User talk:Seraphimblade/archive 6

help!

how do i remove your barnstars???????????

Tags

I have tremendous respect for your opinion and sense of fairplay, but am a bit confused on your objective at WP:N. I want to see more clarity with WP:N as the central focus, but until it improves the shrub planters can use its weaknesses to defend their gardens.

It seems that this tag issue is consuming too much energy among several people who agree on the big picture. I see it as minor but heating to unreasonable. Why not let the disputed tag serve as a compromise, and let's get this energy focused on shrub trimming.

PS: have you seen how the film cabal is twisting the MfD consenus? Claiming it as a clear validation of the page. That is precisely the reason it should have been deleted salted and capped in concrete (not that I feel strongly).

Cheers!

Kevin

--Kevin Murray 02:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is a shrub planter? Am I missing something?

I personally disagree with Kevin, I think the film page should be kept, but the rejected tag should remain. Travb (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to me there is a dispute over the wording of the page, but not over the existence of the page. The disputedtag implies the latter, and is therefore probably not the best to use on that page. >Radiant< 09:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please respond here or on WP:NN

I was "reminded" of 3RR just now.[1] Is adding:

{{disputedtag}}

...for the second time a 3RR violation? Since my edits have been different everytime, obviously this would not be a 3RR correct? Should I ask WP:ANI or can we resolve this together without third party intervention? Travb (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, we will see how things pan out in the next few days, happy editing :) And thanks for your comments and work.

I think we have a fair chance of working things out together as a communitee. [If I was a betting man, I wouldn't put money on it, but hope dies last :)--and I have been surprised before] Travb (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought You Might Like This

I thought you might like this section that I put on my userpage. It seems to me many editing conflicts result from contributors who have highly inflated opinions about themselves and their edits.

Before Contributing...

I have found that sometimes unqualified people weigh in on Wikipedia articles, reducing the accuracy and quality of these articles in spite of their good intentions. Based on my experience, I believe these editors genuinely believe they are improving the articles they contribute to. The phenomenon reminds one of the deluded contestants who try out for American Idol and only end up humiliating themselves. When the judges offer sound criticism to these contestants they tend to respond quite angrily. So it is, I have found, at Wikipedia. Being honest with these editors sometimes results in hard feelings on both sides. Perhaps I can prevent some of these hard feelings by sharing with you the criteria I try to abide by and subsequently expect of other editors. Before contributing, ask yourself the following questions:

1) Am I qualified to write? That is, do I possess a sufficient mastery of English to make a worthy entry in an encyclopedia? Am I aware that writing for an encyclopedia requires a set of skills not needed on a blog? If you are not a good writer consider running your proposed edits past those who do possess such skills before you make changes to an article.

2) Have I mastered the subject matter I am writing about? Having expertise in one field or subject does not make one qualified to write on another. Nor does reading just a few books and articles about a subject necessarily make one sufficiently knowledgeable to address an issue in a reference work. This mastery of the subject must involve a thorough reading of many books and articles that express various views. Spending time talking to one's friends on a blog does not qualify one academically to contribute to an encyclopedia.

3) Am I willing to accept correction on matters of substance and style? Wikipedia articles are constructed by the consensus of a community of editors. Individual contributors can not expect to bypass this community and they must be willing to accept correction or criticism without getting angry and bitter.

4) Am I sufficiently confident in my edits that I do not believe I need to resort to sock puppetry or other violations of policy for my edits to stand?

5) When engaged in an editing conflict with someone is my goal accuracy or victory? Wikipedia's purpose is to inform its readers not to boost the egos of its editors.

Will3935 19:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with vandalism!

Thanks a bunch for dealing with the vandalism on my talk page! Patiwat 22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

rpa

Rbj continued to make more personal attacks after your {{rpa}}. I don't know why he keeps doing this, but I've asked him again to stop. If he does it again, do you think wp:rfc is appropriate? — coelacan — 02:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

He's a pretty good editor on physics topics; I will say that. I don't know about ANI. I have taken things there that I don't think were substantially dissimilar to this, and was told to get over it. I think it's ANI that's actually too busy and too desensitized for personal attack reports. — coelacan — 04:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. In the past he's come to my talk page with his flames. I doubt he'll do that again, but I would really like to just be able to edit talk:marriage in peace. It feels like my presence there is what pushes him from casual ranting to downright nastiness. — coelacan — 04:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A Ctrl-F search for my name on his talk page reveals most of the reasons, I think. — coelacan — 05:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA?

I noticed your editor review... Are you gearing up for an RfA? Need a nominator? :-) Grandmasterka 10:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment from WavesTaska

Harry Smith (Infielder)

I created the page because it was refereced on Harry_Smith, i deleted the page if you diont need it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WavesTaska (talk • contribs).

Replied on user's talk. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at Wikipedia talk:Attribution

Re your comment: "If the university is unaccredited, its fact-checking process is meaningless." I'm not convinced of that. I would assume unaccredited universities may vary in the quality of their fact-checking, from practically none to about as good as some accredited universities. --Coppertwig 20:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. I think we can say that as Wikipedians, we can't rely on unaccredited universities; but some individuals or organizations who happen to know about specific universities might be able to rely on them for purposes unrelated to Wikipedia, so it might not be accurate to simply say that they are unreliable. Also, there's a difference between "unreliable" and "meaningless". --Coppertwig 00:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most popular given names

Hi, just wondering if you could add a rationale to your close. Thanks, Pan Dan 21:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Pan Dan 21:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a rationale at your request. However, if you disagree, or have heard from anyone who does, please DRV it. Any non-admin close to which there is any opposition or question should be examined at DRV, in my opinion. (I removed a spam-blacklisted link from your page by the way, I hope you don't mind, but I couldn't save the page with it there!) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pan_Dan"

I do think the article violates WP:WINAD (note I recommended delete). However I recognize that others have a different interpretation, and I think your close is fair and not challengeable. (What I take issue with is admins who determine consensus by counting the votes. That's why I asked you for a rationale, and I thank you again for providing it.) Pan Dan 21:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Editor Review

Answers to your questions and statements: 1) You're welcome! 2) No. 3) Of course I don't disagree, thank you for changing it! Nousernamesleft 23:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Email

Good evening; could you glance at your inbox when you have the chance? anthonycfc ^[talk] 03:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replied again. anthonycfc ^[talk] 00:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank-you for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Jerry lavoie 03:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 14:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

AfC mixup

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-02-06#Berrytown, New Zealand. I don't know if you realised it at the time, but the next submission was unheadered, and you Declined both at once as though they were one submission. I've added a header for the next submission, ZMK DV-2. Would you consider re-reviewing these submissions seperately? Thank you. --Geniac 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Walt Sorensen delete review

