I watched it just in case and will patrol. I am asking you to consider unprotecting it. --CastAStone/(tlk)/(ctb)04:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they've just announced they're planning to shut down, perhaps now would not be an opportune moment for unprotection. Maybe in a few weeks after the news has died down? Best, PeterSymonds (talk)08:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I just found it unusual to see a page that is edited so rarely protected for so long. Maybe set a expiry time of a few months? Its up to you, of course.--CastAStone/(tlk)/(ctb)16:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at the time, it was constantly vandalised, but I suppose it's less significant now compared to other social networking sites. Added an expiry of 3 months from now, which should cover the period of closure adequately. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)17:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In closing statement of PlaneShift AfD you wrote "The 'delete's put across good arguments and successfully discounted some of the sources and arguments provided". Can you please link to arguments than show that Spanish Linux Magazine review and TUX Magazine review are non-reliable? (Sorry, I can't provide proper links, since the article is deleted now).
My (and at least one other) "keep" vote was based on these two being reliable, and I did not see anyone argue otherwise.
Hi. Those links were indeed valid, but equally consensus seemed to agree that this wasn't enough (discounting the single-purpose accounts). You're more than welcome to seek an independent review at deletion review if there is disagreement on this point, as I understand it may have been controversial. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)19:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources were present that he died in Switzerland at the time; The Independent newspaper was claiming New York. We couldn't let it stay in the article until it had been independently confirmed that he died in Switzerland. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)09:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah dammit. When I saw the "ok" from Rlevse in an edit summary, I just assumed it was restored. Thought I'd remove it while I was adding another entry. Gah! PeterSymonds (talk)21:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally there's now a 24 hour wait at BN for resysops - it won't happen in practice but Rlevse tends to be pretty solid in observing that kind of thing. It just struck me as amusing - no big deal as he'll get the bit back anyway so it's just a housekeeping thing. Pedro : Chat 21:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for upgrading my user rights from none to autoreviewer. I will try my best to do well with my responsibilities. Thanks again. Shivashree (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In order to become a better contributor, I'd like to ask you for a few minutes of your time to comment on a few sites which are probably more complete, but not really different with regard to the "unambiguous advertising or promotion" flag you used to delete the page for Debra Hauser.
I'm wondering if you could help me understand by comparing a few good pages to bad pages.
I believe that the page I submitted for Debra Hauser's life and career was probably too anemic at the time of deletion and I need to be sure to have better content before I place the page, but can you help me clarify the extent of the content that needs to be ready to post so the page is a legitimate contender with a substantial base?
Two examples that seem to have less substantiating and supportive documentation are these:
I would love to know how much of a solid base to build so the page can be respectfully placed.
Here is what I have so far.
Debra Hauser was born on March 30, 1960 in Parma, OH. She attended the following schools:
Harvard Business School '09 Executive Education MBA, Leadership
Yale University School of Medicine '98 Post Doctoral Fellowship, Clinical Psychology
Adelphi University Derner Institute for Advanced Psychological Studies '96 Ph.D., Clinical Psychology
Columbia '91 Masters Candidate, Developmental Psychology
She currently lives in New Haven, CT with her family and is an energetic and resourceful supporter of community advocacy groups in the New Haven community. She is part of a rapidly growing trend of grass-roots volunteers who take charge of the issues in the community by getting involved in the local government.
She has led many great campaigns advocating individuals in need in the community.
Dr. Hauser sees the benefits of Social Networking and other digital communications tools as more than essential. They are actually adding new dimensions to all phases of the procerss. As you can see from her website, she is on top of the latest trends in connecting with her community to build the most informed team and representative platform which serves New Haven and Hamden as is possible.
http://nhregister.com/articles/2008/08/24/today%27s_stories/20089038.txt
Huffington Post
Shows that Debra Hauser has supported many great policiticans personally with resources which go far beyond the casual or occasional supporter. She has shown a long-term commitment to getting the right people in the job and getting the right people in the seat.
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=loc&addr=396+LIVINGSTON+ST&zip=06511
Hi there. Wikipedia requires all its articles to be of a neutral point of view. Therefore, any adjectives that promote the subject ("resourceful", "great", "right people", "energetic", etc.) cannot be included. Wikipedia is much different to a profile piece that you might find on an election campaign; we can only report the facts as reported by reliable, independent sources, such as newspapers, journals, books, reputable magazines and websites.
I suggest following the advice of the articles for creation team; its members can guide you with your first article, and suggest improvements where necessary.
