Jump to content

User talk:Redvers/Archive43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thanks for cleaning up my talk page

Thank you, Redvers, for removing some strange form of vandalism off my talk page. Highly appreciated. [It's the first time it'd been vandalised. Should I rejoice or feel dirty and used now?] Qwrk (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel quietly satisfied. Save the rejoicing for your first death threat from a teenager on another continent (you can work on an File: namespace deletion backlog if you want one of those quickly!). ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 17:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I still think I'll quietly savour this historic moment by pouring myself a neat dram of Laphroaig tonight. At least some kind soul gave me the honour that I'm worth ravaging. Qwrk (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

User talk:TheTrucksUsa

I believe an indefinite block (not just username-block) is warranted. the link led several Trojans to my primary computer (typing on secondary machine). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we be sure that was deliberate vs server-side idiocy? ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 09:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Impressed

I love that line at the top that describes you, I'm definitely going to look at the code to see how I can implement something similar, that is, if you don't mind. Anyhoo, I myself am a young gay man and I often don't find other lgbt persons on en.wiki, however I have encountered them before. Which prompts me, why dont I have userboxen for that. hmmm... Hopefully we can be friends. Happy editing! —petiatil »User »Contribs 08:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

PS

Awesome signature, i really like the backwards type. » petiatil »User »Contribs 08:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to steal the code! There are lots of LGBT editors at Wikipedia. In someways, we appear to be over-represented, but that's probably because we're generally of higher intelligence than average so would gravitate toward an encyclopedia and we're also more likely to seek out home-made communities of which Wikipedia is one.
The backwards letter is just a Unicode character. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 10:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Asin Thottumkal images

I notice you've deleted a number of images uploaded by Vijay536 (talk · contribs) today. The editor has uploaded a further image of the same actress, licensed as public domain, but I'm not in a position to tell whether it's the same copyright violation or a new photo (though this leads me to believe it's probably a copyright violation either way). I've tagged it as no permission for the time being, but wondered whether you could take a look. Thanks. --Ibn (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm keeping tabs on this (and another editor in the same sphere) via WP:PUI. I'll escalate it depending on consensus. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 10:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion About BlazeVideo

My article about BlazeVideo is taged "Articles for deletion" by you, and the reason you stated was “A non-notable company, with no third-party references supplied to establish any information about it.”， but the company is not of no notability, many website linked to it, and it win very good popularity from the user. Don't doubt, if you search HDTV player, you'll find www.blazevideo.com(the website of BlazeVideo) ranked No.1, and may people have been searching for software of BlazeVideo, like BlazeDVD, BlazeDVD Copy, Blaze Video Magic, etc. just type "blaze " in google or yahoo or other search engine, you may find these phrases in searching tips(not so frequently searched phrases won't be listed there). And some other related company like Slysoft, Cyberlink, they are all listed in Wiki, and I think this company deserve several words of description. I have already made some improvement with my article, if you have any good advice, please do tell me. Just don't delete it without a persuasive justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haiyangzhai (talk • contribs)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Union of Good –xenotalk 15:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick work!

Thanks for your super-quick work in blocking vandals!! My user page got vandalized twice today, hopefully that'll stop now! --Funandtrvl (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is Ronnie Baxter protected for being recreated?

Hi, I can see the reasons why the article has been deleted, but why has it been protected for being recreated? I want to recreate it without any copyright infringements. - Nick C (t·c) 22:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Denying access to talk page

I'm asking here, because I don't think this advances the discussion, just may fill in a gap in my education. In this ANI thread, you blocked access to the editor's talk page using the argument that the editor "can make an unblock request on their original account". I presume you believe this is a sock of a blocked name, and I assume the user has created a new name because their other account is blocked. If so, how can they post an unblock request on their other account?

Could it be that their other account is blocked, except for edits to talk page? I know that is technically possible, but how do you know it is the case here? Do you know the prior user name?

Wouldn't an unblock request be prima facie proof it is a sock? And therefore, the request for unblock would be evidence they shouldn't be unblocked? Sounds Catch-22 to me.