The delete review I requested was based on the information that was added at the end of the debate minutes before the debate was closed. there was no time for a consensus to be formed taking into account this new information. The delete review was not intended as a adf part 2. Please reconsider your Endorsement photodude 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

there are two non primary sources one is the college paper as you pointed out the second is the book from the international photographic society of Nantou, Taiwan. which includes the lecture given by the subject and a copy of the images that are displayed in the city hall at Nantou, Taiwan. This is a limited circulation book and has no ISBN that I know of (i don't read Chinese so it might), which makes this a hard source to reference, there are photographs of the pages in the book included as a reference. Please tell me if there is a better way to reference this information. Also how should the Notable art be referenced as a non primary source? a letter of reference? non-primary sources for artists in reference to notable art acquired by governments is difficult to obtain, which is an issue surrounding this subject. any suggestions you have would be helpful.photodude 01:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the book with me at the moment, I'll get you the information by tomorrow. the following is a link to images from the book[2]. I assume from the cover of the book that it was published in 2005. thanks for your help. Any recommendations on how to cite notable art that was acquired by a government and put on public display? photodude 01:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

the difficulty of citing notable art is a big issue. I think your suggestion citing the location, government and year of display or acquisition is about all that can be done. photodude 02:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ok on the book I found an isbn number. I can't read the publisher information and i only think the line that includes 2005 12 31 is the publishing date. any way the ISBN for the book is 986-80230-1-7 call number 958.232 photodude 03:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

only reference to the book on the web i can find [3] might find more if i read and could search in chinese. photodude 03:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your vote to relist photodude 03:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks for all your help, I think if the article is relisted I will just leave the publishing in chinese. unfortunetly this seems to be turning into a battle with a bunch of editors who have percived notions of what the wiki policies are. perception is often more powerful then fact. photodude 22:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Question from anonymous user

i deleted that part as there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that iran does sponsor terrorism and so its emplacement within that page appears to be almost political propaganda, maybe instead of deleting it should be instead modified to show that it is likely that Iran do sponsor terrorism but that there is no proof? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.16.146.159 (talk • contribs).

Replied on user's talk. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User page

Thanks for the vandalism revert on my user page. ;) Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 23:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

Hi.... Due to an edit conflict, I accidentally reverted your changes to Kent Hovind when it had actually been my intention to revert the removals by the previous anon-ip editor as presumed vandalism. The edit summary "reverting unexplained removals as presumed vandalism" referred to his edits, not yours. However, the entry in the trivia section you removed, and which I unintentionally restored, is actually accurate, as outlandish as it sounds. I agree it's not sourced and I'm not sure where you'd find a source to confirm it, but I can confirm that Hovind did appear on Ali G, having seen the episode. I don't know whether you want to just leave it, fact-tag it or removed it as unsourced. Whatever you like. --Rrburke^(talk) 02:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

See User talk:Seraphimblade/sandbox2/2. — Deckiller 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Rajkumar Kanagasingam

Hi,

An editor is continuously vandalising my Bio over dispute related to Talk:Anton Balasingham. The editor tried hard to delete my Bio from wikipedia. You can see the evidence here(1) and here(2)' The editor is taking an undue interest over my Bio and deleted over Citation. I have restored the information. I requested an Administrator to check my Bio whether Citations are enough. I also taken this matter for Request for Comment. Though I have off-line media archives(which are attached on Talk:Rajkumar Kanagasingam, I couldn't bring it to the articles. Now I am very much frustrated. Please help me on this matter.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 05:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas Tarinth

Ketchup

What are you up to these days? Alan.ca 11:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been spending a great deal of time rating the city articles. I'm trying to get every capital city in the world rated and included in the WP:CITY project. After that is near completion I will focus on improving some of the stub and start class top importance articles. I see you're up for RFA again, I hope it goes well. Alan.ca 02:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• The challenge with researching foreign cities is that much of the information tends to be available much more easily to people who are local. I think most of my efforts in relation to foreign cities will focus on promoting the research of the article with interest groups and providing feedback on their edits. However, if I come up with something for you, I will be sure to let you know. Alan.ca 02:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Huckabee

for the record, I have never demanded proof that his parents influenced him. I acknowledged that parents influence children. I asked for citations, just like we should for any BLP. I also asked that any information about his parents should be about how he and they relate, and HOW they influenced him. WJhonson's page was actually so disconnected from Huckabee's life and times, that I don't understand how he even feels it demonstrates that influence. I gave him examples on the talk page, I made multiple compromise offers, and still he persists. As noted, I've left the page for a while, but I do find ignoring his attitudes and mischaracterizations difficult. ThuranX 23:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Serim could you please review the page I linked to, to confirm for yourself that the citations I provide *on* that page (although perhaps not the *page* itself) are indeed reliable sources. For example, tombstones published in a book. Census records published online. Death Index published online, etc. And to the above, we do *not* in any biography need to *show* how parents influenced children in order to include the *names* of those parents. That's a bar that is extremely more strict that what we actually use. BLP does not in any way suggest it. Wjhonson 23:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Test subject

I'm thinking about using Xenosaga as a test subject, although the Star Wars wikia is better to use as an actual example on the policy page. I started the Xenosaga wiki a while ago, and I just revisited it for the first time in at least a year. It needs a lot of work, but at least it will be a start to transwiki everything over there and to Wikibooks. — Deckiller 21:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Xenosaga lists were on AfD a couple months ago, and I promised them a solution to the cruft issue within a few months in a manner that would make everyone happy. Consequently, there would be essensially no controversy with the Xenosaga concept (although the Wikibooks aspect can hold off until this is officially initiated). Ironically, a couple of people have actually been pressing me for the solution as of late, and I was about to say "just delete it" until this compromise was forged. — Deckiller 21:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe Xenosaga had a wikibooks at one point, but I think it was deleted because of the format and the lack of information. — Deckiller 21:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Here's the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Xenosaga. — Deckiller 22:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. I just finished transwikifying two of the four non-character lists to the Wikia. — Deckiller 22:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like they're against plot guides (or, as the admin put it, "video game guides"). It looks like Wikia is the primary move then. — Deckiller 23:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Writing as in taking the information and turning it into a wikibooks format? I might have some time to do it, although I'm in the middle of a couple FA pushes and some other tasks. It depends on how much additional work is required. Glad to see the go ahead :) — Deckiller 20:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• I see there's still some opposition to the concept on Wikibooks though. — Deckiller 20:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Iranian sentiments edits

Thank you for starting the clean-up process; I wasn't looking forward to the vitriol that would have assuredly ensued had I started deleting all the uncited information. If you have any questions about what sortd of statements need citation, please ask. Internal wikilinks are not enough, but newspaper, or other reliable sources of info are suitable for citation.Arcayne 03:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Tranwiki issue

I noticed there are some bumps on Wikibooks. I'm well on my way to completing the transwiki process for both the Xenogears and Xenosaga plot lists to the Xenosaga Wikia. External links provided at the bottom of the main pages. It has worked so far; no opposition. I've also been attempting to spread the idea a bit. Looks like we might have to drop the Wikibooks aspect though. — Deckiller 21:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah: [4]. I was planning on transwikying everything over last year for similar reasons, but the idea fizzled due to other issues. — Deckiller 22:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

THANKS!

For reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Wow! I've never been vandalized before. I must have finally done some quality editing. Would you be so kind as to add a stern warning to the talk page of the vandal? Edison 03:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Need Advice

I am working on a biographical article about Brian McLaren and one of the editors (Virgil Vaduva, a McLaren fan)seems to be almost psychotic. In the course of making over 1100 edits I have had editing conflicts with some very emotional characters, but I think this guy needs medication. When I place quotations from McLaren in the article he says they are inflammatory and have no place....I could go on and on about his beligerent conduct. Now he is being intrasigent and won't let any one else's edits stand. He refuses to discuss anything reasonably. He has scared away other editors. I'm at my wits end. Can you give me any advice? Thanks!Will3935 05:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That was a quick response! Thanks for your advice. I did go ahead and ask for a third opinion. That seems the least threatening way to handle things. Thanks again.Will3935 06:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA

I don't think anon "supports" or "opposes" are counted but consider my support. 141.213.210.80 01:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

They are not, but I appreciate your thought in any case. :) Please do be civil with Runcorn though, (s)he certainly has every right to express an opinion (as of course do you). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say those things about Runcorn if I didn't think them to be true and have evidence for each instance. But like I mentioned on the RFA, his admin capability and biases are irrelevant to his "support" or "oppose" declaration. I still think it is potentially relevant to mention why a "strong oppose" is on your RFA. 141.213.210.80

Runcorn's comment

Could you maybe explain either here or on the RfA page what Runcorn is referring to? JoshuaZ 15:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I will explain here, unless of course you'd care to pose it as a question there. He didn't really seem to desire a response. A while back, an anonymous editor approached me, stating that he'd found my name through WP:FACT (which I was listed on at the time), seen here. The request was certainly civil enough, and was a request to check a reference, so I certainly had no reason to doubt it was just a newer user asking for help. There did indeed turn out to be somewhat of a concern. In the interview cited as a source for Sampras' Jewishness, Sampras actually carefully avoids stating that he is Jewish, only describing that he does have some Jewish heritage. Given that he does not self-identify as Jewish, I agreed that the information should be removed until a better source can be found. (Contrary to Runcorn's assertion, I do consider this a BLP matter, some people are very sensitive about accurate representation of their heritage, and any such claim should be sourced to BLP standards.) Runcorn contacted me later by email, stating that the IP user was User:Antidote, but offered no evidence for the claim. Neither Antidote, nor any of the sockpuppets Runcorn listed, had been a party to the discussion on Talk:List of South-East European Jews, and I saw no other evidence for the claim (and several anonymous editors had been involved in a dispute on the talk page), and to be quite blunt, an accusation like that should be dismissed if no evidence is provided.

So, to sum up my views on the whole thing:

• My edits were my own, the anonymous editor just requested a source check. (S)he didn't even suggest removal of the information, I did that on my own as a BLP concern.
• Questions of ancestry or heritage are sensitive to many people, fall under the "potentially controversial" provision of WP:BLP, and must be sourced to those standards.
• I will dismiss an accusation of sock/meatpuppetry out of hand (so long as it's not glaringly obvious, which it certainly wasn't in this case), unless the accuser can back it up with something more than "I say so" or "This user agreed with something a banned user said once." Burden of proof is on the accuser.
• I probably should have used a more moderate tone in my email, and not gotten quite as irritated.

Hope that helps to clear it up, please feel free to ask if you have any additional questions. You're welcome to copy this to the RFA's talk page or anywhere else if you'd like. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 16:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki continued

I'd say we just give up with Wikibooks. They are still too ignorant to grasp what we are saying. I think we should focus on the individual Wikia then. — Deckiller 17:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

In a few minutes you're going to pass your RfA with 96% support - that's a great achievement, well done! A Bureaucrat will be along shortly to issue you with your shiny new set of admin tools. If you need any assistance in using them then please ask and I will do my best to answer them for you! Best wishes and happy mopping! (aeropagitica) 00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Conga-rats!!

.. it's passed!! Well done on your RFA :) - Alison^☺ 01:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, as Alison says, you are now an administrator! If you haven't already, now is the time to look at the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Best wishes, Warofdreams talk 21:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. I think you will be an outstanding administrator!Will3935 01:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, now you can help out at AIV instead of backlogging it ;) All the best with the new tools! – riana_dzasta 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay! ~ Arjun 01:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll do great. Thanks for the support at mine by the way. John Reaves (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats. WjBscribe 01:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A little late perhaps, but congratulations nonetheless. -- Black Falcon 07:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I was putting up actual facts on Jack Bauer. The character is the main antagonist and does enjoy killing innocent lives and heroes that try to stop the evil threat known as the CTU and United States Government. 24.117.76.31 01:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Large pathetic galaxy

Hi. Could you explain your reasoning in your closure here? The way I saw it, nobody was arguing for it to be kept, and there was arguably consensus to either delete or delete and redirect. Trebor 15:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. It seemed slightly perverse that the outcome would be something that nobody was arguing for, but I forgot that you could merge and redirect without an AfD decision (and will suggest it on the talk page now). Thanks for the explanation. Trebor 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with EN page

Can I take you up on your offer to help mediate? I'm now involved with the Every Nation entry.

My read of this is that Thelma Bowlen is following Wiki guidelines. Contributors Blueboy96 and Osakadan are accusing her of having "an agenda". However, if you read through the talk pages, it seems rather obvious that these two are the activists here.

And on that note, Osakdan reverted my edit without explanation on the talk page. Pink collar girl 09:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the EN page! I looked through the Talk Page and apparently it's been through mediation before. If you look at the page's History, you'll notice the numerous contributions made by Blueboy and Osakadan and how their contributions to the page are obviously biased. One look at their individual talk pages and it's apparent other contributors have had to raise similar issues as well. Since I'm new to this, I get the impression that not all contributors are interested in creating encyclopedic entries. Appreciate your time! :-) Pink collar girl 05:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I knew you'd make it, congratulations on becoming an administrator, and I am most certainly glad that I voted for you.. Have a great day! :P Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 04:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Books!

Sorry to see how things worked out. I was away hence not getting back to you but.... All the best anyway, catch you around! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the block

Thanks for blocking 145.103.252.45! Your a great Admin Crested Penguin 10:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Just looked, you have the same name as me! Thanks once again! Crested Penguin 10:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation!