I have placed Freakee73's block on hold, while I await your comment to his latest message to the unblock request he made.
He has agreed to a topic ban, as you will see, but I would appreciate your comment before I act upon this request.
Of course, if you want to unblock him, feel free to do so - but if you think that he should remain blocked, just leave a comment and I will decline the request.
Hmm, I understand that - and if it weren't for them agreeing to a topic ban, I wouldn't have even considered the request. However, given that the user has agreed to a topic ban, I'm unsure how to proceed. If you really think the request for unblocking should be declined, I'll do so. However, would you think (in your experience) that it would be worthwhile for a discussion at AN? As you know, I'm a newbie admin (just over 2 months now... where's the time gone!), whereas you have almost two year's experience - I'll be grateful for your advice, and will either decline or start an AN discussion based on your recommendation. I really don't mind too much either way, I just want to be fair to the editor, to you and to Wikipedia! If your advice is to decline the unblock request, could I ask that you leave a message on Freakee73's talk page, and then I'll act upon that - so that Freakee73 can see why I've declined it. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be okay to trial such an unblock. All too often I have seen similar unblocks start well, and then deteriorate into sockpuppetry and trolling (recent examples include Pickbothmanlol and Cremepuff222). I'm not comparing their history to this user, but they have given me sufficient reason to be cautious when a BLP-violating, anti-subject user wants to steer clear of the article(s) in question.
So, I would say trial the unblock request, and give a very clear "last warning" — any relapse will result in an indefinite block. Would also be worth keeping an eye on the article(s) this user has trolled for any sockpuppetry, too. Probably won't happen, but with BLP, you can never be too careful.
Hope that gives more insight into why I was uncomfortable. I welcome you to unblock; but I have watchlisted the articles, and I would advise you to do the same. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)08:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a couple of people that have posted at the talk page of WP:RFPP complaining that the page is not working when they're requesting protection using Twinkle. I've used both Twinkle and Huggle myself tonight and Twinkle just flatly refuses to submit anything to WP:RFPP whereas Huggle crashes.
I thought I would be bold and try and fix the page, I looked back on the page during the last 24 hours and found that someone had inserted this hidden comment. I removed the hidden comment and the page worked fine however I have since re-inserted the hidden comment as I noticed that you posted in an edit summary that a helperbot was not working and requests were having to be changed manually.
Hmmmmm seems to be working again (well for Twinkle anyway)! Very strange though as that hidden comment is still there yet I only removed that hidden comment before to get the page working again! --5 albert square (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably wouldn't have anything to do with the page itself. More likely a bug with Twinkle itself. Glad it apparently resolved itself! Best, PeterSymonds (talk)15:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter, the page is still not working with Huggle though. I just tested it earlier, it keeps coming up that the format of the request page is unknown. It's the fact that it's referring to the format of the page itself which is what makes me think it's something to do with that code that I posted in the diff above. Any ideas? --5 albert square (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am a brand new Wikipedian and don't know my way around the site as an editor/contributor. But I am trying to get up to speed as quickly as possible. After weeks of research I created a page on the internationally renowned cult video artist Wenarto today. I see that you deleted it and would like to enter into a civil discussion about the basis for your deletion request, as well as how I might improve the article to avoid such deletion in the future.
Didn't want to clog up anymore of the project's talk page, but wanted to stop by and thank you for pointing out that formatting tip to me. I just understood what you meant by prefixing the indent with the number symbol.. For some reason, it was stuck in my head that the # symbol was what was being counted and was not aware that the : negated the comment for being added to the counter. Thanks again. CalmerWaters14:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering how I could have improved the Well Managed Bank page (prior to deletion) as positing a theory behind banking principles in light of the recent financial crisis, as opposed to overt advertising. I did try to avoid specific brand naming where possible. Would wiping the article of all branding make it better suited as a page? Looking forward to learning to improve upon it to draft an article that will hopefully remain.
Having a problem with a user using only an IP address. It seems that they are using the anonymous address to make one specific change that only they seem to think is correct. The template of the former wrestling stable, D-Generation X, lists all of the core members of the group through out its various incarnations. User 24.5.153.147 insists on reverting the template to list only the members that were active during the final incarnation, as well as including a member who was never a true member of the stable. He repeatedly does this without explanation despite others leaving summaries as to why the template should not be altered. Once again, in looking at the user's activity, it seems that this address is used exclusively to enforce the user's point of view on the situation. Thanks in advance for any assistance you can offer. NJZombie (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
u have removed the page Telephone Shilpa Sangstha. to let u know, this 100% GOVERNMENT RUN company is the ONLY cellphone/laptop/fixed phone producer of Bangladesh and also the MOST ADVACNED electronics company of the country, its a government's thrust company aiming to produce mobile batteries as well. Currently all government fixed phones are made by this company.
i dont like discussions. so, if u think m its good to make the page back, then do it pls. otherwise have a good day. — [Unsigned comment added by 81.65.191.33 (talk • contribs).]
