User talk:Spartaz/Archive5

Passport & British monarch (again)

You might have noticed that this has re-errupted. Perhaps you were right to just nuke the section. What do you think, now? I really am sorry about this; I thought I had put back in a version that got rid of the bone of contention. -- Lonewolf BC 19:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please answer here. I'm "watching." -- Lonewolf BC 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until the All are equal VS UK, first among equals ends; all the 'Commonwealth realm' related articles will be 'edit war zones' (that's regrettable & lockable). GoodDay 21:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning 'Passport', you should remove all countries. GoodDay 22:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passport

That's the best idea, Spartaz (removing the British monarch & Canadian monarch sections). PS- It's frustrating, all the 'Commonwealth realm' related articles are poisened by the continous underlying dispute All are equal VS UK, first among equals. I wish we could have a forum (a peer review) to see if editors prefer one way or the other (covering all those articles). That way, it would be settled. GoodDay 22:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS- We need a 'Commonwealth WikiProject or Notice Board' to coordinate these articles. GoodDay 22:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol Networks

You deleted the Protocol Networks page. I do not understand why. This was a good start to a review of the orginization. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.108.173.51 (talk) 04:15, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

When did I do this? I don't think it was recently. I'll need the original name of the article to track this down please. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article [1] was deleted because it did not assert notability and therefore qualified for speedy deletion. It was deleted on one previous occasion because it appeared to be an advertisement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original name was Protocol Networks. Yes it was deleted in December about 3 seconds after I put it up as an advertisement; that was only because I had never put anything on here and didn’t know how to write it correctly and the BOT saw it as an add. I fixed my mistakes and it had been up for quite some time when you deleted it. I had come back to do some more work on it and it was gone. As far as notability Protocol Networks and its directors have been quoted on many occasions and have been speakers at many events. I actually was going to add a few of those instances to the page when I went to it recently.

Can we please undelete it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.33.7 (talk) 15:43, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

There hasnt been any movement on this and i am wondering why —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.33.7 (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi

Can you look at this User:84.13.10.123 who is User:W. Frank is again inserting POV in articles changing IRA to PIRA, dispite being warned not to.--padraig 18:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any major disruption to the article - it seems to be the only edits the ip has made to this one. This IRA/PIRA thing is an annoying distraction but, to be honest, I'm not really sure that I want to stir the waters up any further by blocking W. Frank for this. Sure its a pain but I think we would want a wider consensus that he is being sufficiently disruptive to warrant a block. I'll ask Alison for an opinion but this may now be better dealt with at AN/I. I certainly have very limited patience with this now but I'm horrendously busy at work (12 hours days at the moment) that I can't spare the time or emotional energy that this requires. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on W. Frank's IP page (at least, the IP he's currently using). Right now, he is being needlessly disruptive, IMO - Alison ☺ 19:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry folks I don't regard greater precision in abbreviations as "POV-pushing or disruption". Now I agree that this has gone on long enough. There are at least 7 separate guerilla movements that would like to be know as just the three letters i+r+a.

In an encyclopaedia precision is better.

Yes it's easy to slip up and use a natural turn of phrase such as calling a ballpoint pen a "biro", or a vacuum cleaner a "hoover". We must be ever vigilant and increase our precision and decrease ambiguity. In conversational speech, we naturally use the shortest, commonest forms - especially when meaning is clear from the context. However, official writing throughout Europe and including Ireland tends to be more precise in its use of abbreviations.

A few examples from Ireland:

Colloquial speech examples are rarer, but here's one interesting one (amongst a few thousand) I found from: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/72993

Now why don't we stop to-ing and fro-ing and wasting all our tempers and productive editing time and get an authoritative ruling on this (as in Derry City but County Londonderry)?

I hope it doesn't come as too much of a shock but my perspective is that the real POV-pushers here are those that seek to portray the terrorist acts of PIRA (or OIRA or RIRA or CIRA or any other 'RA) as having been perpetrated by "the true inheritors" of the socialist heroes that fought a valiant (and partially successful) liberation struggle.

Frank 84.13.10.123 19:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not invested in this one way or another, as I prefer to steer clear of Irish political articles. Think everyone knows that at this stage. However, you are being disruptive right now in your current approach and you should treat your fellow-editors with a little more respect (hint: calling them fanatical antagonists doesn't help). However, I understand that the whole IRA/PIRA debate has been through the mill already but if you wish to bring something new to the table, or maybe request discussion of it elsewhere, that can only be better than your current plan. Suggest you work towards a new consensus on the term, maybe? - Alison ☺ 19:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion here W.Frank refused to take part.--padraig 20:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also interesting to note how this issue is handled over on ga.wikipedia. See ga:IRA - Alison ☺ 20:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Can you look at WP:ANI, I have brought up an issue, not the last topic, but the one before concerning Cowboycaleb1. Thanks. Davnel03 21:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

