This is an archive of past discussions - do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Manticore has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Scribe, I'd like to request the User be blocked for this edit. Repeatedly warned, edit-warred, has brought two 3RR cases and told they are being disruptive. Is there also a way to check the IP address of the User to see if it is my troll? --David Shankbone16:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
scribe, if you have the time please look into davidshankbone's recent reverting. last time you looked into it there was a possibility that he thought he was reverting vandalism, but after your warning he continued reverting. i looked into 3rr and the vandalism has to be very obvious vandalism to qualify as an exception. he calls me his troll i believe to cloud the issue. Chichichihua17:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Scribe, will you run the IP check for me? They continue to edit war. The old IP, 71.112 (and its variants), was based in Snohomish, WA. --David Shankbone16:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't check its IP, only users with checkuser access can do that. It may be able to persuade one - I'll give it a go. But I'm not convinced they're the same person myself - their interest is focused on that one article and their issue with the image appears not be quality but whether it is representative of chihuahuas. Knowing nothing about that breed I have difficulty assessing the validity of that argument. WP:AGF may be the best way forwards - perhaps both images could be used on the article with captions that make clear the difference between them? WjBscribe17:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, but the fact is that there is consensus from five editors on the page not to use the photo in question, and I don't see any cause to reward their edit warring. Nobody wants the crappy photo up there except this editor, who really doesn't want my photo up, and the uploader who likely owns the dog in question. Five editors against two is pretty clearly consensus. I'd like the IP check just to know; the behavior is exactly the same. --David Shankbone17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Confused about deletion
hey, i recently logged into my account and noticed that an article i had posted about OUR Fest had recently been deleted. i was wondering if there was any way to undelete the article, i was planning on writing about the history of the festival , how it got started and everything since it is a local show thats been going on for years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ourfest (talk • contribs).
Articles can be undeleted. I need to know more about this particular article before I can comment though. What was it called? WjBscribe15:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
i believe it was titled "RE-Productions" ..i only had set up a small portion of it. Re-productions is the company that formed OUR Fest. It was just a set up to the fest, not a promotion for the company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ourfest (talk • contribs).
The admin who deleted the page was RHaworth, you might want to discuss this with him. Looking at the deleted article though, it contains no assertion as to why the company is important - that is to say why an encyclopedia should have an article about it. Have a look at our policy on notability - WP:Notability. Multiple reliable sources are needed to confirm the significance of the article. If you can provide URLs for reliable independent sources that discuss the company or festival (e.g. media coverage), then it might be possible to undelete the article but as it stood it did not meet our criteria for inclusion. WjBscribe17:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Category:Men with unusually large penis; deletion discussion
Hi, Will. I'm writing to you because of your participation in the above discussion for deletion. Editor meco, who has reached the 3RR limit today, has taken to posting his silly list, now table, at the talk page for the Human penis size article. He could no longer add it to the article because I deleted it and he cannot revert my deletion without being blocked. I was tempted to remove the table from the talk page, but I thought to write to you first and ask what can be done. I've made notations there before and after the table that there is no discussion for this table because it is not on a page and has no page of its own, and it does not belong in the article or in the Pornography project. Please give it a look. Thank you. 72.68.123.11320:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Redirects to non-existent pages are speedy deleted under Criterion R1 of the speedy deletion policy. I came across such a broken redirect (it pointed to Rufous-headed Ground-roller) and looked at its history and saw that it previously pointed to Gundlach's Hawk. I restored the old redirect as I knew of no better target. If this is not a good redirect target you can either (1) change the redirect to point somewhere else or (2) nominate it for deletion at WP:RFD. Hope that helps. WjBscribe21:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not sure either of those solutions are really that suitable - the page should exist, as a redirect to Rufous-headed Ground-roller, but that page doesn't exist yet. Deleting it would be wrong therefore, but so would redirecting it to that page, as you correctly point out - however, redirecting to Gundlach's Hawk would also be wrong as this is a totally different species (family, in fact). What's the best way out of this? SP-KP22:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've gone for the former. Hopefully it's not too short not to be deleted otherwise we'll be back to square one! All the best and thanks for the advice. SP-KP22:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It has depended on the crat a bit. Some like a couple of hundred edits, others just want to see some non-trivial edits to the mainspace. Usually needs to be a couple of months old. The requirement is usually relaxed if someone wants to harmonise with accounts on other wikis too. WjBscribe21:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
So do you ever note when they have very few edits, or do you trust the renaming crat to make their own decision after checking? isaid21:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I flag it up if I think it might be an issue. I prob would have done for Lastman ← Lastman cn if it hadn't been for the fact they want the name to match accounts on other Wikis. WjBscribe21:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
That request is what provoked me to ask. You might want to mention something more specific in relation to this on the proposal you and Deskana have worked on. isaid21:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the guideline is going with: "existed for several months and made non-trivial contributions to the encyclopedia". WjBscribe22:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Another question, same topic. When there is a malformed request, do you remove it or format it? isaid06:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot00:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
As an administrator who has been involved with the long-term disputes about the article Battle of Washita River (which is still under full protection), I want to inform you of the two related user-conduct RfCs that have now been certified:
WJBScribe, thank you very much for your co-nomination. It meant a lot to me, coming from such a respected Wikipedian as yourself. Unfortunately, as I'm sure you know, the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! Thank you again for everything, Elonka05:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Please help!
A few months ago, you protected the Temporal single-system interpretation article (at the request of Coelacan, if I remember). Recently, another administrator unprotected it. "Watchdog07," whose edits to the page were what prompted Coelacan (a non-party to the dispute) to ask for protection, promptly reverted the article to his preferred version--without agreement from other editors, without consultation, and without warning. This is likely to cause an edit war. There are also seriousWP:BLP issues involved here. andrew-the-k22:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't remove the troll's comments, just answer his question. It'll save a lot of conspiracy theories on his behalf. --Monotonehell
If he rephrased his question it might be worth keeping and answering but not in the present state he's posting it. WP:RBI applies. WjBscribe13:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree, however it makes him look more the fool if you let his comments stand and answer his question civilly. Sorry things are moving too quickly for me to keep up lol --Monotonehell13:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked him now. We don't want people thinking that's an acceptable way to ask questions on talkpages. You'll notice I also changed the main page entry to avoid other people getting similarly confused... WjBscribe13:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I added a civil reply to their uncivil question on the IP talk page. Give them something to consider while they cool off. But like I said, (Yoda)the RV path leads to edit war, edit wars lead to conspiracy nuts(/Yoda) I prefer to let comments stand (provided that they are coherent), point out their incivility and answer their question (if they posed one). That gives them less scope for "Wikipedia! OMG FREE SPEECH!!!" conspiracies. LOL --Monotonehell13:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The user was new, and he said "I'll do the civility stuff", so I can guess you can give him another chance. If he posts one more uncivil comment, restore the block. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 13:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I very much doubt the user is new - they seem to have some pretty fixed ideas already. The user was properly warned about civility. I have no intention of unblocking - though the admin who reviews their unblock request may of course do so... WjBscribe13:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Poultry by-product meal deleated
Why was poultry by-product meal removed? It's a real product of the pet food industry and different than chicken by-product meal by contents. The article initially needed work but was rewritten. Noles198416:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, it's not the same thing, WJB. Poultry by-product can come from a number of unknown sources - any bird qualifies. Now, I suppose that I could use a move or merge with description of poultry by-product and that may even enhance chicken by-product meal. What do you think? Noles198416:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I just tried writing you about that and I suppose we had an edit conflict as my sentence disappeared. I think we've struck an agreement. Noles198417:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Signature and usurp username
Thanks for the message, I didn't know the signature thing. About the usurp request: do you mean that in my blocklog will appear that I am the vandal Goddess? Does exists the possibility of create a template that placed on my user page indicates to the other wikipedians that I am not her? What will happen then? /\n|)r0|v|€d@ {Post}00:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree in accepting the account with its registry of blockade including. I hope that soon you they can solve this problem. I will notify to the other users by means of a message in my page of user and my page of discussion.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot09:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Bloggerhead block length discrepancy
According to the block log, you blocked him for 72 hrs. According to the message on his talk page, you blocked him for 24. I like 72 better, but things should be consistent.Kww15:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
He's been creating socks to evade the block. Is there anything that can be done to prevent that? Kww16:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked the latest sock and extended Bloggerhead's block to 2 weeks for the sockpuppet use. I've also semi-protected the article so new accounts cannot edit it. WjBscribe16:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I request mediation
you have been here a while and seem a reasonable and intelligent sort. therefore i request mediation on this issue. I feel as if I have been bullied bye an editor. there is no other reason i can see why I am being treated this way.