I'm not sure as to how to handle this, but as you are an SPI clerk, perhaps you can help me. I have been falsely accused of sockpuppetry by another user. Do I have any recourse against this person? Thank you for your time.Mk5384 (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Peter is busy in real life so I'll answer as best I can. I assume this is referring to the thread that's on ANI, in which case, a person accusing you of sockpuppetry who refuses to produce evidence should be ignored as best as possible, but it's not something he can be blocked for or anything either. I would just let this incident play out on ANI, since it's where it was bound to end up anyway. —Soap—13:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I should like to note that I have given my full blessing for an SP investigation to take place, provided that the baseless accuser is duly censured should I be proven innocent, which I will be.Mk5384 (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was vandalism by Cremepuff222, a user who was fooling around with sockpuppets and vandalizing a while back (sock contribs). While speedily reversing his damage, deletion summaries became a lower priority I guess. ;) Regards, JamieS93❤13:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw those. References for some of the information. However, The Guardian and BBC were the only two reliable sources, and they did not cover the bulk of the article. encyclopedia.com isn't reliable, to the best of my knowledge. I'll restore the sourced bits to somebody's userspace if necessary, but the rest read like a BLP catastrophe. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)21:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is mickyD here, ska8er5000 has got you or someone else with administrator privlages to block xanweib akyaawe , he has blocked his IP adress from accessing wikipedia at home, he has done this for no reason, xanweib akyaawe has done nothing wrong on wikipedia and he has souly blocked him on a personal matter at the school they attend, i think you should reinstate xanweib akyaawe and block ska8er5000 for his unethical usage of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickyD210 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've also been blocked for using Wikipedia to disrupt an editor. Please keep schoolkid disputes in the classroom; we don't want to know about them. PeterSymonds (talk)11:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peter - just a quick note to thank you for stepping in here and here. As I noted on the article talk page, there was obviously something ducky between the IP and the blocked editor. It sort of reminded me of when my sister used to "borrow" my mother's car without permission, but forget to readjust the seat and rearview mirrors when she returned it. Not so sneaky. I certainly appreciate you stepping in and doing the needy. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh13:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You recently made an edit to List of sovereign states, which was requested on the talk page. However, you applied to wording to Abkhazia's entry as opposed to South Ossetia's. I don't supposed you could correct this? TDL (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just noticed user:Sh33pl0re was blocked for RRR for edits to Mau Mau Uprising. I'm not sure it was wholly justified under RRR. They were making incremental edits and the user Sophie reverted all their edits twice with no explanation. To me its not clear why their edits were reverted in the first place by user Sophie, and there had only been two reversions. That said, a block was probably justified for abusive edit summaries. I was watching the article as its been rapidly changing in POV over the last few days, and the blocked user was reacting to that. (I think Sophie may have been too quick to accuse of edit warring, but Ill cut them some slack as their page says they are 13 years old). Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you may be right; the block was imposed based on a selection of factors, including the incivility. That said, I did not notice the apology which he gave after his actions, so I would not be opposed to unblocking if he can keep his cool and refrain from mass-reverts. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)09:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though I think the edits may have been in good faith, and were reverted by Sophie as the inflammatory summaries made them look like vandalism (So I think everyone was on the same side, just a bit confused). Some edit warring is likely on that article and Hola massacre over the next few days due to some recent heavy POV pushing by a new editor. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Clovis Sangrail - thanks for letting me know btw (!) I reverted them using the roll back feature because I saw referances being removed and attack messages in the edit summary (which you can see in the page history) so i was planning to undo all of his edits because I found scotts edits contrructive and assumed that user:Sh33pl0re was bad (because of the edit summaries) rollback does not allow you to add a reason on why you have done what you have done. I could not undo the edits because of an earlier revert by myself. I therefor warned user:Sh33pl0re about the 3RR policy and the attack messages and alerted Peter on an IRC channel about what was going on and he took over the intervention. I make a page to explain my actions, Incase WP:AN needed it, which can be found hereUser:Sophie/myactions.