3RR

There is the evidence that the two ueser break the 3RR, together. The correct thermis "meat...and I don't remember". Just conctact the quoted user (user:Isotope23 or also, user:Steel359). There is an ARBCOM about the behaviour of the two user and other... here is the ARBCOM [2]--Giovanni Giove 21:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't add two users edits together for a simple 3RR report unless there is clear evidence of meat/sockpuppetry & no evidence was presented.Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI v CJN

If you would like to spend a little time with the evidence from our arb come case - you can see the preparation page i have started User:Jmfangio/arbcom evidence. This is extensive and in direct violation of a settlement statement he made to stop edit warring - i'll have to go find it if you want to see it. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 23:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. The point is that if you are going to ani to comlaint about another editor, you must provide evidence otherwise your complaint will be ignored. Admins will not research your case for you. If you don't do that and instead send your time arguing with the other party you end up disrupting the board and wasting other editors time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure why you asked for evidence when I provided you with three articles of interest right off the bat. When you did mention something - i responded with a diff link. The reason i didn't do anything else is because he pretty much engaged in the same behavior there that he has everywhere else. What else did you want when his hostility was right there in front of the ANI board? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 07:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went to bed after my ani post and saw your message on my talk page before I went back to ani this morning. The point is that you should have provided specific diffs from the get go rather then waiting to be asked. Sorry if I'm coming across as crabby but I'm probably too cranky at the moment to be editing.Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but i didn't see the point of providing 30 differences, especially when the jermaine wiggins talk page was entirely our conversation. A cursory glance at that would have shown that. That's all :-). Be well. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 07:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Unblocking

Thanks for your help. I appreciate it.--CyberGhostface 21:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Sorry to have taken so long - the autoblock tool was banjaxed and I eventually had to get another admin on IRC to explain the work around. Cheers Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply

lol! I transcluded a couple of hours back. It was the long weekend, and strange as it may seem, my family comes first ;) -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can buy into that as well. Good luck but you won't need it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SpeedyPin

Spartaz,

Why did you delete SpeedyPin citing (CSD G11: Blatant Advertising)? Did you not notice the many sources? According to this citation, in order for you or any other editor to have the right to mark this page as such, the content would have to contain misleading, copyrighted, or other garbage content. Obviously it does not. Perhaps you believe that the Wall Street Journal and NY Post typically pick non-deserving companies to write about?

We are a major industry player in our niche, as much as Vonage is to VOIP. We have been covered many times over the past decade. We have also perfected the art of Instant PIN delivery with less than .05% fraudulent orders passing.

So, tell my why an industry leader such as ourselves should not be allowed to have a page? And then explain why this page is allowed to be in Wikipedia: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Phone_Card_Depot.

I await your speedy reply.

Speedypin 22:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I discussed the article with Friday before making it. Yes, he did warn me that another editor might delete the page, but overall seemed to be ok with a legitimate company with legitimate industry prowess creating an article.

Please read WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:RS and WP:CIVIL. When you have done that come back and discuss this with with a less shrill tone and specifically to address the fact that the references you cited only mentioned your company in passing and that the use of wikipedia to host links to press releases is a clear sign of puffery. If your company is trully notable someone independant will come along and write an article but you shouldn't be doing this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but in this case I nuked that as well. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shrill? I don't think that's the word I'd use to categorize my inquiry. Nonetheless.... I won't attempt to post again. For your edification, I viewed then implemented the same tone and style of the Vonage article to avoid puffery. Obviously we're not mainstream like Vonage so we don't deserve to have an article. Keep up your good work editing for Wikipedia.

Speedypin 19:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block on Good friend100

Hello admin Spartaz, I think that your indefinite block on Good friend100 may have been legitimate but still "heartless" - look at his helpful contributions & his 1 & 1/2 yrs of stay here. I don't think that you're doing Wikipedia good by indefinitely blocking him. I assure you that there are many other admins who know Good friend100 who would not have him blocked. Also, I think that Good friend100 must have a good enough of a reason for violating the 3RR or maybe he didn't notice. What's happened here is only a part of the story. Look at an arbitration case that I'm trying to open up: [3]. Thanks. (Wikimachine 19:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