Thanks for the explanation/clarification on my talk page. Appreciate it! Pink collar girl 03:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of User:Reader contributor from WP:AIV

Hi, Just unclear on why you removed User:Reader contributor from WP:AIV as a "content dispute." S/he has been spamming links to commercial websites with objectionable amounts of advertising that s/he is the marketing director for. The links have been removed multiple times by multiple independent editors. If this isn't the textbook definition of spamming, as well as a violation of WP:COI, and WP:EL, I don't know what is. Per WP:AN persistent spammers should be reported to WP:AIV. This spammer has been given appropriate warnings, and persists past {{spam4}} which indicates that blocking is appropriate for continuing to spam after the warning. Just unclear as to why preventing this user from continuing to spam WP is a bad thing. Leuko 05:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The "disputed edits" are not being "discussed." Everyone is just telling the repeat spammer why his spam links keep getting removed. And the contributor is placing his link on a number of different articles. I still see it as spamming and vandalism... Leuko 05:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate X-Men (story arcs): Peer Review

Greetings! In December of 2006, you participated in the discussion for the 2nd deletion nomination of Ultimate X-Men (story arcs). After two months of rewriting, reorganizing, and referencing, the article is now undergoing a WikiProject Comics peer review. Your editorial opinion would be most welcome to help us improve the article to A-class status. Thanks for your time! - fmmarianicolon | Talk 06:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing of AIV names

Why are you removing AIV names when the names clearly violate the username policy? Real96 07:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be blatant with you, but this conversation is continued on this thread. (For your records) :-) Real96 07:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah! Congrats on your successful RFA! Real96 07:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Faerûn: Present

Seraphimblade, you closed this AfD as delete and deleted the article, but I think you forgot the other nominated articles. As nominator, it would be improper if I deleted them, but as a closed discussion, these could easily be forgotten. Could you please delete them or (if you want them kept) remove the AfD notices and add the decision to the talk pages? Thank you! Fram 10:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, enjoy your coffee :-) 20:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

But most of time food article doesn't cite any reference. I think the contents aren't likely to be challenged. Right.--NAHID 08:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

i didnt delete anything...

i got a message tht said i deleted stuff about kent hovind...i havent been on here for about 2 weeks...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Large pathetic galaxy (second nomination)

Hi Seraphimblade, hope adminship is treating you well. Fraid I'm here to complain though :-) (heh, you wanted the job...). I'm really not sure about your close of this AfD as no concensus. There were no keep opinions in it and a difference of opinion as to whether outright deletion or a conversion into a redirect was appropriate. As I see the breakdown of comments:

• 4 delete opinions - all well argued
• 2 redirect opinions - one well argued, the other just saying "potentially useful" as redirect
• 1 move opinion - well rebutted, with the proposnent then showing confusion as to the proper fate of the article

There seemed to be agreement that there should no longer be an article at Large pathetic galaxy. If you weren't sure whether to delete outright or change into a redirect surely you could have relisted the debate for further discussion? I am presently minded to take the close to DRV but wanted to discuss it with you first... WjBscribe 15:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The talkpage is not going to be a productive venue for discussion on an article that so few people visit. And a delete concensus ona talkpage is of no validity anyway. Why did you not just relist the debate in todays AfDs so concensus could be reached? WjBscribe 16:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My problem is that all I can do is start a new AfD, whereas you can relist the present discussion in todays debates adding the {{relist}} tag to the end of the present discussion, so that the debate continues from the point it had reached. I really think its important to get an actual outcome on this one. WjBscribe 16:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the process, but from my point of view we've been left with an article that says "Large pathetic galaxy is the informal designation for a large, dim clump of primarily red giant stars in proximity to our own galaxy." which is just not true, and I don't know what to do about that. Could you bear to explain on my talk page (or WJB's) what the options are? Thanks Chrislintott 17:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Large pathetic galaxy. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WjBscribe 18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem- got to that outcome in the end. And we're all learning around here- I don't regret supporting your RfA, I think you're doing a great job! I've listed the AfD in the appropriate Delsort so that there might be more comments this time and we can actually get a result :-). WjBscribe 16:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR followup

A checkuser revealed that editor Davkal used a sockpuppet/meatpuppet to evade his 3RR block and make an additional revert: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Davkal. Just giving you a heads up since you were the admin who gave him the 3RR block (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Davkal reported by User:Milo H Minderbinder (Result: 24 hours)). --Minderbinder 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. --Minderbinder 12:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

help out

can you help get the false "vandalism" warnings off my talk page? one editor put 12 or so of them there even though there was no vandalism and others keep re-inserting them, and i just am not sure how things work here, if i remove them is that 3RR or is it OK? if others keep putting them on there is that harrassment? it seems that when people see the warnings they just assume they are true. --71.112.7.212 06:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks a million seraphimblade 71.112.7.212 06:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean I have to let him insult me?

Does that mean I have to let him insult me? Can I at least archive the talk page? He is clearly doing this to me (and others, btw) to avoid having his pr-text edited. Answer on this page, please.--DorisH 13:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It certainly does not. If an editor is being insulting, ask them to stop. If they refuse to do so, there are processes for dispute resolution, and you may also make an informal complaint on the incident noticeboard. However, the fact that one editor is behaving inappropriately does not mean that any other editor is excused from doing so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not planning on feeding the trolls. The practice of smear-campaigning is what they employ throughout, as can be seen in the edit histories - so it would be kind of braindead of me to assume that they would stop if I ask them to. It just gives them more opportunity to smear-campaign, that's why you should not feed the trolls. --DorisH 13:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support during my recent RfA. I'm quite honored, and I hope I can live up to your words. (And I'll take all the support I can get. ^_-) Shimeru 16:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Is there a particular reason why you decided to skip this report?   /FunkyFly.talk_  20:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Gwen Gale

Just a FYI. Daniel Bryant 23:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And more FYI.--Blue Tie 00:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Gale states that she has emailed you and received no response. I urge you to respond in a timely fashion.Derex 01:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I don't want anything else, and I had no opinion over the block itself. The timing may have caused some confusion, as you may have been in the process of unblocking when I left this note (2 minutes before the unblock registered). Derex 01:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious reply Seraphimblade, it's truly appreciated. Sorry about missing on your age (argh) and what's more, I'll take the whole thing as a friendly 3rr warning if that's ok with you. Gwen Gale 01:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

AFD on Rajkumar Kanagasingam

Hi,

An AFD on my Bio Rajkumar Kanagasingam is brought only to distract the offences at wikipedia after stealing my e-mail address and thereafter my wiki passwords by Netmonger and his/her group and nothing else. How this user can bring this AFD before he clears himself from the offences which is now under investigation under an Administrator’s supervision and the details are here.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 05:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/The Wonder Girls