Hello!!! I needed that page on Kent D Watson for any information on him, and it appears you deleted it. I'm giving a lesson that includes him. Can you please put the info back on Kent D Watson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.27.234 (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm contacting you as the admin who closed the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlaneShift (video game). I've been approached about moving the article back into mainspace, and I think it's only polite to ask you, if you're interested, to have a look and say whether you think the improvement is sufficient. If you've got the time and interest to comment, I'll be happy to hear your opinion.
Can't say I have an opinion. I think the sources are of dubious quality, and frankly, I'm not seeing sufficient notability for an article in its own right. But I'm no expert in this field, so I'll leave the decision to you (sorry!). Best, PeterSymonds (talk)12:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Back in February, I told you of a user.Sigrit20,who consistently blanked out one particular block of information, with no reason given, in the 24-7 Spyz article. When his edit was repaired, he started using the name Multigrain89 to make the same disruptive edit. Thankfully, you quickly realized that it was a sockpuppet account and blocked both of them. Well the user has obviously returned with a new account, Dummy78 and is making the same exact edit again. Can I ask you to please review and take action again against this user? Thanks! NJZombie (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, someone in the IT department of this school has emailed unblock-en-l about this block and has expressed an interest in receiving abuse reports and taking disciplinary action on their end. Would you be opposed to an unblock of this address? I will check back periodically (daily if possible) to look for abuse and forward reports to them as appropriate. --Chris(talk)04:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Related to the above, I have now reduced the block on this IP address to 24 hours - reason in block log should be self explanatory. If you wish to discuss this further please drop a note/tb on my talk page to say you have replied. Peter 10:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello sir! I don't understand for what all my photo and my writings are deletet?! Samething is wrong. I am albanian american citizen, writer of the 14 books. My profesion is Yournalist. I dont know where is the problem. My personal photo and writings no need any copyright for me. Please explaine to me and help me for this problem.
This article is a subjective article and your call for citations is more than warranted. Please tag the article for deletion as it has been thoroughly exposed as a personal project and vision of one man and his groupies thereby garnering no traction or believability due to its opinionated format. Skimlatte (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said you already confirmed his identity. [3] Someone tried to delete something he gave permission to use. I added the link to the OST ticket you mentioned, but the automatic template doesn't say its confirmed. [4] Can you please confirm his identity there, and replace it with whatever template is necessary? The talk page has more evidence of his identity and he gives permission to publish the article there. He also did it in an email he sent me, that I forwarded to you guys. Will someone with access read both emails to confirm his identity, and that he did give permission to this? DreamFocus17:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know you deleted the page a while ago, But would it be possible to undo your delete, so I can revamp the page. I would greatly appreciate that. QuasyBoy (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note. Unfortunately I cannot be of assistance to the discussion, because I was only acting on apparent consensus. As such, I don't know anything about the proposed title, or what it should be. I wish you luck with the discussion. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)21:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have talked to you in the past about articles being vandalized. The Total Drama World Tour article has had way too many poor changes, making unnecessary work and fixing needed. I was wondering if you can protect this article to block unexperienced users and IPs please? Thank you so much! TDI19 (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It means all editors (IP and new users included) will be able to edit the article, but they would have to be autoconfirmed for their edits to appear immediately. Reviewers will have to accept edits from IPs and new users before they go live. It allows more flexibility and doesn't stop constructive edits completely. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)08:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Peter. I've been trying to decide what action to take in an edit warring case, and it turns out that the submitter of the AN3 case might be a sock of NisarKand. A 3-month or 6-month extension of the previous rangeblock seems desirable.
The IP who brought the edit-warring complaint against Ariana301 about Afghanistan is editing from the range 119.73.0.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) which you blocked for three months on April 5 due to NisarKand. It may not come as a surprise that Ariana310 was one of NisarKand's adversaries on Afghan topics back in 2007.