At what point is he going to learn to comply with the basic rules of editing that we all follow? I mean, this was the seventh block for a 3RR violation - he clearly is utterly uninterested in improving his behaviour. If I unblock him, how do I know he won't be back at AN3 immediately? I don't. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, he said "is that good enough?" when he made his edits - he didn't see it as an rv but as a compromise. And recently he has quit violating 3RR - for example Liancourt Rocks. This was only a mistake (or else he should have reverted there too) (Wikimachine 19:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Pardon? He reverted the text 4 times. Is that not a 3RR violation? Is there a special rule for them that I am not aware of? Surely by the point that they have been blocked 6 times there should be a clear understanding that a) edit warring is bad and b) the talk page is there for a reason. We seem to be missing a basic component of this discussion - that the user did bad and no-one seems interested in addressing this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but he made a different edit on the 4th time - as a compromise. At first, he didn't want "Wandu" in the text, but now he put "Wandu" as (Ch:Wandu). It was a compromise. (Wikimachine 20:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I revisted the report - the four listed reverts all seem pretty similar. Even if there was a small change the majority was the same. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the 4th edit was definitely different from the 1st 3. In the 1st 3, there was no Wandu, but in the 4th & last there is Wandu but in parenthesis. That is the compromise. The dispute is whether to include Wandu or not & clearly Good friend100 made a compromise. Sir, they're fighting over such trivial things. That's why you don't see much difference, but I do b/c I've been in the dispute. (Wikimachine 21:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry if it's not my place, but I think it might help eliminate a bit of the confusion. I looked over it myself to see what happened, too: Wikimachine, it appears he was reported for a different article than the one you are looking at. The 3RR violation on the article involving his "Wandu" changes was not reported, he was reported for a totally unrelated violation on a different article. --Cheers, Komdori 21:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Komdori for the explanation. I thought I had gone barking mad when I couldn't see what Wikimachine was on about. :) Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spartaz. I recently got an e-mail from Good friend100. He says that he might be okay with the ban because he's too busy currently, but maintains interest in rejoining in the future. I hope that you will reconsider your ban on him maybe in the future (even maybe 3 yrs after). Thanks. (Wikimachine 02:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Its always open to them to seek unblocking. The bare minimum that I would consider would involve absolute undertakings concerning future behaviour. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From archive

I am curious as to why a page like [Disney Vacation Club] [4], which is a blantant advertisement and has a DVC logo that is clearly copied and pasted from the DVC web site, is allowed to exist untouched and unchallenged.Ronstock 16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Disney is mainstream, and has deep pockets. Obviously Wikipedia is biased towards big companies. They wouldn't dare remove a big brand's advertorial/blatant advertisement.

Speedypin 01:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have been busy and its going to need a lot of tidying up to fix. It will be trimmed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Jung-geun

Hey Spartaz, could you please look at the talk page here :An Jung-geun. The guys at Liancourt Rocks decided that the rock dispute wasn't enough & carried on a vandalism (in disguise) to the An Jung-geun article. Please voice your opinion, this is like dubbing George Washington as a murderer & an assassin & a terrorist. It's ridiculous. & then there's also an account that I suspect to be a sock puppet (Northwest1202)(Wikimachine 01:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

As one of the interested parties, I would love for some un-biased admins to deal with this. There is no vandalism, its just a dispute regarding content. many thanks.Sennen goroshi 16:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Decisional analysis of complex systems

I don't know the name of the administrators who deleted my article after debate and consensus and what is the reason why my article was deleted. First, I wrote a previous article under the name of "decision engineering" and the vocabulary and grammar need to be improved. Some adminatrators invited me to do it. I made some corrections and re-writings, but it was not enough and without any help from anyone english or american trough English Wikipedia, the article was cancelled again by Wikipedia administrators in June 2007. Convinced that my suject is fair, I created in september 2007 an article on English Wikipedia with the permission of the author under the original title of the method "Decisional Analysis of complex systems". I mentioned sources and references, as this method is recognized by the top universities (HEC) and Research center CNRS) in France. Nay way the article was deleted without explanation. So I am not sure the reason of this deleting process regarding my subject is either vocabulary, or grammar, either a copyright question. Now vocabulary and grammar are perfect and if I can prove I have the permission of the author, I can do it. First I want to know the name of one of the administrators in charge of the deleting process in order to communicate. If I know why English wikipedia has problem with the subject, the matter of my article, I can understand: may be concepts are not enough classical etc. They have to tell me the exact reason according Wikipedia policy. I ca follow a rule if it is explicit. But if I see wrong reasons are given, it is fair that I request to know the truth. Isn't it your position too ? Robertatum 13.32, 6 september 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertatum (talk • contribs) 11:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will want to see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Decisional_analysis_of_complex_systems. The text was adjudged to be a copyvio and the deleting admin can be contacted by clicking on their signature. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. The article has been restored after speedy deletion. Perhaps would it be fair to discuss before deletion than after. Deleting should not be so easy and so quick, isn't it ?