Hey, sorry about the mess here; I was fixing a few broken/incomplete AfD noms at the time, and in my rush "fixed" one that wasn't actually broken in the first place (the nominator created it in the proper location Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wonder Girls soon after). Since I created it in error, I tagged it as {{db-owner}} --- or is there a reason we need to keep the page? Thanks, cab 12:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Around the Rings

You labeled it a blatant advertisement and I have to disagree. If you've done any work within the Olympic movement at all, you would have heard of this group. Do a little research and you'll realize this is a legitimate entry. It would be akin to labeling an entry for ESPN as an ad. Aroundtherings.com is the only news agency that follows the business of the Olympics and as such, they get incredible access to world leaders. Send a note to anyone at the IOC, the USOC or even BOCOG and they will respond back. user:janicelmcdonald
I guess I'm still trying to work my way through where I should respond to your response, so I'm putting it here. I'm listing some places where Around the Rings has been quoted or referred to in order to verify that they are what I said. Your welcome to "userfy" it if you'd like. CHeck these links at: CNN [[5]] NPR [[6]] Sports Business News [[7]] USOC [[8]] VISA [[9]] Commons Dreams [[10]] World Rowing [[11]] This site lists Around the Rings as an official Olympic website McCarthy PR [[12]] user:janicelmcdonald
Sure. What do I need to do to rewrite? I know there is a lot more to say about it but I would have to do some more research. user:janicelmcdonald
Ok, I found a few things where others site the service's influence. Here is an article from Newsweek which calls it the "go-to source" for Olympic Bid information[[13]], and in Reuters where they refer to it as "influential." [[14]] They are quoted as well in the Chicago Sun Times. [[15]] user:janicelmcdonald
Where would I find it to edit? I haven't worked on it because I didn't know where I could see it. user:janicelmcdonald

Unfair

It was unfair of you to unblock user:Gwen Gale, who has a long history of edit waring. She games the system by stopping short of 4 reverts in 24 hours. She has been warned before. This time she violated the rule and should have been subjected to the consequences. --However whatever 22:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying

I'm trying to discuss the problem, but FeloniusMonk and Guettarda seem to think that baseless accusations by some blogger are comments and not allegations and seem to give them quite a bit of credence. Additionally, they seem to think that pointing out that only two people have made such allegations "minimizes" it because they want to include "other" critics but then there are no supporting links, only two blogs where one quotes the other. Care to help resolve the issue? El Cubano 05:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. El Cubano 05:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AN3 report

FM screwed up the time stamps - all 4 reverts are within 24 hours. Guettarda 06:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As a participant in the dispute, I'd say my advice isn't worth much. El Cubano is an established editor, who seems to have intentionally violated the 3rr. Obviously a block isn't meant to punish, just to stop. As for his actions since your warning - the look to me like he tried to recruit you to help him. If I were not involved, I would probably block him. On the other hand, if you AGF, you should never block anyone unless they had continued edit warring after they had broken the 3rr and been warned once. In that case though, it would be a 4rr. Guettarda 06:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I'm annoyed by what appear to be specious arguments (at least to me), and I'm trying to work on articles, not engage someone who is using what seem to be straw man arguments. Oh well. Guettarda 06:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

who are you?

who the hell are you and why are you trying to tell me what to do? Tell me, or else. Even if you cancel my account, I will another and keep making more, and more, and even more, so if you're just some random dude, then fuck off! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PoidLover (talk • contribs) 09:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Interesting remedy re LE web page

Protection is an interesting remedy with the Landmark Education web page. I have actually believed that it, for the longest time, should be protected. I also believe that Smee needs to be blocked on an ongoing basis whenever the 3RRs occur. The two examples I cited are rather abrasive, and Smee, in these cases, should request dispute resolution rather than reverting. Sm1969 05:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for protecting the page. I will no longer be focusing on editing that page in the future, and it will be off of my watchlist for a long time. In the future I will be much more quick to seek out dispute resolution. Thanks again. Smee 05:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

What blocking does do is add to the "block log" for this particular user so as dispute resolutions are used, it is possible to show the true character of an editor over long periods of time. User:Smeelgova has had arbitrations before on a related topic "The Hunger Project" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger) and a comment by Wikipedia general counsel Brad Patrick, "I'm not the best person to respond to this given my role, but I can tell you that the pattern of editing that you have engaged in over the past month, with your selection of articles, POV (in my estimation) and tendency to edit in only a very narrow area warrant very careful evaluation of exactly what it is you are doing. I just took a look at the page you put together on Harry Margolis and your choice of supposedly "relevant" legal items, and I'm really not sure what you are up to except grinding an axe. I believe you are going to be called out for your viewpoint. You might want to ask yourself if, as the userpage of User:Essjay asks, with every click of the "save page" button you are making Wikipedia a better place. Are you?--BradPatrick 23:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That quote is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Danny_Archive_6

My response to your comment is that Smeelgova should be blocked whenever she engages in 3RR, particularly when both the letter and spirit are violated, as is the case here. This is how a track record is built. When mediation and arbitration are invoked, the track record is will get taken into consideration. When Smee/Smeelgova is allowed to apologize her way out of it, there is no track record. That's the problem I have with protection only. Sm1969 05:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• That was a long time ago. I have since widened my areas of research quite a great deal. And, as stated above, I am taking a long-needed break from the Landmark Education article. Perhaps Sm1969 should as well. Smee 05:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

I have been on a long break from the LE article, with 11 (eleven) edits so far this *year* prior to today. You have thousands so far this year, mostly on LE and related topics, all with a very strong POV as pointed out by Brad Patrick. Sm1969 06:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. You clearly have it out for me, for some weird and frightening reason. I have ceased editing of that article, that should be enough for you. Leave me alone. Smee 06:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

All of that being said. There is no need for a block in this case, and I strongly believe in issuing blocks to stop disruption, not to punish, and certainly not as a means of recordkeeping. Smee was most certainly not the only party I saw involved in the edit war. Were it so, likely a block would have been the remedy, rather than protection. Sm1969, if there's a specific arbitration remedy that Smee has violated, post a request for arbitration enforcement. If ArbCom feels that it is necessary to place special restrictions or probation on a user, they can and will do so, but those don't exist just because a party was in an ArbCom case. If you'd just like to make a general complaint regarding disruptive editing, WP:ANI is the forum you want. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We have different interpretations of policy. I do interpret issuing blocks as stopping disruption, both in the short term and in the long term. The long term track record shows that the short term remedies are not effective, and future penalty impositions can be made more harsh. As for the assertion of edit warring, I think you need to look at the actual content that Smee reverted. Changes "states" to "claims" or "asserts" is very biased language. The Charter of Landmark Education either does or does not state some specific language. There is no need whatsoever for Smee to inject the cynicism. The complaint I reported here is a specific case of 3RR (in both letter and spirit), and I believe this is the place to report 3RR, not ANI. Protection is fine, but I believe that blocks showing the disruptive history of behaviour are quite warranted, so that future blocks can be made more harsh. The fact that other editors reverted could and should be taken as consensus and Smee being the lone ranger. I'm clear that we disagree on this. I hope you are open to changing your mind, and I believe a track record of blocks, beyond the four that Smee already has (as Smeelgova then) would make a huge difference. Sm1969 06:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

local history glossary

There were two votes for keep and three for delete. Why does that result in a deletion? Rjm at sleepers 11:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO addition

