User talk:Proabivouac/Archive 8

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

Barnstar[edit]

IMHO this is very much deserved.

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your constant efforts in defending Wikipedia policy and upholding Wikipedia values in spite of severe and unreasonable pressure to desist. •CHILLDOUBT• 12:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Chill doubt! I really appreciate it.Proabivouac 20:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)[edit]

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Torah judgement reloaded[edit]

You were once involved in the discussion about whether the Banu Qurayza were massacred based/in line with/etc. provisions of the Torah. Some editor has reopened that can and I think you may want to comment ar Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Torah_issue_reloaded. Cheers, Str1977 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this. Str1977 (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about Durova[edit]

A colleague of mine recently pointed out that you were unsure as to why I marked remedy 8 as passing, even though it only had 6 votes and the majority for the case was 7 votes. As I explained on my talk page and questioned on Paul August's, an "abstain" vote lowers the majority for that proposal. You are free to review the relevant portion of the policy for more information. I'm sorry for the confusion. Cbrown1023 talk 23:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)[edit]

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


hey pro,you've been away for quite some time from wikipedia.hope that everything is okGrandia01 (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings[edit]

In my religion this is a time of year for reconciliation. You and I have both worked in the interests of the project from different perspectives. Would you like to talk? DurovaCharge! 01:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Hi Proabivouac!!!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!! I hope you have a successful year to come!!! Best, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)[edit]

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3[edit]

Thank you for your participation in my RfA. And yes, I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate. Where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I do have to admit some concerns with some of your own comments, which I felt were veering a bit towards personal attacks,[1] and I would encourage you to keep this in mind when you participate in RfAs in the future, so you can try to make your comments in a more civil way. It is possible to oppose someone's candidacy, without attacking them personally or stating falsehoods. Anyway, as regards my own adminship, I am going to take it slowly for now -- I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, though I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. --Elonka 01:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

way to go pro.expect to be disliked.this is what usually happens to honest and no-bullsh** people in this lifeGrandia01 (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)[edit]

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

I noticed you haven't been very active in the past little while. Have you lost interest?

I just wanted to let you know that we all miss you. And if you ever feel like editing again, you're always welcome here. Medieval Man 07:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kyriakos (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

I'm not sure whether you ever happened to notice this, which was motivated by a comment you had made elsewhere at the time and which might be of interest. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinators election has started[edit]

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)[edit]

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ON BS, HK and HE[edit]

That was an interesting thing you just did. Relata refero (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple, actually: false charges suck. BhaiSaab didn't do what it was alleged he'd done. There are no "buts" here as far I'm concerned, any more than there were with User:Matt57 and the false charges to which he was subjected (in his case, not by accident.) I rarely agreed with BhaiSaab, and often disagreed with Matt57, but "POV" is of little concern to me here: to bear false witness is never acceptable, under any excuse.Proabivouac (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Roberts' wild goose chase[edit]

Hi.

I've been lurking at WR, and I came across this thread, specifically Post 92 by Robert Roberts. Do you think you could talk some sense into him and get him to say the name of the article? I think there's a lot of intelligent commentary at WR, but if everyone is going to assent to Robert Roberts' "experiment", then you're no better than the irresponsible BLP editors you all complain about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polo Shirt (talk • contribs) 06:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)[edit]

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration[edit]

A request for arbitration has been made on a matter in which you were involved. You may add yourself as a party and comment if desired at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Appeal_of_commuity_ban_of_Iantresman. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages[edit]

Hi,

A quick message concerning the following pages that don't seem intended to be imminently used:

I have provisionally blanked these (WP:UP#NOT), as no action has taken place for so long, in the meantime, and if you don't plan to use these (as seems likely) no action is needed by you - they can be left, or deleted in a while. You can always ask for the markup back if you ever need it in future, if that happens, of course.