06:54 , 7 september 2007 Robertatum Robertatum 22:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends really. Obvious dross and slander have no place here and should be deleted on sight without mercy. The vast majority of copyvios are egregious cut and paste jobs by unconnected editors who have stolen the text from the right's owners website without permission. There is a process to put copyvios on ice if there is any possibility that the text is being released into the public domain for use on wikipedia by the rights holder but it is sometimes not clear when this is the case. In such cases, its likely that the article would be speedy deleted but, as you found, it really doesn't take very much time to restore it once the full circumstances have been made clear. If you would like to get a feel for the rubbish that gets uploaded to wikipedia on a daily basis try looking at CAT:CSD and WP:AFD. Sometimes there are some real gems hidden in the rest and mistakes happen but all admin actions are reversible. Mostly things sort themselves out. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you know the historical context of my article from the beginning: title change from Decision engineering to Decisional analysis of complex systems and because administrators deleted it because of poor vocabulary, I have to let you know what is going on. I improved this article but even if it has been restored, it is actualy under deletion process. May I ask you just to have a look. The article's subject is relating approachs focused on decision process itself and not only on what is around decision: decision analysis or business intelligence. That is the reason why I named the subject at first decision engineering.

Robertatum 14:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help

Spartaz, I appreciate the help on Opinoso's 3RR. I tried stopping what became a 4-way edit war by pointing people to the edit page, but it didn't take. I also understand your decision to block Felipe. Once again, thanks for the help.--Dali-Llama 18:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks for 3rr on Brazil

I was looking at this, too. I wasn't going to block, but I don't have any problem with it (the edit-war is a bit stale but so damn egregious). I just wanted to tell you that there was one more involved: User:Supaman89, with reverts yesterday at 19:35, 20:26, 21:07, 23:44 (so slightly fewer than the other two).--Chaser - T 18:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even notice Supaman89 had made 4 reverts... I feel kind of bad now since it looks like I was selectively in reporting Opinoso.--Dali-Llama 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:feline1 accusing me of witch hunts

I noticed that you had blocked User:feline1 for making some rather rude comments earlier. He is now making some very rude comments to me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Talbott along the lines of claiming that I'm setting up sockpuppet accounts in order to start witch hunts. I asked him to stop harassing me at User talk:feline1 but he pleads ignorance. Can you please help? Nondistinguished 20:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not blockable behaviour. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry I'd already started typing this before Spartaz replied - I may as well post it!) Am I allowed a say in the matter? :) It just seems to me that Nondistinguished is the same person as User:ScienceApologist, who I'd encountered before on the Immanuel Velikovsky article. I'd recognise his aggresive editing style anywhere, not to mention his penchant for 'wiki-lawyering'. He seems to have a real bee in his bonnet about deleting "non-mainstream" and "pseudosience" articles. Anyways, I cast my vote on the deletion of the David Talbott article, if the community majority vote the other way then I'm happy to abide by the decision. I've no interest in fighting about it!--feline1 20:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's with all the ad hominems? Are editors allowed to simply spout their opinions regarding the personal character of other editors? I thought we were supposed to discuss content and how to best build an encyclopedia, not make personal accusations! Is this how the Wikipedia community responds normally? If so, then I want out. Normally I would simply ignore this kind of baiting, but in the case of an encyclopedia that works under consensus, such rude behavior can be very damaging to the project, I would think. Nondistinguished 20:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I is that way ---> Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

May I inquire how the issue is resolved? The user reverted content on a single page more than three times, and I've shown from WP:3RR that it doesn't matter if it is the same content in question. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a little curious about this, since when I checked out the history of that page Folken de Fanel has clearly reverted atleast 6 times (that's twice the acceptable allowance of reverts to a single article in 24 hours). I'm a little concerned that 7 out of 8 of Folken's sole edits to the page have been removing content immediately after an editor has added it (when none of the removals were cases of vandalism to the page, but good faith edits). In addition, you recommended the talk page, but if you check Erik's contributions and Folken's talk page you will find that Erik has been trying to engage in discussion with Folken from the beginning--with Folken blowing him off by deleting his comments from the talk page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clear things up, I've reverted vandalism from another user who was disturbing an AfD process.

As for Erik's contributions on my talk page, I've already told him I didn't like his tone and that beside considering me an ignorant, he didn't go further that what we'd already written on the AfD.Folken de Fanel 23:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first revert was removing an infobox. That's not the same as the last 3 edits. Ergo the 4 reverts are different. Only 4 diffs were presented for review and I'm neither expected nor required to do your homework for you. If I block him, I also have to block Erik to be fair as both of them made the same 3 reverts. I might end up giving Erik a shorter block but I'm sure you really don't want me going down that path do you? 3RR is for relatively straightforward reports - its not the place to address complex behavioural issues. That's what RFC, mediation and talk pages are for. Complex cases belong on ANI not AN3.

I just checked the article talk page history - there has been no discussion of this today - by anyone. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind responding to a legitimate question? I hope you are not ignoring me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to bed not ignoring you. There is a subtle difference. Its 2am here. I hope that you will also allow me to interpret 3RR myself bearing in mind that I'm the reviewing admin. The section you are referring to concerns partial reverts and I do not agree that an info box is the same as text. Sorry but that's my ruling and I'm within my rights as the reviewing admin to interpret the rule as I see it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clear things up, I've reverted vandalism from another user who was disturbing an AfD process.