thank you for you time and since it is I who have asked for your halp i will abide by any thing you say or decisions you make. towers84 72.189.48.22319:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
At the very least it should be noted that in the incident in question I was FOR fox news not against. the original block message:
"You have been blocked for 1 week for disruption and making threats to continue that disruption, on the FOX talk page. Wikipedia is not a battleground for your fight against Fox news. If you cannot behave appropriately on the project your editing privileges will be revoked. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 18:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)"
You do seem to have expressed yourself rather unwisely. Try to avoid using words like "jihad" and seeming overly comfrontational in your approach to other editors. Look at the title of your post to Swatjester's page - its pretty aggressive. Swatjester's block does not seem unreasonable in the circumstances. You may well have a legitimate issue with the sourcing of the article in question but I suggest you express yourself more calmly in future. Pursuing grudges over this block isn't going to help. I'd strongly advise you to move on - Wikipedia is a big place and you can easily have nothing to do with an editor you've disagreed with in the past.
You can have the block of your account reviewed by an univolved administrator by adding {{unblock|your reason here}} to User talk:Towers84 of your account if you wish, though I suspect it would be upheld. WjBscribe19:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
words are meaningless without context. the whole worth more than the sum and all that.
but I understand and shall drop the issue immediately. my one question is was I the only one being unreasonable? my talk posts deleted my account being banned AND GODDAMIT IM PISSED I MADE NO THREAT.
sigh...i guess being right isnt enough. thank you for your neutrality and you promptness. but the unfair bullying from some editors i have witnessed is to much to take. goodbye to wikipedia forever because of this kind of bullshit it will never be as good as it could. all i wanted was to remove bias... sorry for the rant
Bernard McGinn
Please note that the Provisional IRA are not classed as a terrorist organisation in the Republic of Ireland, only an illegal organisation. Thank you. Scalpfarmer00:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I did already, I was just trying to avoid it being changed back to an incorrect status classification again. Thank you. Scalpfarmer00:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Also with regard to the "member" versus "volunteer" situation. From what I can see, even administrator John has used volunteer over member see here. Scalpfarmer00:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no huge opinion on the subject. I think "volunteer" is a bit confusing - being a Brit I know what it means, but I wonder if our readers across the world understand it as clearly. We are supposed to be writing articles so they are readable to anyone - and I doubt readers in say Australia and India have the same knowledge of how the IRA self-describe. WjBscribe00:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no preference either way. I'm new and just trying to follow the example of editors I know to be experienced. Scalpfarmer00:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll leave it to be decided by people with more experience of editing articles on the subject - my interest in that article arose because of the account that created it, whose username seemed to disclose a certain bias... WjBscribe00:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This template has been protected since April- can the block be lifted now as it needs updating for new flag articles since then. Astrotrain21:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'll unprotect, but I'm concerned about the lack of discussion over the subject of the previous edit war in the meantime. Should that resume, the template will be reprotected. WjBscribe16:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
In this diff you removed the request that I had just templated. I just want to let you know, that I sent an e-mail to the target username, so I do not know if another e-mail to them is needed. Thanks! Greeves(talk • contribs)15:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it. If it prompts them to edit all will be well. If they don't respond no harm done - I only removed it because I knew Deskana was going to rename him to RG2 anyway... WjBscribe15:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted, the AfD consensus is pretty clear. If they continue reverting, it may be necessary to request the page be protected at WP:RFPP. WjBscribe17:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
More problems on the anesthesia page. Plz Help
Hey WBJ
Well after a long time of no issues it has yet again begun. There is now a person who is editing one of the agreed upo international links (the international federation of nurse anesthetists) by changing letters in the link so it does not work. I have fixed it on at least 2 occasions. Clearly vandalism.
Secondly, since (you and I + others) came to the agreement that we would not allow political or country specific links within the anesthesia document there has been almost no issues (good idea on your part). However, lately there are people adding the Anesthesiologist Assistant website which is only related to the USA and not an international link (since they only exist in the USA). I have edited it out at least 3 times with an explanation as well as a note in the discussion section to no avail.
Mmm. I've semi-protected the page for a month so new IP editors and new accounts can't edit it. Hopefully they'll get bored or discuss the external links by the end of that period. If not, at least we get a month's break... WjBscribe04:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The block was of an appropriate duration for vandalising with a sockpuppet and then evading that block with another (non abusive) sockpuppet. I don't think it would be a good idea to make blocks on the basis of someone's entire past history on the project - especially given I was totally unaware of it. WjBscribe17:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern - I can assure you that SlimVirgin does not protect people who have been proved to use sockpuppets to vandalise Wikipedia and evade blocks. WjBscribe16:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Problème sur Commons
Salut WJBscribe,
Je viens de voir que tu étais administrateur sur Commons. Or j'ai un petit soucis avec un autre administrateur a propos de quelques photos. J'ai besoin de l'aide d'un admin afin de restaurer des photos trop vite supprimées par Rama. Il y a une quinzaine de photos de Léonce Perret dont mon grand père détient les droits et veut mettre dans le domaine public. Rama ne me croit pas (voir la discussion qui commence là, puis continu ici)
Rama m'a aussi supprimé d'autres photos, 3 photos de Miss Hélium, groupe de musique qui m'a permis d'utiliser leurs photos sur Wikipédia. Il m'a aussi supprimé une photo de Radio Blagon alors que j'avais demandé l'autorisation aussi. Bref Rama ne me fait aucune confiance, j'ai eu plusieurs altercations avec lui lorsqu'il contribuait sur l'encyclopédie francophone, ce qui expliquerait peut être son comportement à mon égard. Je ne suis pas un grand spécialiste des licences et certaines des photos que j'ai mis sur Commons devraient peut être être complétées en informations mais je considère que ces photos ne méritent pas d'être supprimées. Je ne suis pas malhonnête et à chaque fois que j'ai mis sur Commons une photo qui n'était pas de moi, j'ai demandé la permission à l'auteur de mettre une licence "domaine public" ou une licence "Creative Commons" sur cette photo. Ces suppressions de Rama sont abusives, je recherche un administrateur de Commons pour annuler ces suppressions.