Could you comment on the line you added to WP:PORNBIO in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)#"do not on their own establish notability"? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dragonlance modules redirects

I have made one section reqarding three recent deletion requests as I wish to raise similar issues about all three Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragons of Faith, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragons of Ice and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragons of Light

1. This is not a merge and redirect, it is simply a replace current article with a redirect. You have simply replaced the article with a redirect without having any unique data from the articles retained. (The amount of unique information lost does vary but all the article had at least some)
2. The target for the redirect is List of Dungeons & Dragons modules which is not an appropriate target for the redirect. As the title implies this is a list and therefore by it's very nature has a limited amount of information on each item included. This means:
   1. There is no appropriate place in this article for unique encyclopedic information from the articles redirected to be included.
   2. There is no appropriate place in this article to expand the information on these topics to a point where it is appropriate to spin them off into their own article. (Even the user who proposed deletion admitted that these articles could one day have sufficient info to justify an article, his argument for deletion was "Been stubbed for eons, and no one I know on Wikipedia has the info to expand it. It's better to delete it until we can recreate it"

If redirect is the decided concensus is to merge then it should be up to someone who wanted that option as their primary choice to do this. What has actually been done is virtually equivalent to a delete, as no unique information from these articles has been retain, which was the minority opinion behind delete, merge and redirect. - Waza 23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Close of Redirect on dragonlance module pages

I went and merged those modules into a new page: List of Dragonlance modules because I figured a close of redirect was similar to a close of merge, and the info won't fit in List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. Is that OK, or did I do something bad. It doesn't really say at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Miscellany_for deletion page. - Peregrine Fisher 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the quick reply. - Peregrine Fisher 03:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet case

Thanks a lot for your comment here. Actually the problem is that I'm not sure which code in RFCU is the appropriate one in this case. Shervink 10:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

Thanks again, I'll do as you suggested. Shervink 10:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

Commons page?

Hi - noticed an IP has "started" a page with your user name on Commons. Was it you/shall I delete it? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I have been known to edit and then log in! Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Begley

Thanks, but the IP editors edit was vandalism in my opinion. The fact he was non-sectarian is a sourced claim, and it was deliberately changed to sectarian. I'd have thought that fell under the sneaky vandalism criterion, but if it doesn't I'll bear it in mind for future. I presently have an RfC open for Astrotrain's disruptive activities on Irish Republicanism related articles, so dispute resolution is ongoing. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind for future. I'm flying to Barcelona for the weekend first thing tomorrow anyway, so a block wouldn't have been much hardship really. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Burnsvillemike

Further to your blocks of socks you might also want to consider:

• Joshharll (talk · contribs) who tried to reintroduce this picture,

[Image:Police_Officer_in_bullet_proof_vest.jpg], of Mike Satter, here.

• Parkermax (talk · contribs) who introduced a Mike Satter reference here and edited Michael Satter.
• 66.41.155.45 (talk · contribs) who coincidentally made Mike Satter related edits to 3 separate articles (and no other edits}. Bridgeplayer 18:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The socks are still out in force. Please see:

• Parkerbob (talk · contribs)'s edit here. Bridgeplayer 01:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And some more:

• JoeinmaineUS (talk · contribs)
• Geneinclevelend (talk · contribs)
• Jasonrrr (talk · contribs)
• Nickharperss (talk · contribs)
• Carlseenares (talk · contribs) Bridgeplayer 01:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also raised the issue at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Burnsvillemike and the socks. Bridgeplayer 02:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete

Hey there, chance to use your new powers if you're willing: I accidentally created this page, while trying to create this page. Basically, I clicked on a link to create the page, and didn't notice the comma had been put inside the brackets. Is that something you can do? Best, Mackan79 23:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Mackan79 19:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Musicians Lists

How was that a delete? Four deletes to three keep. I know it's not a vote, but that can hardly be said to be consensus. JRG 06:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

If you have time, could you please have a look at this [16], thanks! Shervink 09:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

The socks are breeding again

Hi,sorry, but the socks have started to breed again:

• Parkermakam (talk · contribs)
• Johnjuniv (talk · contribs)
• Cherry56545 (talk · contribs)
• Stevehouslj (talk · contribs) Bridgeplayer 17:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

hi!

The Phoenix Enforcer(talk to me) 02:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi

Hi Seraphimblade, I would like to unblock Jossi, if you have no strong objection. There has been a lot of trolling on these pages in the last few days, and the person who made the report is the worst offender. I didn't look at the diffs, but I suspect that had a lot to do with any reverting. Would you object strongly if I were to undo it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe only one of Jossi's 6 reverts that I listed was reverting my edit. My edit was not a troll. Only one of the reverts I listed could possibly be considered reverting a troll: that was reverting someone who voted before voting was opened, but there may have been other material reverted in the same edit, and anyway I listed 6 reverts, and there was at least one more after the 6 I listed. I do not think there was any significant trolling on the page -- I didn't see any trolling at all. I think SlimVirgin is using the word "trolling" to refer to normal editing work. The edits that Jossi reverted were all good-faith edits: mostly edits intended to improve the page by editing the poll questions, which is the whole purpose of the page at the moment, plus one overly-early voter. I oppose any unblock action.

What I actually came here to say was: Thank you, Seraphimblade! --Coppertwig 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I would be very, very grateful if you would keep a close eye on that individual. I am literally shaking with anger at what he's doing. He's causing chaos and I suspect enjoying every minute of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Coppertwig, it does appear that several people do believe your behavior there has been problematic as well. I strongly encourage you to take this under advisement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is another one known for trolling and taking great delight in doing it on the policy page. Neither of these people have had anything to do with forming this policy or V or NOR, yet suddenly here they are trying to take control of the discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I have received some complaints and have thought seriously about them. However, the complaints seem to me to be of the nature of people who want to continue to be the sole or main editors of a policy page trying to make me jump through hoops before making any edits while they themselves continue to make edits without jumping through those same hoops. I think there is no justification for calling certain edits "trolling"; it's just that the user disagrees with those edits -- just as much as the other editor disagrees with theirs. We need to treat all editors equally.