As for Erik's contributions on my talk page, I've already told him I didn't like his tone and that beside considering me an ignorant, he didn't go further that what we'd already written on the AfD.Folken de Fanel 23:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folken I have already asked you not to misuse the term vandalism. Do it again on my talk page and I will block you. You clearly are acting disruptively on that article. You should be grateful that I'm going to bed and am not willing to stay up to research who exactly has done what when. Erik, I suggest that you consider bringing this to ANI for review if you disagree with my decision but I'm not able to engage on this again tonight. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my fault if other users think their own opinion values more than an AfD discussion. Folken de Fanel 00:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Kei

Thank you for protecting this article. I did edit many times in row (fixing my poor English) but I have updated this article to include sources, and provide correct information. Most important, reliable sources for history on that subject, the meaning of Japanese word, and reliable news about the future. Jun kaneko 00:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR report

Hi! I was wondering about the time factor. But I actually if you look at the first revert, it is basically the same in that it adds the word "chrisitian" and removes the reference. The other three all add the word Christian and two remove the reference. I calculated it based on the fact that his fourth revert was within less that 24 hours than the one before, and the fact that he broke 3RR on the same article before. Any suggestions no how to handle this otherwise? — Zerida 07:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use the talk page and discuss the issue. Ask at WP:3O for an outside view. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 9 September 2007

(UTC)

Flugpo

Hi. You responded to a question I had posted in Wikipedia: Deletion review regarding temporary restoration of the article Flugpo. As your advice suggested, I have created an article in my userpage and was curious as to the next step I should take. Thanks! Saracity123 07:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you need to get some outside opinons on this. Perhaps asking ar WP:3O for someone to review it for you. I'll try and have a look at it later today. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I've already got one for you: I need the best version of Single File and/or Single File (band). At one point they had a half-decent entry before the AfD and salting. They hit the charts (ironclad notability!) and I want to recreate this one. (If you can userfy me the full histories of both those entries, I'd be ecstatic.) Thanks in advance Chubbles 04:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but - was that the last version of Single File or Single File (band)? I seem to recall the last version of Single File having some links to sources (I added them...). This was probably the version deleted after the AfD by BINguyen. Chubbles 05:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: 3RR report on User:EliasAlucard

Hi Spartaz,

I've been away for a few days and didn't see your comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:EliasAlucard_reported_by_User:Akhilleus_.28Result:_72_hours_.2Funblocked.29 until just now. I was wondering if you could explain further your comment that my "recording of the diffs was defective"--I find making 3RR reports complicated, and wonder if I made some kind of technical error. I definitely think Elias made at least 4 reverts--the dispute was about whether the infobox should list the language spoken by the ancient Assyrians (Assryo-Babylonian), or whether it should only list the language of the modern Assyrians (neo-Aramaic). Elias' last revert clearly restores the text "Assyro-Babylonian".

In any case, I don't disagree with your (and Haemo's) conclusion that Elias' shouldn't have been blocked, but I would appreciate knowing what error I made, for future reference. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness drive the dark of doubt away!

Marlith ^T/C has wished you well! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Marlith ^T/C 04:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks very much for your support in my recent successful RfA. And thanks for prodding me to transclude it. I had a good laugh at that. Cheers! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

W. Frank

Can you have a look at this User:W. Frank is continuing to change IRA to PIRA, ignoring the discussion on the talk page.--padraig 18:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was away. I'm afraid that I would rather not interfere with a user who is subject to an extant arbitration case. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice reply

Thats for dealing with this clown. He managed to invoke Godwin's Law twice in three sentences. That has to be close to a record. --Clubjuggle 14:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Had it been a user account rather then an ip I would have indef blocked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks

Hello,

An Arbitration case on which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 20:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for unblocking Good friend100 (for the arbitration). I as a fellow wikipeditor will try my best to keep him from doing those reckless things. (Wikimachine 19:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you. Both for the kind comment (admins don't see many of them generally) and for agreeing to keep an eye on him. Much appreciated. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable warnings

Please don't leave harrassment or personal attack warnings such as on User talk:Geoffrey.landis when people are merely excited, not actually threatening or insulting each other. Every time admins spuriously threaten to block someone who's a legitimate good contributor, the respect level that the community has for admins sinks some. Georgewilliamherbert 19:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bah! I guess you were right and I overreacted. Thanks for the injection of some sanity. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt self-review. We admins have to be willing to sanity-check each other a bit and listen to it... I certainly make my fair share of mistakes, too. Georgewilliamherbert 19:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack name