Merci de m'avoir lu, si tu ne sais pas trop quoi faire, à qui, à ton avis devrais-je m'adresser pour résoudre ce problème.
Bonjour Ajor, je ne suis pas sur qu'il est juste de dire que Rama ne te fait aucune confiance. Je vois qu'il a essaiyé de t'expliquer ses problèmes avec les images sur ta page de discussion et la sienne. Je croix que son avi est correcte. Je t'assure qu'il n'y a pas l'aire de quelque chose personelle envers tois - les regles sont compliqués et Rama les connaits bien. Il faut que tu lui fasse confience. Je ne vois pas comment mieux expliquer que Rama - je vois que tu avoue de ne pas être specialiste de licences. Personne ne pense que tu est malhonnête mais il est important qu'on puisse vérifié les licenses des images et qu'elle soyent bien libres... WjBscribe20:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, je te remercie pour ta réponse. Je vais apporter plus d'infos au sujet des ces photos... Ajor20:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
To act on your request, I will not ask about H on any message board or to a large number of Wikipedians for the purpose of looking for information. Satisfied? I hope so. --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 00:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, fine. Do you want a full contract? Here:
I, User:Defender 911, officially agree to not make any further statements concerning the departure of User:H other than responses to messages from other users. In that case, I, User:Defender 911, will respond quickly and attempt to drop the subject. However, I, User:Defender 911, reserve the right to establish contact on another Wiki. Only the undersigned apply.
Not every Wiki has the same limitations as Wikipedia. That is my final offer. I refuse to extend it any further. Your failure to sign it will mean that the contract will not be put into effect and I will not be bound to its limitations. What a mouthfull! --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 00:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Defender 911, I think you're about to be blocked for trolling if you don't stop. Take a friendly suggestion, drop the subject right now, and go and edit an article. ElinorD(talk)00:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The contract states that I won't post any more information or requests regarding the departure of H. I will follow this, but by my own free will. I know Wikipedia is not a courtroom, not a democracy, and not an anarchy. However, those are my terms, and your signature would be helpful in showing that you understand my intentions. --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 00:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Scribe, I am trying to remove a comment I left where I commended Ted Frank on his editing that I don't think applies anymore, and he keeps re-adding it to is talk page. Can you please assist in this baby matter, and confirm to Ted that 1. he doesn't rule supreme over his discussion page; and 2. that I have a right to remove a comment I left, that now misrepresents me? Thank you. --David Shankbone00:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I've asked him politely if he will remove the comment in the spirit of collaboration etc, but I don't see a basis to force him to do so. I understand that you are now less well disposed towards this editor, but removing a positive comment from his talkpage does seem a little mean-spirited. Can you not both find a way to get along? WjBscribe01:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Nope. We've had a pretty contentious time with each other over the Michael Moore film Sicko that spilled over onto several pages, which is why he is being the way he is being. I want it removed, not struck through. And I have the right to do so. --David Shankbone01:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Compromise seems like a good idea here. Striking through seems a good middle ground between you. After all, you did say it and you have now withdrawn it. I can't see practically how more can achieved... WjBscribe01:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Report vandalism
Hello, User:Holomorph has been tweaking with my userpage without my consent, and whilst the last edit wasn't particularly offensive [2], an earlier one was a little bit annoying [3], and if you look at the history there was more [4], [5], [6], and there's a little more still on talkpages [7] and [8]. Can you please warn him at least? I know this person in rl and they're basically trying to bug me.Zigzig20s21:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it was only me, but I have received an e-mail from Qst that I did not particularly enjoy. I understand that his e-mail cannot be blocked, as it is the only way he can appeal his block, but could something be done about this? --Boricuaeddie22:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I will block his "email this user" function. He can still appeal his block through a talkpage or by sending an email to the unblock list or the Arbitration Committee. WjBscribe22:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Well he shouldn't be able to send email using "email this user" from now on. If he already has your email address, there's of course nothing that can be done about that. WjBscribe22:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, no, it was via the email function on wikipedia. I see you have blocked the email feature. ~Wikihermit22:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I saw your post. I have reported to the wikistress page, that this user is missing. I've been very concerned. He was/is my adopter. This is not like Coelacan to leave me hanging and others. I don't know what's wrong, but something is. I feel it. He would not ignore my emails and posts. Just to let you know, he just disappeared for some unknown reason. :( - JeenyTalk03:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
But he knew me, anyway it seemed he did, without knowing me personally. :( I would ask him silly stuff, and vent to him. I don't think I could do that with anyone else. He helped me stay sane in my insanity here. lol :) Thanks for the offer though. - JeenyTalk03:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi WJB, I am also concerned. I emailed Coelacan a month ago and got no reply. Fine. I just thought he didn't want to talk to me. But seeing that you and Jeeny have also tried without success concerns me. Is there any way you can talk to other admins or beaurocrats who might have his real world contact information? He doesn't need to contact me, I just want to make sure he's safe and healthy. Jeffpw06:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Nah, in the emails I swapped with him he said he was really paranoid about slipping out identifying information (this was after I accidentally replied under my real name address - bloody email forwarding) so if we don't even know his gender he will hardly have given out where he lives. But I've emailed him anyway just in case. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: Redirect templates
I realize that WP:TfD says to list redirect templates on WP:RfD. Here's my logic: the redirects are listed on Special:Unusedtemplates, they are in the Template namespace, and they have every capability of a template (i.e., they can be called on using {{ and parameters work with them). WP:DOT is for deprecated and orphaned templates. The redirect templates are deprecated and orphaned. All templates listed using {{deprecated}} are supposed to be speedy-delete-able under WP:CSD#G6, which is why the templates are not listed on WP:TfD, and why I haven't listed the template redirects on WP:RfD. Any thoughts? Cheers. --MZMcBride03:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Those are very good points. Part of the rationale in my head is that there are times when the user needs to just get it right. At some point, the solution isn't creating a lot of redirects, it's keeping the one page and "forcing" the user to use the "proper" title. Although, as I said, you made strong arguments. Here's the situation I'm in: I'm working off a list of unused templates, which includes redirects. My fear is that if I list the template redirects at WP:RfD, they'll never be deleted because my reasoning will be that there are no links to the template. Right now, there isn't even a mechanism to say that you would like a redirect simply deleted; the subst'd template that is used to list the redirects forces an arrow to a "new target". It seems there is a lot of apprehension to ever deleting redirects (and there are strong arguments not to, as you pointed out), however, in the case of templates, if after two years a template redirect still doesn't have any transclusions or incoming links, I feel WP:DOT may be a better solution. However, in the future, I will tread carefully when listing redirects as {{deprecated}}. Cheers. --MZMcBride03:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Ilse@ seems to have some major problem with Austin Nichols. They put it up for FAR, tried to have it FARCed, removed half the lead claiming it improved the article and is now trying to have the images speedy deleted. I am at a loss as to how to deal with the speedy nominations for Image:Glory road.jpg and Image:UtopianSociety.jpg because I've never had to deal with such things before. What can I do? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I've managed to source Image:Glory road.jpg but I can't find a source for Image:UtopianSociety.jpg - maybe you should try and find another promo or poster for that one? Sourcing for promotiomnal fair use images always seems rather nipicking - we can identify the copyright holder as a matter of common sense, but it is a requirement of our image policy. As to the lead, see if there's anything in WP:LEAD that supports your position. WjBscribe16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've a feeling the original uploader took it from the now defunct official website that was written in flash and therefore doesn't show up in archive.org properly. I'll upload the one from the IMDB instead. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
You know you protected Teletubbies due to vandalism.