I've asked user SlimVirgin to tell me if I break any policies or guidelines and have been careful to try not to do so and to treat everyone civilly. User SlimVirgin has not been able to point out to me any way in which I have broken any policy or guideline. It's just that the user is on the opposite side of a content dispute with me, that's all.

If "trolling" is to be taken to mean trying hard to get responses -- that's just what these users have been asking me to do! They said I had to have wide discussion before making edits, so I've been trying to generate wide discussion. --Coppertwig 23:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to "take control of the discussion" as SlimVirgin says. I'm trying to have a discussion in which everyone participates as equals. I've been having a hard time getting SlimVirgin to discuss with me; the user reverts my edits but does not discuss the underlying issues. No one user, or no one small group of users, should be in control of the discussion or of what the policy pages (or wording of poll questions) say. Everyone's input needs to be respected. --Coppertwig 23:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome in discussions of policy, and that is exactly as it should be. However, do keep in mind that the burden of developing a strong consensus after discussion with many editors is on those who wish to change policy, not on those who wish to leave it as is. If no consensus develops, that defaults to leaving it alone, at least until someone can find another solution which does meet consensus. Crum375 also gives you good advice-when looking at policy, we want to involve as many people as possible, to make sure that the decision made involves the consensus of the community, not the consensus of a few people who happened to notice the discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the principle I'm trying to enforce: that there has not been a broad enough discussion over changing the longstanding "verifiability, not truth" to "attributable ... not whether it is true", and that there were I think merge tags on WP:V for only about 8 days, not nearly long enough to get enough people involved in discussion to justify demoting the page from being policy. There aren't even merge tags on the pages now, I think. Therefore, people who should have the opportunity to know about the discussion probably do not know about it. Probably large numbers of people. I think ordinary articles have merge tags for 2 weeks usually, and policy pages should have them for much longer. People don't even seem to be taking the time to understand the basic logic that "not whether it is true" means two things (talking about material that is true but not attributable, and talking about material that is false but attributable). People aren't engaging in discussion about whether they actually agree with the second of these two things. Note that Crum375 reverted one of my edits -- at a time that other people were making edits to WP:ATT without extensive discussion, I think -- and later admitted that the user didn't actually disagree with the edit; the user just didn't think there was enough of a consensus. And that was after I'd made considerable efforts to generate discussion, and there were no objections at that time to the edit. --Coppertwig 02:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen discussions regarding WP:ATT on the community noticeboard, the village pump, the mailing list, and effectively on every possible forum that anyone who participates in policy discussions could possibly monitor. 8 days is plenty of time for a merge tag, we don't even discuss that long on deleting an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(<<<outdent) This discussion should be brought to the attention of users of pages such as WP:V, not only to the attention of people who regularly participate in policy discussions. I believe the standard for merge tags on article pages is 2 weeks; for policy pages it should be longer.

What I originally came here to say, though, is: Thank you again, Seraphimblade! I thought over your advice given above, and I've shifted my attitude and re-read at least one complaint on my talk page in a new light. It's these humbling experiences that help us mature. --Coppertwig 17:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Close it

Yes. I think we can close it. You were a big help. I WILL let you know if there are any other problems, but the article is under mediations now, vastly improved (though not perefct) and I think I can just keep an eye on it now and see what other users do to improve it. Thanks again for all of your help. futurebird 03:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Mad kemist's copyvios

He's well aware of the policy. He's just trying to establish an different editing pattern from Curious Gregor in the belief that it will undermine Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Curious Gregor. Curious Gregor's biographies of notable chemists are not copyvios. For example, he created Dieter Enders here from the biographical last paragraph of this press release for Max Planck Research Award for Chemistry. An above board rewrite, so to make Mad kemist look like a real contributor... Pete.Hurd 06:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Pete.Hurd 13:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just thought I would let you know I created it from his university web page and not the page you think. - Curious Gregor^TALK - Synthesis for all 11:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Kim D. Peterson and 3RR

I would like to provide some context to UBeR's groundless 3RR accusation against User:KimDabelsteinPetersen.

User:UBeR is tough to figure. The great majority of his actual edits to articles are constructive. But sometimes he gets a bug and goes into attack mode. UBeR has a long history of over-the-top attacks on editors and (especially) admins with whom he disagrees -- for an incomplete sample, see here. UBeR does make positive contributions, but I am beginning to wonder whether they are outweighed by the poisonous atmosphere he is wont to create. Something needs to be done before he drives away good editors.

I'm supposed to be on Wikibreak now, so I'll shut up and go away after these remarks. But I could not in good conscience let a vexatious accusation against a model editor go without comment. Raymond Arritt 00:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, This 3RR report of Kim brings me to some confusion that I would appreciate some clarification to. It seems that the decision would have been "no action" because either the diffs for all 6 edits did not show the reverts and instead appear as edits and also because she, by splitting reverts, did not violate the 'spirit' of the 3RR with her blocks of reverts/edits. Is this correct? -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Blue Tie 3rr

Ive queried your assessment of my report over at WP:AN3 William M. Connolley 08:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'd be reporting Uber too but for the protection. In fact, maybe we wouldn't need the prot it Uber and BT were blocked :-) William M. Connolley 09:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Curious_Gregor

I indef blocked Mad Kemist as an obvious sock used for vote fraud. I haven't blocked Gregor so feel free to do what you will with him. IrishGuy ^talk 19:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent request for AMA assistance

Hello:

Yes, I would appreciate it if you could render some help in my case. Thank you. -- Jalabi99 19:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

User:mrholybrain

Hello. I have filed a report of a 3RR violation on the administrators' noticeboard yesterday and have not yet had a response. I also noticed that you have resolved several cases which were made some time after mine. I was wondering if there is any reason why mine has not been taken up. Thank you. 163.167.129.124 12:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. Although with reference to the comment posted on my talk page, I hope I have managed to keep this civil! 163.167.129.124 12:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 14:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Suspected SockPuppetry

How was the matter decided? Arcayne 16:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked because the user has been somewhat disruptive on the Nancy Reagan article, and I just reported him for 3RR. Essentially, he's trying to add unsources, non-reliable material to a living person's article. I and others have been reverting the edits, as per BLP. Talk on the Discussion page has been ignored. Here's a brief history of the article's edits, showing the 3RR. Feel free to come and visit. We'll have tea and biscuits a-waiting. :) Arcayne 17:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the look. :) Arcayne 17:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

El_chulito

You have got to be kidding with this right? How on earth can you state that this editors actions is not likely to be sockpuppetry - I have waited over two weeks for some action to be taken and then you just brush it aside - this type of lazy behaviour is driving away good editors and leaving puppeters carte blanche to continue their abuse. This editor and his socks have been abusing the AfD process - who on earth can you say after looking at this edit "history" that this guy is not a sock - this AfD was never listed properly and was only ever seen by people that would follow other editors edit history - oh I cant be bothered explaining it anymore - this a joke!