Yeah, I guess you're right, you think I should have hard blocked them? I try to be cautious, but I guess that is pushing it. I hard blocked another attack name earlier today and felt a little bad about it because it seemed a little harsh... Peace, delldot talk 18:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - harassers have no place here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hardblocked them for you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate you talking to me about it, I worry that I'm messing up and people are just suffering in silence about it, I'd much rather hear about it so I can correct it. See you around. Peace, delldot talk 17:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Good friend100

Could you please keep an eye on User:Good friend100? After taking you up on your unblock offer with 1RR parole, and unsatisfied with just reverting me on the same old articles (which he keeps up), he seems to be following me around to other articles he's never edited on solely for the sake of reverting my changes. An example is the kimchi article--when I removed a "top five" trivia fact as unnoteworthy here, he repeatedly reverted me and another editor in less than a half hour:

22:54, September 18, 2007
23:00, September 18, 2007
23:17, September 18, 2007 (a weaker revert, insisting on "World's Healthiest")

...along with using comments disparaging my "grammer" (sic) as horrible here, and leaving what he evidently considers to be witty edit comments, like this and this, but which really just illustrate bad faith. If it wasn't so sad it would be amusing, as I didn't even intend to revert him, I was trying to fix the references.

I guess I should try to have thicker skin, but it's a bit unfortunate that after being unblocked, he has chosen not to participate in the arbitration case (which was kind of the point) and instead is following people around hitting his revert key without restraint. —LactoseTI^T 23:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not simply hitting the revert key, I made specific changes that did nothing to the syntax of what Komdori did. There not just blatant bad-faith reverts. Simply because you disagree with me and simply because I'm moving against your edits doesn't mean I'm here to be the 3RR monster.

Please do not simply assume that I'm not being productive because I didn't comment in the arbitration case. I have a string of comments I wish I could put there but I don't have enough time (yes, I have school) and I'm not interested with zeal. I'm also not smiling about Wikimachine's way to go to arb instead of other methods.

Talk about bad faith! I make several changes you don't like and immediately you come here to say that I've been up to reverting again, hinting that I should be punished. You also assume bad faith on my edits telling me to go get a native-speaker when I already am one. Instead of attacking me all the time, turn around and look at yourself. Your actions are clearly against Korea in any Korea-related article, and thats obviously going to be something that draws the attention of people. Your always demanding and confronting me. You are also always looking for ways to punish me. Now let me confront you. Why are almost all your edits in Korea-related articles anti-Korean? Its clear that you are biased as well, which is not the spirit of Wikipedia. Please stop. Good friend100 23:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least the first two are clear reverts. Try to tone it down a bit; no one benefits from the combative comments and atmosphere that is thus created. As for telling you to get a native speaker, I was simply saying that if you wish to disparage someone's grammar as "horrible," at least have the decency to find someone to verify it really is "horrible." As for me confronting you, keep in mind that you were the one who followed me to that article. —LactoseTI^T 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your comment to Spartaz, you say that my revert is "(a weaker revert, insisting on "World's Healthiest")". I don't find anything wrong with that. Komdori's wikilink to the Health magazine makes no mention about "American women's health" and I'm simply quoting the title from the article [5]. Its clear that I'm not blindly reverting, yet you add this to the list of my "wrongdoings". You even add that its a weak revert, and it is! Was my edit ill-faithed? Was it a blatent edit back to my version? I added "world's healthiest" and deleted the part about American women's health. How is that a violation of revert? Again, you are simply trying to put me down, because now your even using edit changes that hardly borderline blatant reverts. Good friend100 23:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And its not only me creating the aggresive atmosphere. Its clear that you are attempting to block me with unfair evidence. Who wouldn't respond to it in a defensive way? By reporting me, you also acknowledge that you edit war too. Do I run to an administrator and ask for you to be blocked? No, at least I keep even a little good-faith towards your and Komdori's edits. Good friend100 23:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue with you; I come here to edit articles as best I can with the little time I have. At least the first two are clear reverts, and I personally would consider the third one as well, if not a revert of what I put, then a revert of what Komdori did. I didn't even mean to revert you the time I was trying to fix the references, but that didn't stop you. You agreed to a 1RR revert parole, and are blatantly ignoring it. Feel free to have the last word if you like; I was just dropping a note because I found the behavior clearly outside acceptable boundaries. —LactoseTI^T 23:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think I have done anything wrong. Those edits are not blatant reverts to my own version, and I eventually agreed to what Komdori did (except that I left a note saying that I edited it a bit). You still assume that I'm here in anger to revert everything in my own way, and I don't think I did, nor do I think my edits were biased.