Best,

FT2 (Talk | email) 17:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of Oldwindybear and Orderinchaos - the second still an administrator, despite well-documented and indisputably abusive sockpuppetry - it is obvious enough to whose request you are responding. The evidence of Oldwindybear's socking has been linked from several blogs, and should not be blanked under any circumstances. I'd go so far to say that that OWB himself would agree. This is a technical lesson on how to perform proper sock identifications. The other, I'm afraid, speaks to the corruption and double standards of Wikipedia justice - administrators can get away with long term egregious abuses with only a warning, so long as the thinnest pretense of innocence is provided (the "gay lovers" defense) which no one really believes. Forget most administrators, most contributors have more integrity than this. Please do not blank my userspace pages again, FT2.Proabivouac (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So ... Orderinchaos as well - it seems to be the ménage a trois defence. (I contributed to the OWB case, but was not aware of the other, the timeline for which appears to sustain the charge.) I see that the 2 surrogates both stopped editing altogether immediately after the vociferous oppose in triplicate on Elonka's rfa around 1 Aug 07. The timelines should be restored as well, I believe. (Good stuff.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pssst[edit]

You may wish to revert this as you did for its parent page. 71.174.111.205 (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You do not seem to edit much, if at all, any more, and your most recent edits are not acceptable - userspace is not for laundry lists of grudges and speculation. I think it's time to call it a day. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be hard-pressed to determine the origin of the "grudges" you are imaging here, for I'd no contact with Orderinchaos at all prior to the filing of this report…unless you believe I meant to retaliate against him for opposing Elonka's second RfA, which I foolishly supported? Only the socking and accompanying dishonesty bothers me, otherwise he seems an intelligent and capable administrator, with whose socks, incidentally, I generally agreed. Do you find it inconceivable that anyone would aim to ensure the integrity of the project, without some nefarious underlying motive?Proabivouac (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems rather silly. Blocking someone who's only recent edits have been on his own talk page? Whatever happened to a simple "hey, about that page..." note? So, let me get this straight: User:Oldwindybear was blocked for sockpuppeting and you suspect User:Orderinchaos of controlling that sockpuppet? Frotz (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wishes to defuse a historic event, it seems an excellent strategy to delete pages not touched since Aug 07 which everyone had forgotten (or not known) about and then block the initial contributor of the material simply for restoring his own page. And then, having created this gratuitous drama in 2008, to allege simultaneous drama-queenery and inactivity is really quite splendid. (User:Orderinchaos had nothing to do with OWB.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you are aware, you have been unblocked. Without prejudice, I would comment that I performed that action purely on procedural grounds and according to my understanding of WP principles - it should not be taken as condoning the (re)creation of the concerned pages. I suggest that you consider the now lifted block as a final warning regarding the pursuing of this historical matter. If you should have further more recent evidence regarding your claims then there are the appropriate venues in which to submit it - but I strongly suggest that you compile any such material off-Wiki, to avoid any further potential disruption. I would further comment that the discussion at WP:ANI regarding the matter has not finalised, and that you may yet face further sanction. I imagine that you are aware that your future conduct will have much bearing on the consequences of that debate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I suggest that you consider the now lifted block as a final warning regarding the pursuing of this historical matter."
How is it "historical" when the wrongdoer (among others) is still an administrator? Is uncovering admin sockpuppetry a bannable offense, even while we keep our socking admins? We have our priorities reversed, I'm afraid. As it is, I'm forced to report your socks off wiki because corrupt but well-connected administrators prevail upon their colleagues to misuse the tools to cover up their corruption. I would like these very accurate pages undeleted.Proabivouac (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)[edit]

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)[edit]

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)[edit]

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)[edit]

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

I hope you are well, it has been a long time since we spoke. HIBC 05:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)[edit]

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ANI pasting[edit]

I removed your entry here. It's not really the best place to leave that there, my friend. Perhaps create a subpage in your userspace and paste it there and then link to it. Thank you. Utan Vax (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This story needs to be told. I will repost it; please do not revert me again.Proabivouac (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow!! If there's even a shred of truth to this, it needs to be investigated. Identity theft is a pretty serious issue. Can I suggest you shoot an email to arbcom while you're at it? - Alison ❤ 22:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have spoken to this fellow on the telephone at length, and corroborated the details of his story. There is no doubt at all that he's telling the truth, as he was several years ago.Proabivouac (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its pretty far outside of our ah.. jurisdiction if you will.--Tznkai (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Letter[edit]