You have no idea the little kindness you just granted me with the action you took on that sockpuppet case. I have been avoiding editing substantially for months, because every time I logged in I knew I would be deleting the same two paragraphs from the same article, and installing the same warning... the only thing that would change was which account was doing the editing, and which vandalism board would fail to take strong enough action... for 8 months. We shouldn't be consumed by the little things, but they sure can be annoying. I'll be happy to go back to editing other articles. I might even venture back to recent changes duty using Huggle, which is what got me into this mess in the first place. Anyway, thanks again. Reasonable or not, I'm now a fan of yours. ;0) --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff)11:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, a fan. I'm glad the result will allow you to branch into other areas of Wikipedia. If you need further help, don't hesitate to ask. :-) PeterSymonds (talk)12:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I spoke too soon! The same user is back, adding the same two paragraphs in the same Studio 54 article, with the same lack of sources and spelling errors, obviously having been cut and pasted. The user's IP address is: 69.193.220.253. Since the SPI case was closed, I'm not sure how to add this sock to the report. Can you give me some pointers? Thanks! --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff)01:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I thought you were an Admin, then noticed your user page doesn't have the Admin category, hence me asking if you knew if any were around! She's a pain, not as bad as one who socks several times a day though that I keep clearing up after (his latest edits are PRODs on some articles he created as the puppetmaster, which in fact I agree with!). Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I resigned in June, and was recently resysopped; I just haven't bothered to update everything a third time. :-) Yes, the case looks like a long one. All of my recent contribs involve clearing out the backlog at WP:SPI, so I know exactly what you mean! Best, PeterSymonds (talk)13:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked, and it is fine for me in Vector. Strange that it is not working for you; I couldn't really tell you why that would be. You are using Firefox, right? NW(Talk)14:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, I could have checked anyway. I remember know about the resysoping. I'm using Chrome, haven't tried Vector, I've got enough problems with Chrome crashing (and I always have 60-100 tabs open on Firefox, opening a lot of Wikipedia tags would bring it down). Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this is odd. An editor from Atlanta has just edited [5] saying ":Iam not this jacki...etc. This editor may have a similar IP. Just one more example of how men are stubborn poor minded" etc. So, is this Atlanta editor someone else saying the blocked editor may have a similar IP, or? Strange how there could have been such a fast response, which is mainly bashing me and others. I'll probably redact it as a lot has been interpolated with my edit making it appear to be my comments, Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could possibly be a meatpuppet, or a proxy (I didn't check). But their previous edits are vandalism, including some BLP violations, so they've been shown the door. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)15:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we possibly reopen the above case for review, please? I'd do it myself only I'll make a mess of it :) Just that I've received a number of emails regarding it and not just from the subject, and I think it needs checkuser attention. Thanks! - Alison❤10:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Rather you than me! A few years ago I was up long enough to update DYK at midnight and 06:00 the next morning... never again. :-) PeterSymonds (talk)10:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am trying to get my head around the the protection policy so I know what to request in future. I was wondering if you could give me your rationale on protecting {{Book list}}? thanks d'oh!talk13:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I recall, it was protected along with a selection of similar templates considered "high risk". I believe it was AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) who requested the protection, who gave a good justification for it. This included the risk of ill-advised changes that caused breakage. I'd suggest discussing it with Anma; personally, it doesn't make much difference to me whether this particular template is protected or not. Please consult me if you reach an agreement. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)13:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can review it here[6]. I know AnmaFinotera's rationale on this, but I like to know your rationale on this. The reason I ask is the template has less than 40 pages using it, and your rationale at the time was "This is an acceptable level of usage to justify full protection," this doesn't seem to match up with other requests going through and getting protection. d'oh!talk14:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, thanks for the apology, it takes a good man to offer one, and no prob with the case of mistaken identity. I'm sure you deal with a lot of cases. I thought about how to separate who's who in cases like mine if looking at IPs doesn't work and the alleged sockpuppets come and go very quickly. I really can't come up with anything :( Richmondian (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your understanding. It was unfortunate for you to be impersonated like that, and I can only hope it doesn't happen again. Best of luck. PeterSymonds (talk)21:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I've seen. I'm still analysing this and waiting for a few more comments from other clerks. I think the only way to resolve this will be for me to provide a bit more evidence tomorrow and upgrade it to a CU request. Sorry for the delay. PeterSymonds (talk)21:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I understand your block, but can you tell me if you used the same criteria for the user who was always reverting the edits? Just wondering... I have been editing here since 2007, creating articles and greatly improving some already existing pages and I was never blocked... I am editing on Wikipedia most of the time, even when I'm on my little free time