You don't have to argue with me. All I'm asking is that you assume even a tithe of good faith on my edits because over last few months you have never. Good friend100 23:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to butt in where I don't belong, but I noticed this little dialog and was reminded that you never seem to think you've "done anything wrong." That very phrase was your unblock request 5 times or so. If you didn't think you could control yourself to stick to a 1RR, I don't know why you agreed to it. In addition to the above violation, you even broke it today on the Liancourt Rocks article which was the same article you were blocked indefinitely ([6] and [7]). I might agree with your changes (notably the latter), but why push it when you are supposed to be on 1RR? --Cheers, Komdori 03:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a violation of 1RR here at this time. Good friend100 -I am watching. Please take care. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its crystal clear that Lactose/Komdori are taking this to a personal level (for example, running to an administrator to tell on me five minutes after my "violation") and I ask that it stop and I also ask that you start assuming good faith on my edits, instead of telling other people to assume good faith. Good friend100 01:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I still do try to assume good faith with your edits, though it is hard now that you do insist on using your daily revert... today's was just a few minutes outside of the 24 hour range of yesterday's, and that was less than 24 hours of the previous one (which is identical to the revert you did today)... A third party (uninvolved editor) has already reverted you this time, it seems, since you were again removing sourced information. In any case, stick to discussion instead of reverts, and I'm more than happy to keep assuming that you have the article's best interest in mind. Just remember that some other editors may be skeptical of your intent with all these reverts without discussion. —LactoseTI^T 01:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ask either of you to use my talk page to argue with each other? Please take your discussion elsewhere. 03:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

YOu Tube links....

Would you mind glancing over the You Tube links in this list User:Stwalkerster/youtube/filtered and doing a strike-thru on the legit ones?

Sfan00 IMG 11:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of me

Thanks, you were right, I was over the line and totally forgot the 3 revert rule. mattbuck 19:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your comments at deletion review

Your comment about the Tom Stearns debate indicates clearly that you care more about the form something is phrased than the content itself. This is not wikipedia policy. It's your personal psychological issue. You failed to do your job well. You have earned none of my respect, but rather lost it. Peterchristopher 10:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Request

Hi, can I see the entry for Magic Lanterns? I would ask the closing admin but apparently he's quit. Chubbles 09:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that turned out not to be what I thought it would be at all. Thank you, though! Chubbles 09:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you were curious... The Magic Lanterns Chubbles 06:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a good reason why the other guy was blocked for 7 hours less than me for the exact same offense?

Aside from liberal bias and/or corruption, of course? The other guy clearly used a sock puppet to evade the 3rr rule in a matter of less than one hour whilst my edit was 19 hours later and no efforts at concealment were made. I have no problem with enforcement, as long as it is just, equitable, and fair. I question your discretion in the above matter. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 19:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my reasons for the longer block in my comment at AN3 and on your talk page. May I ask on what basis are you assuming that I have a liberal bias? Way to go woth assuming good faith as well, questioning my integrity before I even reply. How charming. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You explained the reason for the block for violating 3rr. You made no mention of the discrepancy in punishment or the fact that the other guy even got punished on my talk page. But I respect your intellectual honesty. Your neutrality is questioned because in spite of the fact that a user deliberately tried to conceal a 3rr violation using a sockpuppet, you ignored this gross violation and you give him a shorter block. In my country, we call that bias and a coverup, and it's administrators like you that make the public not trust Wikipedia. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 01:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this guy for real? Geez... lighten up. I really hate it when people throw allegations of "liberal" or "right-wing" bias in people's faces in situations where it has absolutely no bearing. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 23:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Davnel03/Vandals

One of my subpages is being nominated for deletion, this one. Feel free to comment. Davnel03 20:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Hi, could you replace my message, and start your own thread if need be. I think your script may have overwritten me. Best regards, Navou ^banter 23:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fixed Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Violation Page Submission

I refomatted and resubmitted the violation, per your request. --Marty Goldberg 18:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil page

Greetings.

We have a problem in Brazil’s page... again. I think you are the most indicated administrator to deal with the problem since you’ve recently supervised a similar issue in the same article, leading to some editors being punished.

Guess what? They are back. I think some of them haven’t learned their lesson from the previous block you’ve given them.

I kindly request you to take a look at Brazil’s talk page, specifically in the very last topic, “Brazil Football Team Picture”. What was supposed to be a simple attempt into reaching a consensus through votes turned into a brawl, with users Covarrubias and Opinoso calling other editors that disagreed with them “racists”. I think this is a serious personal offence, and shouldn’t be taken lightly considering it comes from users that have been blocked several times before.

I think it is clear they have an appetite for trouble and uncivil behavior.

+ + +

Here is a short description of events that led to the situation:

A few days ago users Supaman89 and Covarrubias suddenly started editing Brazil’s page in order to insert a picture of Brazil’s football team in the “Sports” subsection. Many editors disliked the change for various reasons, among them Dali-Llama, Felipe C.S, Chico, and myself (I made a few reverts anonymously because I couldn’t log in on Monday and Tuesday).