Well now I found a way to unprotect it!
Well it's now no longer proteced so there is no vandalism so no need to protect it now! Cheers! 86.130.79.3717:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the template. I didn't protect it permanently though - the protection was only until 18:07 on August 11, 2007. So its been unprotected for a couple of days now. WjBscribe17:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Defective Semi-protect?
How is it possible that an article that is semi-protected, like Brian Adams (wrestler), is still being edited by anon IPs???? Most of the edits are ok, but there are still vandal edits getting through (he just died and the squirrels are coming out of the woodwork). Jeffpw20:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems it just had the template on it but wasn't actually semi-protected. But it didn't seem like me protecting it until I unprotected it first - maybe a glitch. Anyway gven those IP edits are a bit problematic from a WP:BLP perspective, I've protected it for a few weeks. Hopefully that's now sorted... WjBscribe20:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have brought your message to the talk page. I am very happy to follow your advice. Lets see what people say and based on that I hope we can get to a point where you will reconsider your decision. Cheers, SqueakBox22:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
What? You missed this post? What kind of admin are you?!? I'm taking this to the arbitration committee! =) Nah, seriously, not a problem. The user in question was being more harrassive than destructive anyway. -WarthogDemon18:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually maybe it isn't resolved. It was a mistaken block and he's not being too civil on afd of his article of which he created. -WarthogDemon19:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, I'm not sure what's going on here. Why is Irishguy so keen to keep those posts on his talkpage? I'd have thought it would be in everyone's interests for them to be removed. I agree HDWitch isn't being very civil - but I'm not sure its enough for a block yet. I'll keep an eye on it though. WjBscribe05:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey WJB ;-) since you're pretty much the most active user at WP:CHU/U, can you check out this section at Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Usurpations? I'm looking for some input in the matter there. By the way, touché for the mailing list correction :)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot21:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Adminship
HOw do i create a new adminship nomination page. I cannot get rid of the old one, which is blocked! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattbroon (talk • contribs)
You don't - not until you have enough experience that it would have a chance of passing. Please listen to the advice you have been given. WjBscribe05:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to review this:
You seemed to agree with me on this thread about matt57's actions, [9] that the sockpuppetry and the anti-Elonka blankings were two separate but related issues. There seems to be a perception there that since the sockpuppetry is what prompted the report about his blanking ,that he's innocent of the blankign because he's innocent of the sockpuppetry. The reality is, if he hadn't been blanking, the sock (apparently run by His Excellency), wouldn't have had a hook to grab on with to get him in trouble. In other words, his actions provided the sock puppeteer with a means to act, leaving his initial actions in need of review. He's trying to remove the discussion to his talk pages, and people are actively embracing the 'the socks cause the troubles, not Matt' attitude. I've pretty much given up on the thread, but you may want to voice an objection of you still have one. Peopel who have charges brought against them there shouldn't get to forum-shop for the resolution, they'll always pick the forum that'll go easiest on them, (except the occasional flaming out overstressed editors who go for burnout martyrdom...). Anyways, I thought you might like to know about it. Matt57 has begun to use others' talk pages to ask them to go to his talk page instead of solving the issue where it was brought up. ThuranX15:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, I am keeping an eye on progress in this matter, but it might be worth a little bit of time passing since the false sockpupperty so people's minds can be focused on the longterm issue. Given the fact that I nominated Elonka for adminship, I'm no doubt seen as far from a neutral party in this. I may ask an admin who has been uninvolved in the matter so far to review his conduct. WjBscribe15:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you mind if I re-nominate this along with a couple other redirects? I was just adding significantly to the discussion when you closed it. BigNate37(T)15:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I stuck the important part at User:BigNate37/sandbox. I'm logging out right now, so I'll worry about it later. I really wish the preview button would tell you when you're editing a section that's been changed since you started. BigNate37(T)15:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Looking at it, I that's probably best for a new discussion anyway, rather than raising it at the very end of the old RfD... WjBscribe15:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I changed the redirects to what I was thinking they should be; consistency is a good thing. Since changing a redirect doesn't really require an RfD, and the RfD discussion about preschoolar wasn't significant enough to accuse it of being a consensus, I skipped the bureaucracy and made the change. To address the matter of nursery school v. preschool education, which I believe is the matter of the same subject being discussed with two different POVs, I proposed a merge. Depending on the outcome of that, preschoolar may end up pointing at nursery school again when all is said and done. For now, however, it points at a location which uses the preschool term. BigNate37(T)19:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure Jeff, I'll take a look soon. Dev - dropped by to say "hello" but no one was home. Will drop in again from time to time. WjBscribe00:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, not at all - it would be a pleasure. I've notice you around a bit lately - you seem sensible and to be doing good work. More people getting involved in Mediation is always good. Do have a look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators and Wikipedia:Mediation (some of that is tailored to formal mediation, but the rest is of pretty general application) if you haven't already. I am pretty busy at the moment as I'm acting as temporary Chair of the Mediation Committee while Daniel is away, but don't hesiate to get in touch if have questions/want advice. I'll get back to you as soon as I can. You may prefer to email me rather than asks questions on-Wiki (especially if you'd rather parties to cases your mediating don't read them) - that's absolutely fine. I see that you've taken on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-19 White people. I'll try and keep an eye on what's happening from time to time in case I can make any suggestions... Best of luck, WjBscribe00:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I have looked at the pages you have suggested, and am currently in talks with several of the participants. However, one of the participants is blocked for a few more hours, so there's not much going on. You don't have to actually mediate, but I'd appreciate it if you could tell me if I do something horribly wrong, or if I should do something differently. Thank you! By the way, good luck with the Mediation Committee. Thank you again! Neranei(talk)00:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I meant I'd let you know if I had any suggestions for you not that I'd make them on the page - the case is yours to do with as you like. Don't worry about it being slow; mediation often is, especially if the parties are busy or don't visit Wikipedia that often.... WjBscribe00:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I have received insults on the talk page of MauronZ, they are in Spanish, so I am going to translate them: Please, don't humiliate yourself with Soda-POP. if she does not accept your excuses, fuck off with her.