at work. Did you check on that before you blocked me? I really am found of Wikipedia's principles saying that all knowledge show be free and available to all. So please... the next time you have problems with my editings and if I say rude things to annoying users (may them be anonymous or registered on Wikipedia) consider what I just said. Thanks for your attention. Tibullus (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get one thing straight first: Being an experienced editor does not give you any right to use such offensive language toward anyone. It was so offensive that a block was issued straight away, and the edit summary was deleted. I would have blocked anyone, immediately, for such a comment, be they admin or anonymous. I'm well aware of your editing history, and therefore it surprises me that an experienced editor would allow themselves to say such a thing. PeterSymonds (talk)20:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the account that is the suspected sockpuppet is User:AcrossTheOcean, not User:AcrossTheGlobe. That account isn't even registered here on Wikipedia. Secondly, my primary computer source was a library until I was given a laptop on Saturday by my grandfather. I had absolutely no connection with that user, other than the Template:Welcome I left on the talkpage. I don't know what else to say. I feel as if I'm being attacked for something I didn't do, and I'm just at a loss for words right now. Like I said, all I was trying to do was to be a good Wikipedian. If you don't want to believe me, that's your problem, and that's just showing extremely bad faith. I don't know what else to say. I've done nothing wrong. WereWolf (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just left a message on User:Jpgordon's talk page explaining my situation. Please understand that this is just a huge mistake. I shouldn't have edited at the library if I knew it was going to cause me such trouble... I'm telling the complete truth, okay? I'm not lying, and I'm not the owner of a sockpuppet. I don't know what else to say. I'm begging you, please don't take my editing privileges away. I love this site so much, and I don't want to be taken away from it due to a misunderstanding, a coincidence, and bad faith. Please, hear me out. I'm not lying. Thank you... WereWolf (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but I must warn you: You created User talk:AcrossTheOcean with an IP also used to create the account itself. You welcomed the user before they had even edited. The account edited various Korn-related articles and Marilyn Manson, the same as you. The account voted on your FLC one minute after its creation. You seriously want to believe that this is a coincidence? If you are hiding anything, you'd best declare it before the case is closed. PeterSymonds (talk)20:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The administrator page (you?) protecting the page has made a major error. They have listed the date of death and then page protected it. One possible correct action would have been to add a current tag, page protect it, and maybe say that it is feared that he has died in a plane crash (but even this would be bold). To page protect it and have no sources may be an honest mistake, but it is a huge administrative mistake. In the real world, this cause forced resignations, sometimes.
While I do not say that you should be desysopped, an error like this is a major (BLP severity) one for an admin to make. Do not page protect a high profile page with an unconfirmed date of death. At most, you can say that there are preliminary, unconfirmed reports of involvement in a plane crash, which is reported to have fatalities. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I saw it and then did extensive research, which took 10 minutes but it was ok in the mean time. (In other words, I went to the page ONE time and saw it had a death date and a page protect, my eyesight is good) It's ok now. Thank you again. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No biggie, but MagnificentCleaner put my comment on ANI, which serves the purpose of humiliating people. I removed it since there were no further comments. If my original comment is constantly re-posted, then there should be a full investigation of the time lag bug at WP and cut of heads of those responsible. The practical way to do it is just to have Sarek or others stop re-posting my old comment. Trying to kneedle (spelling?) someone like that is just poor judgment. It is fixed for now so nothing to do unless those others edit war. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pete, would you be able to look at my talk page history and block the two users who made comments to my talk page (I have reverted them). Also, if possible, can you semi-protect it (I will start a page when I get home for non-autoconfirmed users to comment) as a temporary measure, I am going to CHU. -- sk8er5000yeah?05:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I left an explanation and a request to be given back rollbacker status here, you might want to reconsider. If you don't, no problems, I'll reapply at a better time. Kind regards. Sulmues(talk)15:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind letting me know which CU you talked with regarding this unblock? I'm not contesting it, I just want to make sure the CU saw what I did (since I note it is impossible to prove someone's innocence with checkuser). Feel free to email instead of replying here. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deskana. I had an extensive discussion with the blocked user, which promptd the check. I would've blocked based on behavioural evidence just the same, but the appealing user gave some pretty solid claims why he wasn't that user, so I had a check done just to make sure, and the evidence seemed to support that. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)09:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As of 18 August, 2010, I will leave forever. It seems I am being bullied on here. After all the work I have done with no credit at all. I will not put up with this no longer. No help from admins, just wanting to block me, why don't you "help" me instead of "picking" on me? I made my mide up basically after I was blocked last time, I almost left but didn't and came back for week and now I am being treated like a person who came out of jail. I'm only aloud to make an edit to page a day, if I am being treated that way it is pointless to return. After 1 year, 5 months, 27 days, "goodbye". Please leave a goodbye message on discussions page if you please. GuineaPigWarrior Forever!