I guess I'm not seeing the point of blocking access to the user's talk page in this instance. For the record, I'd lay heavy odds that this user is not someone we want having access to WP editing. But I'm not sure why closing the door to any response is the best course.--SPhilbrickT 14:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Phil! If so, how can they post an unblock request on their other account? By logging in as their original account and posting an {{unblock}} template on their original talk page.
Could it be that their other account is blocked, except for edits to talk page? Yes, if someone's socking, as this editor clearly was, then I'd expect their original account to be blocked. If it isn't, they've no reason to edit as a disruptive sock in the first place so there's no reason for the sock account to continue unblocked.
I know that is technically possible, but how do you know it is the case here? Experience of dealing with several thousand socks, disruptive editors and disruptive socks over the last 6 years, I guess.
Do you know the prior user name? I don't know their original account, but that's not the important factor. It's more important to stop disruption from an obvious sock than anything else.
Wouldn't an unblock request be prima facie proof it is a sock? Unblock request from where? On their old account? No, as they'd have no requirement to say "please unblock me now you've blocked my abusive sock". The point of a block is to be corrective, not punitive. They should be given ample evidence that disruptive socking is not tolerated.
And therefore, the request for unblock would be evidence they shouldn't be unblocked? I think you're assuming that we'd know immediately that the original editor == the abusive sock when the original editor posts an unblock request. That'd be great, but we don't know that unless they admit it.
I guess I'm not seeing the point of blocking access to the user's talk page in this instance. This would be the main reason. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 06:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers. --SPhilbrickT 23:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppet's edit (apparently)

Hello, Redvers. I was referred here, on my talk page, by Keithbob . The story is this: I see a contribution (see the last comment in this section) to a RfC followed by this:

"—Preceding unsigned comment added by BifurcatingBellCurves (talk • contribs) 10:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC) (Note: BifurcatingBellCurves is a sock of the same banned user as GypsyBanksters)".

When I click on BifurcatingBellCurves, I see a tag reading:

"This account is a suspected sock puppet of Karmaisking and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to editing habits, contributions or the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer for evidence. This policy subsection may also be helpful."

I'm not savvy enough to refer as advised, and I'm wondering whether I should revert the contribution in question. Also, from what I've read about violating bans, I wonder whether I should report the violation, and, if so, where. I would prefer to figure all this out from reading, but by the time I found the answer, I'd have forgotten the whole thing! Can you advise me? Thanks for your time and attention. --Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No need to report it - we blocked them earlier, reverted and deleted where required and are now back on track. If nobody has replied to the sock's entry on the page, then, yes, by all means remove the entry (with an edit summary like "rv addition by sock of a banned user"). Banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia at all. They are persona non grata, so we should always remove their additions... except if they're truly valuable to us, as there's no point cutting our noses off... ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 15:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. No one had replied to the sock's entry, and I have done as you suggested. --Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User: East of Borschov

Make sure this person gets a Barnstar for voestalpine. I'm sure this person's contriburions, though added after some encouragement by me, were more valuable.

I forgot there would also be a reference to stub-class on the talk page. But then you said you didn't call it a stub anyway.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Kadioglu Baharat

Hello Redvers, I was communicating with Favonian on explaining my site. There is no advertising involved in what I wrote. I was explaining why the company is important for the public. There is a huge community behind it and what they do is very important for the future of healthy spices. I would like to discuss this with you. Geronimo ahmo (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you work for Kadioglu Baharat or have any connection with them? What is your relationship with Ahmetk (talk · contribs)? ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 09:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Do I look stupid

Don't sock puppet me to make me look badKnowIG 18:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowIG (talk • contribs)

I know these words individually, but together they make no sense. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 06:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Delicious carbuncle, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Srobak (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that you probably could have addressed Redvers' reversion of an indefblocked sockpuppet account in real words instead of a template, or better yet let Delicious carbuncle bring the objection to Redvers' him/her self. Syrthiss (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppet notwithstanding - the message posted was a "thank you" - if you bother to read it - to which DC responded to, positively. Had he not wanted it there, he would have removed it himself, as it clearly was not vandalism, and therefor fell under WP:TPO. Such obvious actions in contrast to guidelines get templated, regardless of their being a "regular" as they of all people should know better. Yes, before you refer me to WP:DTTR, let me refer you to WP:TTR. Thanks. Srobak (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Heya Redvers, after talking to Srobak I wanted to suggest placing block notices on blocked sock pages. I know I didn't do it for a long time for really obvious socks, but in retrospect its probably better to do so for clarity to editors who don't check block logs or contributions pages regularly. It wasn't clear to him/her that you were reverting a blocked sock. I hope this helps. :) Syrthiss (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And to that effect my apologies for the above notification and associated rv. Srobak (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ban of Sugar Bear/Ibaranoff24. Thank you.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This page is the best

I want to learn how you did it 71.118.4.162 (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Blackson

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members

Editorial

LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced;
Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy

Editorial

Opportunities for new military history articles

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants

Editorial

In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations

To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Redvers/Archive43&oldid=1144609710"