Although at least four editors preferred the previous picture, the aforementioned users simply ignored this and started an edit war. So me and Dali-Llama tried to contact them in their personal talk pages, but instead of talking the situation through, Covarrubias simply replied back calling us racists (later he said the racist remark was directed especially towards me and Felipe C.S). I wrote back requiring an apology. In turn, Covarrubias joined Opinoso in Brazil’s talk page, calling me and Felipe C.S “racists” over there as well, simply because we didn’t agree with certain edits.

Now Supaman89 and Covarrubias have never written a single line in Brazil’s page so I find their motivations rather suspicious. Why are users that have never participated effectively in a certain article suddenly so keen on inserting a picture in it, specially when they’ve already noticed many editors are reverting their proposal? To me it seems they arrived with the sole intention of creating trouble. If they had a real interest in improving Brazil’s article, they would try to team up with the other editors to follow our to-do list. As for user Opinoso, he has been involved in several similar discussions in the past, continuously calling anyone who disagreed with him a racist.

Please help. It already got out of hand.

Sparks1979 23:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

ANI

Apologies if my suggestion resulted in unneeded, further campaigning at AN/I. Into The Fray ^T/C 14:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't beat yourself up over this. You were only trying to defuse this dispute. Frankly I can only see this ending with a block unless Redspruce learns when to leave it alone. Not your fault. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: User:Bramlet Abercrombie

Hi Spartaz, regarding 3RR [8]: Posted a freindly request on his talk page to initiate discussion and he immediately deleted my comment. What next? --Darana 21:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

New Request

Could I see Paula Campbell (singer)? Preferably the version deleted at 16:38, June 28, 2007, unless the very last version was for some reason better. Thanks. Chubbles 07:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chubbles 18:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Busy days...can I see Terminal (band)? Thanks Chubbles 23:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chubbles 07:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not making you regret this. I'm starting a new job in a week and I'll (probably) be less active. Can I see The Mops? Chubbles 06:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Neil

I noticed that you closed the 3RR on Neil. I'm not questioning your decision. It was probably fair. I looked at the history of the page and there seemed to be and edit war between 2 or more admins. I've never seen that before, especially over a user's page! I don't understand what's going on and I'd like to know what happened. Why is deeceevoice constantly under attack? She is one of maybe 6 regular contributors to WP:AFRO-- she's done a lot of good for the wikipedia. People have shown me times when she said things in a blunt way, but 19 times out of 20 she has a good point to make. I can't help but notice that, just as she explained on her user page, she seems to be targeted by some admins. At first I thought maybe she was exaggerating, but now that I've seen it happen I'm anxious to see how this matter is resolved.

I hate to pull the stupid online community trick of "I'm going to leave!" But, I'm going to tell you that I'm thinking of leaving because I hope you can let the other admins know the effect that these kinds of events can have on regular users. It really leaves a bad taste in your mouth, when you work on something and are kind-of idealistic about it (as I have been) --and then you start to wonder if maybe you're wasting your time because the way that things are run isn't really fair, and isn't even trying to be fair. Edit wars, and rash judgments by admins have a negative impact on all users and ultimately on the project of creating a truly unique body of human knowledge.

I strongly feel that admins should hold themselves to a higher standard, not a lower one, than other users. So many of you already do this. But I wish that I could see more evidence that that is a part of the "admin culture" (for want of a better description.)

I will assume good faith, but faith has its limits. I'd like to know what happened.

futurebird 00:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure where to point you for this one. I can't really claim to understand it myself as I haven't looked into. The report at the arbitration enforcement page suggests that there is a long history concerning the use of deeceevoice's user page as soapbox and a suggestion that she was hosting unacceptable material on it. Whether that is the case I can't say but I saw nothing wrong with the version of her userpage that is currently up and I see that an mfd didn't take this view recently and that two current arbitors voted keep in this discussion. There is an arbitration case finding that might shed some light for you but I'm not really sure I can myself. I tend to agree with you that admins should hold themselves to a better level of behaviour than other users but I'm also attracted to the idea that admins are simply users with extra knobs on and are a) not special and b) most users should be admins unless there is a reason not to be. But then I'm a relatively new admin and struggle to take myself seriously in real life - let alone expecting other users to.

To expand on the 3RR report - this is really a case of wheel warring rather then 3RR and, if that is to go any further, it needs to be considered by arbcom rather then another admin. As the discussion had already been had on ANI, there didn't seem any point keeping the 3RR report open.

I hope this helps. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. It makes more sense now... sort of. :) futurebird 23:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Re: [9]. How exactly is it malformed? Is it a computer or a person who is making these decisions? If it was a computer I could understand it complaining about something 'malformed', but if its a person it seems lazy or arrogant. All the information you should need is in the report. What is the problem? (Caniago 03:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Its missing diffs? You are responsible for listing the actual reverts. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about result of my 3RR report

"A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Can you give it one more look? I still think Hungrywolf should be blocked. Have a look at his talk page.Game Collector 00:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would respond to my new post at the Jagged 85 report. Thanks, Arrow740 07:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]