This is repeated on my talk page, where it accuses me of calling “homosexual” to the user LeAngeGardien. You can see my contributions and observe that I have not made that thing. This also happens in wikipedia in Spanish, where already I have warned an administrator of there. Best regards. Goddess{post}07:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC) I have to deleted this message on my talk page, where the user uses spanish language in the end of the message to camouflage his insults to me. Translate of the end: "you accuse to me to be homosexual, when you put of nick “Goddess/Goddess” I accuse to you of homosexual, vain person and pride! haha!."
Please read the paragraph about Kocis' death, to make sure I am in compliance with BLP. I think I was neutral and verifiable, but I don't want to open us up to accusations of libel. Jeffpw08:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree as to neutrality and verifiability, but I suggest that until the two are actually convicted, we omit their names from the article. Although the evidence against them is compelling, I think we can give decent coverage of the matter without mentioning their names. I am a little more cautious than the some when it comes to WP:BLP but I'd rather not name suspects where if it's avoidable. Interesting stuff though... WjBscribe15:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
But, but but.....they are actually charged with the murder and are going on trial. I won't revert, but if newsapers are naming them, and they are being tried for the murder, it seems like their names can be used. Frankly, that was the last of my concerns (and if you browse the linked articles, you'll see that others have used their names in different articles). Give it some thought, peaches. I do wish Wikipedia were more Like News Of The World. :-(Jeffpw17:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jeff, ask the lawyer get the safe option :-). Under UK law publishing the case against someone before a trial is illegal anyway on the basis that it prejudices the later proceedings - as soon as someone is charged the press are required to shut up. I know the US takes a more liberal view but I still think "innocent until proven guilty" and all that. Feel free to get a third opinion as I know I do take a pretty strict view on BLP but serious accusations about people who have never been found guilty by a jury are a problem in my view. ArbCom's last word on the BLP thing has been "do no harm" and I tend to follow that course. I'll think about it, but I'm unpersuaded about naming names.... WjBscribe00:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh, you're no fun!:-( On a semi-related note, if we do later decide to name their names (and what is the real harm inherent in claiming somebody stabbed another person 28 times, slashed their throat and set them on fire to conceal the evidence?), can I grab their mugshots off of their MySpace page? If I remember correctly, mugshots are government property. Gonna hold them on my computer for safekeeping against the day they may shine brightly on Wikipedia (and oh how I just love a juicy sex/murder scandal!) Jeffpw05:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I found several pictures of Kocis to add to the article, but they are all copyrighted. The only free use (govt photo) was a crime scene pic of his charred , almost headless body (they almost decapitated hijm with one swipe of the knife--the next 29 stab wounds were just to make sure). If I photoshop it to put the head closer to the body, and one squints a bit, one can pretty make out who it is. Should I go ahead and upload that one, or take a chance on one of the living (non-crispy) fair use images????? Jeffpw19:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well
There is still plenty of time for discussion at ANI. If you have salient points to bring to the table, nobody's stopping you. >Radiant<13:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
If you had read what I said on the AfD, this is what the Countess reference says according to Elonka:
"It says that my aunt Krysia Dunin (Antoni's daughter) is the daughter of a Count, and that she had to flee from Poland to come to the United States. ".
It says nothing about Antoni Dunin. Similarly, see the references on Stanley Dunin. This is being done to make an impression of notability and when you actually examine the references, they either dont talk about the subject, or mention them only in passing. --Matt57(talk•contribs)19:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi - can you have a look at this when you get a minute? It was tagged by a copyright violation seeking bot, but it seems to me to be fair enough. Let me know if I'm wrong, and buy me a pint regardless Chrislintott12:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine. That Bot is pretty new and I think the "whitelist" of sites that actually do provide free content is still being developed. WjBscribe14:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought so - thanks. It seems to me that slapping a big box on the article itself (rather than the discussion page) is rather trigger happy, especially if it relies on whitelisting which isn't fully complete. But what do I know? Chrislintott15:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Well its new - I'm sure user:Coren is taking suggestions. His Bot got into a war with another Bot that was creating articles on genes based on public domain info - gave it a ridiculous number of warnings for uploading copyvios. Still it is very good and detecting people who really are copy and pasting stuff from other sistes. No idea what percentage of its tags are "false positives". WjBscribe15:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Snotty Anon IP needs civility lesson
[This is the latest diff]. I have already warned him once, and he has been blocked for edit warring on this article before. He seems to think because he is anonymous he can be as rude as he wishes to other editors. I haven't edited this article myself, but am a purely disinterested party. Thanks in advance. Jeffpw16:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: Bot error
Ah, good call-- those should be treated as whitespace. However, one small request: if you have any other issues, please use my talk page instead, as I can keep track of bugs and stuff better from there. --slakr(talk)18:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to speedy keep at least that redirect. As I stated in the RfD, it was the article's original title until yesterday!--Alabamaboy22:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking forward probably within the next month, maybe as early as next week before I will try for my second nomination. I will scroll the policies in the next few days. The last major issue which prevented the successful nomination was the images and copyrights although I'm seen to have worked for most of the images I've uploaded.
Also, one more element: I've noticed that very few or no admins are using Twinkle (security issues?), so probably I would have to be forced to remove it? Thanks!--JForget23:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello again, it will be most kind of you if I can receive a reply about how to add my name to the list of who is willing to help the MC. Thank you for your time.Daoken11:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't backed to you sooner. Things have been pretty busy and this post had rather slipped off my radar. Thanks very much for getting in touch and offering to help. Not sure exactly what you mean by the "submit box". The Mediation Committee acts as to provide formal mediation of disputes on Wikipedia. Mediators are appointed on the basis of experience with Wikipedia's policies and process, community support and a good track record of resolving dispute of the sort that crop. Clearly your outside experience would be invaluable to helping you were you to get involved in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. You might want to take a look at the Mediation Cabal which offers more informal mediation - any editor can volunteer to mediate a case that is listed there - its a good way to build up experience of how mediation works on Wikipedia and apply the knowledge learned elsewhere. If working in the dispute resolution process through MedCab becomes something you enjoy, I'm sure the Committee would be glad to receive a nomination from you in the future. Best wishes, WjBscribe02:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Cuz I'm a blonde, (yeah, yeah, yeah)
My God!!!!! A THOUSAND apologies, my dear! It was purely unintentional. I hadn't finished my first cup of coffee yet and must have...well, I don't know how I managed to do it. Sheesh, I passed the idiot test with flying colors that day (and that damnable IP has caused more trouble than he is worth, one way or the other).