Sorry, but you know that block evasion is wrong, but you did it anyway. We can't help you if you don't help yourself. I hope you reconsider your retirement, but I also hope you understand why you were re-blocked. It was certainly made quite clear to you that edit warring was wrong. Best of luck with your future endeavours. PeterSymonds (talk)17:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've set up a cloak, how do I make ChatZilla/Freenode not require me to enter that string "/msg ChanServ invite #wikipedia-en-admins" every time? Thanks. Courcelles23:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think if Peter's gotten you properly added to the access list and you've identified to the network (signed in to Freenode) then you should have no issue getting into the admins channel. Killiondude (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I've now used your cloak as an invite exemption, so you no longer have to ask ChanServ to enter. You can /join and /part the channel like any other channel. :-) Best, PeterSymonds (talk)07:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter, might you let this be as an article in that we can have everyDavid Bowie single with an article of its own, please? If this has no article, then it's the only Bowie single not to. I hope you take care of this. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter, Colomboheat (talk·contribs) admits that they have used multiple accounts over the years, not in an abusive way in the slightest however. I was wondering whether you could help them with sorting the matter. Best--Chanaka L (talk)10:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You notified me [7] of your decline of rollback due to actions of User:Hazard-SJ on another wiki (by this I assume simple). I must admit I had made my analysis entirely based on recent edits on en.wiki and there was plenty of action to base this analysis on, therefore I didn't go further. I have had a look at other wikis and don't find enough evidence of concern to change my opinion on en.wiki. I view this as an active editor who generally applies correct procedure and I don't see a reason or sufficient indication of abuse not to grant such basic tools. If I have not looked deep enough and serious abuses are likely to occur on en.wiki then please feel free to revoke these rights. I will not challenge your judgement in this. Polargeo (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's okay; I just wanted to make you aware that he keeps asking other admins if another declines. This may happen in the future. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)17:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get in touch with you because you decided to remove Codendi article from Wikipedia. The reasons given are:
“It looks like a closed club thing.
It doesn't look like anyone else cares about this product.
Nothing notable about the software.”
I would like to add information to clarify these points.
- Codendi platform is already daily used by many users worldwide (USA, UK, Colombia, Tunisia, France, Germany, India...) in large companies, public organizations and SME’s. It is not a closed club: it is an open-source software so everyone can freely download it and use it or purchase the supported version. Everyone wanting to participate to Codendi community is welcomed. Everyone wanting to used the commercial edition is welcomed.
- A lot of companies publish articles about their products and they have not been deleted. I noticed on Wikipedia several articles regarding softwares in the same sector as Codendi. Some of them are not so famous and not widely used but still have an article.
For all these reasons, I would like to restore Codendi article. Please let me rewrite the article to help the undeletion.
I can also give you a live demo to show you the platform features if it can help you understand why it is an interesting tool.
Hello Peter, I contact you again because I did not have response from you for the moment after my message above, perhaps you missed it. Could you take a quick look over it please ? Thanks for your response. Cheers ManonM (talk) • contribs) 09:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saw your reversion and protection for sockpuppetry. If you look at my talk page, you will see a fair amount of sockpuppetry. I am acting in good faith in translating for User:Quadruplum, now banned, thoug I never did for User:Strubes99. In good faith I tried to encourage the user to edit sensibly and pointed towards various policies. It seems that has not been taken in. I am only letting you know because this user's history I will probably ask for a checkuser, but my assumption of good faith is wearing thin.
If, in good faith, this IP editor is adding to articles, in my opinion his English is too poor to be editing the English Wikipedia. Simple mistakes like not putting Roman Catholic or Orthodox with initial caps as the name of an organisation, on their own of course can just be a typo, but the accumulation of evidence seems to show a lack of knowledge of English.
I am wary of asking for help here and have asked a couple of other editors who have reverted changes on other articles. If this user can usefully contribute, I'm all for that, I've no personal vendetta. It just seems he could use some guidance which I have failed to provide.