Please hold off on posting that letter to the incidents board. I'm pretty sure that isn't the right place for it at all. I'm going to look around, but you may consider talking to WP:ArbCom--Tznkai (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold off on suppressng the truth.Proabivouac (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. ANI was the wrong place to bring it. See WP:OTRS. Utan Vax (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the letter asked me to post it there.Proabivouac (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Image:Taxwoman.jpg (on commons, not used anywhere) seems to be a leftover. If you go to commons and cry "copyright violation", it'll probably disappear real quick. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I've gone ahead and deleted it - Alison ❤ 22:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty shocked by all this, and feel seriously duped by this person. I know I'm not the only admin who was taken in by this nonsense, both on and off Wikipedia, so I see no problem in leaving that up there for a while to at least inform the community as to what has happened here. Apart from the impact on the project, the subject (Mr. Selwood's girlfriend) needs a certain redress too and this needs to come out into the open, for her own reputation's sake - Alison ❤ 22:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image was dead by the time I glanced at it. and if what you're saying is true Alison, I'm not sure its A. our choice to make and more importantly B. AN/I is frequented by administrators and few other people. If its big enough of a deal, we probably should get a checkuser run and OTRS involved at the very least.--Tznkai (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The victim wants it public. Neither she nor Chris wants to deal with "OTRS."Proabivouac (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is *not* the sort of place for this. WP:ANI Is not the sort of place for this. And if they want it public, they should contact the media, not wikipedia janitors.--Tznkai (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So Wikipedia is the sort of place for someone to be impersonated, but not the sort of place for the victim to complain about it? Get your priorities straight.Proabivouac (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its an encylopedia. Not a tool for justice. If it was, I'd be using it to host America's Most Wanted list. If you want it to be fixed, I wish you all the luck, but this isn't the place or the people you need.--Tznkai (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it is also a site where people are impersonated and libeled. Do you want to fix that, or cover it up?Proabivouac (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am a checkuser, as it happens. However, how's that going to help here? - Alison ❤ 22:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can find the IP of the person uploading the pictures and report it to the ISP for abuse?--Tznkai (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. The pictures were uploaded by commons:User:Shalom Yechiel way back last May, and appear to have been done in good faith, given that they were initially appropriately licensed (or so we thought). Checkusering him will 1) require a Commons checkuser and 2) not do any good whatsoever. I think those pics need to go, and have nuked the above unused one. I'm going to bring the matter up on Commons in a minute here. Chances are, they'll be nuked - Alison ❤ 22:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't play with picture space because the syntax is beyond me, but I'd take it up with commons. But this seems a sufficiently Big Hairy Deal that its beyond simple administration duties.--Tznkai (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Reported on Commons - Alison ❤ 23:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that this is happening on-wiki and with your research - just to check, though, have you notified ... well, communications committee people (David Gerard, etc)? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<--Who is there to notify? The real person is no one famous or important, just an average person who would probably be hurt in real life if we publicly disclosed his name. Since we aim to be nice people, we will probably try to avoid doing that. But its not as if this was some important political or business figure. Thatcher 04:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General heads-up to concom / office for "Something the press might find interesting and call in inquiring about". A bunch of WR "scandals" have ended up in at least The Register, the San Francisco Chronicle, and in some cases other press pubs... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've talked to the office in the past; they're useless, and no friends of mine.Proabivouac (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose?[edit]

I was merely suggesting that the people who know what is going on be given the chance to work on it without Slim constantly badgering them with unrelated trivia. The block is to prevent derailment into SlimVirgin's personal conspiracies. --Dragon695 (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I have no angle nor wish to quash your investigation. I was just as much duped as the next person about these socks. However, do you honestly feel that SlimVirgin's hysteria is justified? Let us not forget that she has often used Jayjg's access to the CU logs and mailing list for her own personal ends. This is a serious matter and SlimVirgin's wiki-politics should have no part in it. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Thread[edit]

Would you consider not linking the document? It's not going to do a great deal of good having it linked where people who aren't already looking for it will find it. If people want to find it, they can do so very easily. I'm going to remove the links to the boudoir stuff as well, since the guy who was complaining said elsewhere that he didn't want that linked, if I remember right. Brilliantine (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I've removed it. I thought long and hard about it but my conscience doesn't allow me to leave it there. I hope you aren't offended. Technically I suppose it falls under WP:OUTING. Brilliantine (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not offended at all.
(re the Boudoir links, I didn't add them; those IPs weren't me)Proabivouac (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't implying they were, sorry if you read it that way. Brilliantine (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No trouble.Proabivouac (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google cache[edit]

You said it was possible to use webcitation for a google cache. Have you done this and, if so, how, as when I try webcitation returns an invalid result? Ty 08:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't work for me either - I just said that the google cache version looked good, but as we've both discovered, webcitation won't accept it.Proabivouac (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)[edit]

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)[edit]

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)[edit]

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)[edit]

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Proabivouac/Archive_8&oldid=1144574118"