I will pay more attention when starting a new subject. Thanks for your high tolerance of my blond moments. Jeffpw15:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
After reading his spirited defense of his edits to the Twinkie defense article, and after looking through his edit summaries, I am more convinced than ever that he is an established user editing anonymously. I was under the impression that sock puppetry was not allowed here, unless it was made clear by the user what their actual Wikipedia identity was and their reasons for doing it. I don't think a check user will help, since it is a company IP, but I do think this bears investigating, since his actions seem to have run Benjiboi off from this exercise in frustration this noble experiment we call an online encyclopedia. Can you find a solution to this mess? Jeffpw07:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
It is a little suspicious but without evidence of who they are, there isn't much one can do on that front. Regardless of that I'm unimpressed with their approach- I reverted the post you linked me to and have given a final warning. The rules say people should comment on content, not contributors and that edit seems to be a series of accusations against Benjiboi. WjBscribe13:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I have readded in the statement. Whether or not this editor is new or experienced, we need their statement and input to end this dispute. Their opinions, while professing bad faith, are back up by an assortment of events. However, I am encouraging the editor to rewrite his statement. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)04:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy with that. The statement is mainly a series of allegations against an editor. By reposting it, some will claim you "take ownership" of those accusations, which I feel go beyond legitimate comment on contributions and attack the contributor. I really do think it advisable for you to redact the objectionable content if you're going to repost it. However, I don't propose to revert you. WjBscribe05:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I turned it over in my head for a long time on whether or not the statement should be kept. I realize that some will interpret my defense of keeping the statement in as an approval of the attacks within it—something that couldn't be further from the truth. I feel terrible for all of the stress that this has caused Benjiboi. However, editing out the posts of 192 doesn't help us end the resolution because they will continue holding these things true regardless of their removal. We have to discuss these things—if you look, you will see that people have already responded to the statement. I realize that you don't want to see anyone hurt. Neither do I. But we have to make a step in some direction or this will get worse. As I mentioned above, I have dropped a note on 192's talkpage that asks them to rethink their statement. We have yet to see them respond. For what it's worth, I don't think your revert was inappropriate. I just don't think it's the best course of action at this point. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)15:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Re me
Please stop saying that I am "trying to prevent Wikipedia editors from discussing my edits." If that were true, I wouldn't have opened my own noticeboard report asking for COI guidance: I'd get an account as "Bmedley Smutler" and just POV-push like mad, switch accounts every two months as my ISP changes IP addresses, and no one would know the difference. Instead, I'm trying to follow the rules, acknowledge the relevant biographical details, balance my privacy against the Wikipedia right to know. And I'm being treated worse for acting in good faith instead of in bad faith. Why such perverse incentives?
People can discuss my edits as much as they want. (Note, however, that all the people who seek to use my name have not identified a single improper edit I have made: they just want to criticize me for off-wiki activity.) Just call me THF instead of my name, as the policies on which I relied explicitly say I am permitted to keep that private, even if my name is well known because I made the mistake of thinking people were interested in producing an encyclopedia instead of harassing me off-wiki. The people like Cyde who are using my real name are doing so simply because I asked them not to. Even if you don't think WP:HARASS comes into play, doesn't WP:CIVIL? Why is the eight-letter version so critical to the discussion when I acknowledge the relevant biographical details? I've made 7000 edits to over 2500 pages, more if you include the hundreds of CSD nominations I've made that don't show up in the edit history. I'm not a SPA, and I'm just asking for a tiny modicum of privacy, which the current policy explicitly says I'm entitled to. Thanks for hearing me out. I've liked your work on Wikipedia, which is why it's so frustrating for me that we disagree here, when I think I've been quite reasonable under the circumstances of death threats, obscene phone-calls, and obscene emails. THF04:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I assume you read my comments in the recent WP:ANI thread. I expressly said that gratuitous use of your full name was incivil. However where someone is raising a potential COI problem involving you, an uninvolved party will not know that why THF may have a COI and it may be necessary for your name to be used. You as an individual will suffer no hardship through that. I have never said you are an SPA or that you are not entitled to civility - but I think your recent strong objections to all use of your name and use of our WP:HARASS policies have made things worse. They are not designed to deal with this situation. But yes, I do agree (1) that using your name unnecessarily is uncivil, (2) that there is no need to bait you by trying to pre-empt COIs that may never happen. I understand you have been under pressure but as I understand it - the use of your real name here is not the source of those threats and phone calls (which is what makes your case different from those we usually deal with). My argument is that we need to discuss things and work out how to deal with this situation rather than insisting on enforcing rules designed for a different scenario. WjBscribe05:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a completely reasonable solution, so long as WP:CIVIL is enforced (which, unfortunately, I have yet to see happen once in all the abuse I have taken in the course of six months here). My invocation of WP:HARASS comes from [experience]: a left-wing blogger posted on a left-wing thinktank blog identifying a campaign to POV-push on Wikipedia (something they had achieved quite successfully before they were indef-blocked, though most of their edits survive), and when I tried to point that out in February by linking to the editor's own blog post as a reason for the NPOV tag I was adding, I was immediately threatened with an indefinite block--if I hadn't been sitting at the computer just that second to explain on ANI that my violation was inadvertent misunderstanding and wouldn't happen again, I would've been banned. And not once did someone suggest that I hadn't done anything wrong or that Jance was being ridiculous given that she was publicizing her own Wiki editing off-wiki. So I'm just really stunned how differently the rules are enforced when the political poles are reversed, but everything you say is correct. Given that I have explicitly agreed to not make an autobio edit, however, why is Cyde still edit-warring to insert my username into the Wiki article about me? It's not like there aren't twenty editors watching to make sure I don't make a COI edit to that article, and it's not like that article isn't going to be gone in a week. THF06:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
As Iamunknown says, the edit warring on that page seems to have stopped and I would have been prepared block anyone who passed 3RR on adding or removing that template. Policy does not require its presence - but am also not convinced removing it is so necessary that it justifies edit warring. I have made clear that I think Cyde's conduct was uncivil both at ANI and off-wiki and brought his attention to just how nasty the content he accidentally undeleted was. I am unaware of the incident you refer to above - I think it is regretable that this was dealt with so differently. Unfortunately even if we looked only at admins, there are over a thousand of us. No doubt our views on how to deal with these problems differ, and that can have unfortunate consequences. Incidentally, about that article, you may have said this somewhere else but do you want to have an article on Wikipedia? A case could be made for its deletion - no promises, but it could be tried. WjBscribe15:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Its probably worth filing a new checkuser case if you want some new socks checked. Down in the completed requests section it won't get noticed by the checkusers. Feel free to add a new request to the top of the case page and relist it at the top of WP:RFCU but, if the socks are obviously him, you don't need checkuser to request they be blocked. WjBscribe02:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Response
I'm sorry to hear that you are so upset over the unblock of Matt57. However, it seems from your comments on various pages that you believe such issues should be based on weight of numbers, i.e. the amount of people who agree with them, rather than on fact. This assertion I fundamentally disagree with. While one could easily to claim that "a few people agreed with the block, therefore it was consensual", one should look deeper and examine the underlying reasons and facts. It was alleged that Matt posted personal information - but he didn't. It was said that Matt was editing the same articles as Elonka - but he wasn't. It was stated that he spread the dispute with bad-faith accusations on commons - but he didn't do that either. This indicates that the charge of harassment is on shaky grounds at best.
That is not to say Matt's behavior should be endorsed, for he hasn't been particularly friendly to Elonka - but it is important to note that neither has she been particularly friendly to him. Perhaps Matt has been reading her contribs log (which does not in itself constitute stalking), but it is obvious that she has been reading his. Matt may be tackling the issue the wrong way, but his underlying point (that the Dunin family articles may have COI or POV problems) is not a priori invalid. When two people are in dispute, blocking one of them in this fashion is not an effective way of resolving it.