HI Peter. Can you tell me why the above user was blocked? I'm not seeing any vandalism in their contribs. While I know they were working on a controversial article in their userspace, I'm not seeing that as a valid reason for indefblocking especially given that the organization in question has had plenty of recentnewscoverage - Alison❤19:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they were creating a bit of harassment on IRC while the article was being written, causing multiple bans in the main channels. It was clear to me that the page was being written with the purpose of trolling MuZemike, which prompted the deletion and the block. I'll defer to your judgement if you want to unblock and restore the page, but it's difficult to describe without being one-sided ... what I saw on IRC wasn't pretty. That is my explanation. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)19:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like you're saying they got banned for off-wiki activities. Is this correct? It doesn't sound like a precedent we really want to set, and there have been prior ArbCom cases that have touched on this & now it sounds like they were banned in retribution, which is certainly not something I can support - Alison❤19:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please paste logs of the activity in question? I do not tolerate people using IRC as a medium for harassment. Please paste logs to back up your claim with corresponding date and timestamps, and I will chastise and remove from the GNAA whomever was responsible for any acts of personal harassment. --93.35.0.153 (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, I suppose so, and you don't need to consult me if you wish to unblock this user. But this user has been part of a team that has wilfully attacked Wikipedia and Wikipedians for a long time. I don't think it's acceptable for a user to create an account for trolling purposes. From what I saw, there is no way I can support this user editing with the motives he's previously expressed, and I won't be unblocking him myself. I'm not a supporter of blocking for off-wiki activities in general—certainly not a supporter of making it a precedent—but in this case, I believe my action was acceptable. But I repeat, if you disagree, you are more than welcome to undo the block and page deletion. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)20:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is still really bad precedent, sorry. I've no idea as to what went down on IRC, nor of who said what to who, as I don't hang out on irc; on-wiki, this is just a block of an editor who did absolutely nothing wrong. Seriously - if someone is misbehaving on IRC, then kickban them or even g-line them or whatev. But this sets an extremely bad precedent, and I'm concerned here. Ok, I'll bring this thread to MuZemike's attention so he can comment and we can take things from there. Thanks for the reply - Alison❤20:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread what he said; he actually said it was concerning him that the article was trying to be resurrected, not concerning him directly. But it might be useful to have somebody else's input who was actually on the scene at the time. PeterSymonds (talk)20:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick addition: I'm going to be out all weekend, so I won't be around for any follow-ups. I can be reached by e-mail if you need any further response from me before Tuesday at the earliest. However, if you come to a decision, please feel free to proceed; I'm quite happy for this block to be overturned if you feel it is appropriate. I suppose from an outsider's perspective, you're right; it was poor form to block based on off-wiki activities, when the circumstances are only known to a handful of editors. If you feel they can contribute constructively, I'm happy with that decision, and I won't block someone for off-wiki activities in the future. The precedent, as you say, is not a brilliant one to set. PeterSymonds (talk)22:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'd just like to clear up some misunderstandings very quickly. I joined #wikipedia-en during the middle of a spam attack I had no awareness of in order to bring to staff attention that I was attempting to write a properly cited version of the GNAA article, but I can completely understand that you'd assume otherwise considering the circumstances surrounding the page I'm writing. I had no intention of upsetting MuZemike, nor do I really know who he is, but I'd just like to put it out that my edits are in good faith and I have no intention of vandalism. I suppose it's my fault in the first place for not putting a message similar to this on my userspace, but I hope this clears some mixed messages up. Murdox (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "trolling" was the right term to use. I expressed concern about somebody trying to resurrect the GNAA article, which is usually the subject of trolling on and off-wiki. –MuZemike14:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know at the time that the #wikipedia-enconnect channel was being heavily trolled at the time by others people using disruptive bots, which ended up in locking up the channel and several k-lines. Perhaps we overreacted in this case? –MuZemike15:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had already admitted that I had used the IP in contention. Also provided a lengthly comment on the particular page as to what was happpening. Am sure you didnt bother to go through it before taking the decision. I had also provided some examples. The person who is the real culprit having experience and knowledge about wiki policies still thrives. And people who have the real responsibility of seeing things go well, do not even bother to understand whats going around. Atleast do this favour, Please find the geographical location of User:4747longstreet and User:TomasMichaelAir and remove those two ID's from my shoulder.Thanks. 27.57.18.157 (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just check what happened to Ahatallah,the expert tag is removed, with no one around to question.
This is what the expert had told last,on 07 July 2010 [[8]]. The expert is an author and has no much idea about jacobite christians of syria, he is an expert of assyrian christians of persia. To give a conclusive finding, he wll have to still research. See what the expert User:Djwilms wrote on 30 June 2010,[[9]]. Till then the expert tag should be used. And see what [User:Cuchullain]] has written, An expert weighed in, and indicated there were no problems with the sources.
Thanks for the help regarding the SP investigation here [10]
Seems like he's at it again. See [11]
The blog that the poster identifies as "notable" is in fact one started/written by the subject of the article. Considering this guy's well-known proficiency with self-promotion, I'm at a loss here as to what to do, besides continuing to try to make this article better.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:NoAutosign has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 02:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
![[4]](https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=File%3ADoing_battle_with_the_Deletionists.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=369583599&oldid=369572096){kind=link}