My point remains the same Radiant. You could and should have argued this at the ANI thread. Instead you reversed the block based on your own conclusions and accused Kylu of having blocked in a manner that was "unwarranted and punitive", when several admins of high standing had endorsed the block. That remains what concerns me about your actions. WjBscribe14:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you still arguing about this? Consensus is how we do thing here - I am surprised by your unwillingness to acknowledge that. But if this conversation is going to continue - given your previous hostility towards Elonka (incl. your presentation of evidence against her at an ArbCom case that resulted in no findings against her) do you really think you were an impartial administrator to review that block? WjBscribe14:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do. But I have no desire to keep arguing about this, especially since you now bring ad hominems to the table. So let's drop it. >Radiant<09:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
"It was alleged that Matt posted personal information - but he didn't. It was said that Matt was editing the same articles as Elonka - but he wasn't. It was stated that he spread the dispute with bad-faith accusations on commons - but he didn't do that either."
Exactly. No more than he edit-warred with sockpuppets - and, excepting Chaser, we've still heard no apology about that, either.Proabivouac10:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Who are you saying should have apologised for that block? Chaser was the blocking admin. I decided to seek checkuser information before taking action. Checkuser exhonerated Matt57 - so I did not block (in fact I lifted the autoblock on Matt57's account that Chaser had missed). So I don't see who else should apologise for that incident. As to the more recent block - again, I was not the blocking admin. But I do endorse that block (and feel it was if anything too short). I would support much tougher sanctions against Matt should the matter arise again. So what is it you want me to apologise for? WjBscribe14:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
On my username usurp request, you said User:Tommy Boy had deleted contribs. Does this mean I cannot get it, or is it still okay for me to usurp it? -- Tommy Boy ♪♪21:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Should be OK. Its one nonsense edit that's never going to be undeleted so I wouldn't worry about it. Its up to the crat that reviews the request, but I doubt they'll have a problem with it in the circumstances. WjBscribe21:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot07:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Reality film
Scribe - your a good content mediator. Reality film was put up as an AfD, and there were 6 deletes and 4 keeps. A couple of the deletes were for redirects. An uninvolved admin closed out the AfD as not having consensus, and backed it up on User:Pixelface's Talk page. Two of the editors who wanted it deleted then redirected it to other articles, despite the lack of consensus. Now Pixelface is basically watering down the article and removing citations so that it is only one or two sentences long with one or two citations, whereas before it had about six. I don't have the time right now to battle him and we could use mediation. I'm at work, and to be honest the whole Michael Moore stuff diverted almost all my attention the last few days so that I could not work on this. Please help mediate? --DavidShankbone 15:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
And if you look at Pixelface's contributions lately, they almost are solely centered around this Reality film issue which he seems bizarrely intent on removing, and the Ted Frank stuff. --DavidShankbone15:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm certainly willing to try and help people talk the issue over on the talkpage - but I see the article is at deletion review. Given that it may be deleted as a result of that discussion, wouldn't it be sensible if you both held off til the outcome of that discussion? If edit warring is a problem, you can request an uninvolved admin protect the page from editing at WP:RFPP. WjBscribe15:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I don't mind having the normal process go about, but Pixelface is trashing the article (without merit) at the same time people will go to look at it to see if it should be deleted. That doesn't seem very good faith-y, does it? And I'm at work and quite busy; I'd prefer for him to "hold his horses" and keep it to the Talk page for now. I don't see what the rush is all about. --DavidShankbone15:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I've made a comment on the talkpage asking everyone to chill out and hold off until we know what the DRV result is. I'll keep the page watchlisted. WjBscribe15:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It's not a controversial topic, or it shouldn't be, so I do not see why it has engendered so much emotion. It's a pretty innocuous little article. Wikipedia can be so exhausting. --DavidShankbone15:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
WJBscribe, in recognition of the incredible level-headedness and wisdom with which you use the bit, I present you this Barnstar of Diligence. Every administrator should aspire to have these qualities, which you demonstrate daily. BigNate37(T)04:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
(a few edit conflicts later...) I have to agree with Deskana and Alison. As a purely practical issue I've only been an admin just over 5 months, there is a fairly reasonable expectation that people will have served as an admin for a year. I haven't even been editing Wikipedia for a full year. A lot of people (spanning the full range from new editiors to very longserving admins and crats) have expressed a great deal of confidence that I'd do that job well and I am honoured, but it is too soon. I'm not lacking things to do at the moment - I have a pretty active role in MedCom, especially on the organisational side, and have been helping out on clerking checkuser requests lately. There's also always the day-to-day admin tasks (I've blocked nearly 100 vandals in the last 3 days) and still close most RfDs. The present active crat team - Andre, Deskana and Secretlondon - have everything well under control so we have no pressing need for anyone else with those tools. I certainly won't let the work go undone and would run if necessary, but for now everything is working more smoothly than it has done in a very long time. Thanks for the encouragement though. WjBscribe21:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and we need that someone at RfD who has good judgment and the good sense to avoid participating in the more contended discussions; who else would be able to apply that good judgment by closing them fairly? BigNate37(T)21:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a school IP address (I go to the school). Can you please block it? It's annoying to have the 'you have new messages' thing on every article. Stupid vandals... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.18.215.242 (talk) 00:30, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
I actually think that's a glitch with the software - does the message go away after you look at your talkpage? Anyway, lets try a month's block for now. WjBscribe00:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
On a related note, it may be helpful to put {{SharedIPEDU|Organization}} on the talk page if you know the name of the school. I couldn't find information from the IP more specific than what city it's in, otherwise I would have myself. BigNate37(T)15:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you just blocked this anon for a month. He's trolling his talk page. Could you protect? or would you prefer rfpp? Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:33, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
Good - I assume you've got a decent nominator? I'd offer but I presume you've already have plenty of people volunteer and have someone lined up. WjBscribe03:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey Scribe - I've begun to respond to Pixelface, but he's edit warring again. The article in its current state found no consensus for deletion (or merger) and if anything, in the DRV two more people have voted keep and everyone has said the original admin was correct in closing with no consensus. I've started to respond to Pixelfaces long, lengthy diatribe on the Talk page against this article, but it's difficult to do when he consistently warring. --DavidShankbone14:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks like that should stop for at least a week. Hopefully that should let you get on with things - let me know if there are more problems :-). WjBscribe16:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. So far I have a Times of London article and Variety Magazine article talking about the "phenomenon" as Cool Hand Luke suggested and not just bandying the phrase around. You know, the "bad faith" idea is off-target. The original issue was whether movies like "Jackass" qualify as documentaries. Although I have mixed feelings about that issue, I relented because of WP:V - I may be wrong and it is possible, perhaps probable, they are docs. That's a wholly separate issue about the Reality Film genre, which there is a good deal of discussion and articles about, and I just provided two in big publications, where they discuss the philosophy and production of such films, and their problems. They use the words "Reality film" and "Reality movie", etc. It didn't take long to find these. I Googled "Reality film" and "Real Cancun" and "Jackass" at once. I think with these added citations, which avert any WP:SYN issues, the article's merit is without question. What seems to be the concern, voiced by one person in the AfD, is that Reality film will be used to take away the Documentary label of some films; that is not something I plan to use it for, and you can mark my words. That's a clearly losing argument based on WP:V. --DavidShankbone17:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Isarig RFCU
The case wasn't listed "clean". Apparently Bigglove modified a completed request, and Italiavivi moved it from completed to outstanding and changed the timestamps. The diff you posted on my talk page is not the complete process, either. I removed the case from outstanding, and moved it to non-compliant, which is what it was. The reason I didn't get to do anything else is because I got bombarded with messages from two different users about it and wasted time sorting that out. I'll also point out that requests for CU on yourself for proving innocence are clearly listed as prohibited requests right on the main page, so I don't believe I was making a subjective judgment call on merits. The request said "I want to prove my innocence", and the page says "we don't do that".
As for procedure, I was under the impression that only clerks could touch the page, as when I first joined, another clerk who was unaware of the fact I added my name to the list reverted my edits and basically told me not to touch the page because I wasn't a clerk. No one ever corrected him. There is a lot of implication stating that users should not be listing requests - why else are clerks supposed to review all the submissions, and why is a point made that we have clerks if there's no real need for the user to make use of the system if they can do it themselves?
Not only that, Italiavivi was editing a request he was involved with, and I think if he really wanted to "help out" (as he claimed), he could have found other things to do besides editing the case he filed in the first place. He's still right on Isarig, too, as seen here.
Italiavivi not only changed the page format, but he effectively archived a case that was not added to the archive itself as being closed, so there was no record of it. That is a problem (which it now reminds me I should have fixed as well).
The issue seems to be removing a listed request, but the case never went to pending. Italia moved it from completed directly to outstanding, which should not have happened. Non-com says "If a checkuser request does not meet specific guidelines, clerks or checkusers may remove it from the list of pending cases". Had IV followed procedure, I would have been within purview to move it, and it was out of process. What should have happened is that IV should have notye the chamge on the clerk board instead of trying to fix it himself.
As for my reply, Italiavivi has a whole bunch of "conditions" posted on his user talk page that he wants people to follow if they want to talk to him ("I do not take well to hollow posturing. I am not interested in 1) scratching your back if you scratch mine 2) pissing contests 3) veiled insults wrapped in "friendly advice," or any combination of the aforementioned. Be honest and rhetoric-free toward me, and I will extend the same courtesy to you"), and as I would have explained to him if he hadn't deleted the section, my tone was definitely honest and rhetoric-free so there would be no misunderstanding on his part. Have you seen Italiaviv's userpage, BTW? It's not exactly conducive to a positive attitude from anyone, which is probably why those talkpage conditions exist.
In short, while I freely admit that I should have gotten on to Bigglove and didn't, I don't think I made any subjective judgments, and there's a lot more going on here than is readily apparent. I think Italia knows what he was doing, and if he didn't, he shouldn't have done it. MSJapan14:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
If you think of them as friends, I guess they count :-). Good luck with making friends on Wikipedia - I find there are loads of people here who are really nice... WjBscribe03:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I doubt I can ever really make a friend, and even if I do, they are bound to instantly back stab people when they hear something that they don't like about that person. I'm a loser, WJBscribe, and you're a winner. I mean, come oon, you're a highly respected administrator. I'm lower than dirt in reality and, even though I do have a family, I have had thoughts of suicide, occasionally, though I would never commit it. But Wikipedia's a cooler place for me to do something constructive for the community, even though they are unlikely to appreciate it (I nominated an article for deletion, and the nomination flat-out failed, and I feel it was stupid of me to do that). I will always be about as useful as unscented perfume and as expendable as a bread crum, and nothing inn the world will change that. ARArgon05:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you're not a loser at all - not everyone always finds fitting in easy. I'm sure you have more friends than you think, I tend to find . I wouldn't worry about the AfD - you're very new here and everyone makes mistakes when they're new. Its not going to held against you. There are people who've been working on the projects for months or even years who are bound to more familiar with how things work but everyone was new at some point :-). Don't think of AfD noms as being about you - they're about the article. As you get more experienced you'll find your feet and things will seem more natural. Anyway, I hope your not too put off - I know some of the hurdles must seem pretty daunting but just keep going and don't rush things. I'm sure you'll come to fit in fine and who knows, months down the line you might be running for adminship yourself. WjBscribe06:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Interesting you bring that up, I think I want to be an admin someday, though it definitely isn't gonna be until maybe around November, when I have gained community trust, a good understanding of policies here, and experience with several aspects of Wikipedia. What I expect adminship to be would be something that sounds like authority, but once gained, just feels like a technical matter that gives you the power to delete pages, block and unblock users, assist administrative backlog, and work at the noticeboards to assist. Basically, it sounds like responsibility and work, and not like authoritative power. In other words, adminship is a promotion from editor to system operator (sysop), and the powers given to sysops are only special because those powers aren't given to everyone. When Jimbo says that "It's not a big deal," he doesn't mean that those things aren't worth being proud of or that they're not a lot of responsibility and power, he means that you just don't feel any more powerful. You don't feel like you have authority like you've never had before, you basically feel like just another editor who has a mop, bucket, keys to the block log (ability to block/unblock), and an eraser and backup file (ability to delete and undelete).
But for some reason, that actually appeals to me. You see, I enjoy participating in AfD's and similar discussions. I think the ability to block/unblock would useful for fighting vandalism-only accounts and giving second chances to those who just didn't know better. I think that assisting with organizing Wikipedia's vast bookshelf of information sounds like enjoyment. I think I would like to run for adminship someday. I would be responsible and diligent with the mop. ARArgon06:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
RE Your message
I am looking at Durin's work given that he seems to act very partially, that lead me to find out that many of his contributions lack referencing, the general references provided at foot don't cover many of the assertions, if you prefer I can tag inline for showing those problem points. If you feel better I can also handle this task to other editors.
I have no dispute with Durin, I simply want to know who is claiming my work as own and he doesn't want to provide that information either because he doesn't want (which makes his present actions bad) or because he doesn't have it (which should make his past actions quite bad).
About what you call dispute is simply my claim to know who is abusing of my work, about citations, please check yourself and you will see that citations or sourcing is not given and the foot general reference doesn't cover those assertions. But like I said, I will handle this to other editors so you feel more comfortable (and Durin also of course) Vanished user 16:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
This is going to escalate. I see no reason for you to edit the same articles as Durin - Wikipedia is a big place. If the referencing of those articles is a problem, someone else is bound to sort it or raise the matter. I think its best that you don't continue editing those articles as its showing you in rather a bad light. Durin's issues with the images you uploaded are not personal, yet you seem to be turning this all into a personal matter. WjBscribe16:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Is not always what you do but how you do it Vanished user 16:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
With this matter closed, I would like to leave you a thought, you called my editions harassment but did you ever asked Durin why the copyright issues came after he disliked my replies to him at another talk page the same day? Uhmmm food for the thought... Reply not required, case closed Vanished user 17:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