Sometime I just feel like jacking wiki in when I come across the likes of this! Can you not look at this again because it is bloody driving me crazy. two weeks and you just sweep it under the carpet - well done!--SameBatTime 15:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"but none are conclusive" - he made an edit when he forgot that he wasnt signed in and this left his IP, he then immediately signed over it with his new user name - the IP trace that he left was identical as previous IP that he used under El Chuilto! what more do you need! to say I am furious would be a massive understatement!--SameBatTime 16:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's your "but none are conclusive"

enough said!--SameBatTime 22:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsure

I received this message, coming from this user (identified through the history). As you can see, the user has had some issues (I responded to the user page; for some reason, I was unable to respond to thir talk page). The user blanked my page here, but User:Leebo, a new admin, undid it.
While I am not typically a paranoid soul, I do find it more than a bit coincidental that I encounter the same sorts of activity (lack of signed posts in some odd and pointless attempt to try and conceal the identity) from this user, who I reported for 3RR in the Nancy Reagan article. Could they be the same person? Looking at the times the changes were made to my User Talk page and messages left, did the User's block expire before or after the messages were left? Not that it would really matter, as this appears to be yet another sockpuppet of the same user.
I would like to get some experienced advice on this... Arcayne 17:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Decision on Williams Record

Can you give me some insight on your decision to merge and redirect Williams Record? Also, what are the rules on recreating this at some point? The Williams College page is getting way to big. I may help out to break it up. Splitting out the Record page would be one of the first things that I would do as a part of that. David.Kane 08:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Hi Seraph. You just removed 65.19.77.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) from AIV, because he asked to be blocked. However, the user did vandalize after last warning just recently, and therefore (as I understand) should be blocked. Is there a reason why you removed him that I don't know of, or did you not notice that he had vandalized after last warning? Anyways, you have more experience with these things, so you lead, I follow. Thanks! · AO ^Talk 12:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. Thanks for clearing that up. · AO ^Talk 12:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

please review

hi seraphim

please review your recent block of me. i don't think i violated 3rr or blp (more on my talk page)

thanks 71.112.7.212 05:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

i don't agree with you about ATT. if you could point out the particular section maybe we could come to an understanding.

• its not original research
• its a secondary source
• it isn't self-published
• it does have editorial oversight
• the book has footnotes and has been around so long it is no longer exceptional. even the new york times called it encyclopedic.

also what about the 3rr? did you review this?

71.112.7.212 16:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

well we might need an rfc about the book. i think it is ok because of read ATT and i don't see what part it violates. ATT talks all about editorial oversight, which this book had. i guess you are implying that newspapers and magazines have more editorial oversight than i book; i don't know if this is true, from a can-they-sue-us point of view it certainly isn't logical. a publisher of a book can be sued just as easily as a newspaper publisher. anyway, this subtlety isn't mentioned in ATT so i don't see how you can block me for it. if there's something in ATT that says books aren't considered reliable sources i might understand.

the thing about this book is that, from what i've read, it is true. it's not a conspiracy theory, it's just unusual that someone would put together a book about it. you have to find someone with a lot of indiscretions that the public might be interested in. if someone wrote a book about john mccain's affairs it wouldn't sell all that many copies.

also, sorry to keep bugging you about this, but could you please look into the specifics of the 3rr? i don't think i broke the 3rr rule; take a look at the diffs. i was incorrectly blocked by "nihonjoe" for "vandalism" earlier and now this block makes me look like someone who is blocked frequently. 71.112.7.212 16:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

ok, we're making progress. since i didn't break 3rr, is there a way to get this removed from my record? and could you caution "arcayne" about filing false report? they really disrupt wikipedia. about the blp, no one has shown my how adding info about nancy reagan from a published biography violates BLP. nancy reagan's supporters surely don't like it, but that doesn't make it a violation of BLP. george bush's supporters don't like people mentioning all his indiscretinos but they show up. also, i am not this "rbaish" user, and i think you'll see there was no evidence for it. rbaish is into small-scale vandalism and the confederate flag, neither are my style. if you wanted to run a test you could block him and i could show you i could still edit freely. 71.112.7.212 01:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

there was no 3rr, so how is blocking with summary that says there was a 3rr valid? here's what you could do, block me for 5 mins, then quickly unblock saying that you were incorrect. then we can put this all behind us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

can you do the miniblock/unblock i described above (just say "previous two blocks incorrect")? people rarely look deeply into things, they just click on "block log" and assume every block is correct. its called the just-world phenomenon.

cmon, seriph. you blocked me incorrectly. i don't know if you just didn't click on the diffs or what, but i don't want this to remain in my block log without a notation, and i think the editor that placed the report should be warned. his misleading 3rr report that tricked you into blocking me, triggering this whole dialogue. the blp portion is also in the wrong, my citations were excellent and "encyclopedic". the block and unblock will take you all of 15 seconds, what would be wrong with that?

a user is now taunting me for "breaking 3rr". you, he, and i know it isnt true, but if you made a notation in my block log the rest of the world will know it too. i don't think ths is an unreasonable request. you goofed up, no big deal. if you just leave a note saying so in the block log you'll undo the damage.

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/March 2007/Jalabi99

The correct forum for complaints about the closure of a deletion debate is WP:DRV. Per the talk page I resent the personalisation of a routine administrative issue, and request closure of the "case". Thank you for your time. --kingboyk 13:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think I should send him a copy of the deleted text? Ordinarily I am happy to do this, even where I wasn't the deleting admin; in this case I doubted the usefulness of the article (it's just a list) and suspected it would merely be used to recreate. (Of course I didn't say that due to WP:AGF, but that was my thought process). --kingboyk 13:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Association of members' advocates

No problem. If it isn't inactive then the proposal to delete was ill-conceived. --Tony Sidaway 17:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you saw my comments at MFD about this not being planned or retaliatory. I didn't plan this upheaval (and if I was capable of organising such uprisings I'd probably have something better to do than spend my time here :)). No hard feelings I hope. --kingboyk 17:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Around the Rings Update

Hi, the last notice I had from you was a question asking if I'd worked on the posting for Around the Rings. I asked you where to find it and then didn't get a response. Did my note get lost in the shuffle? I still don't see it posted so could you tell me what I should do? --Janicelmcdonald 01:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Have a look and see if that works for you. --Janicelmcdonald
I beg your patience because I'm totally confused. This is my my first attempt at this and obviusly I haven't mastered all of the nuances. So if what I edited was archieved, where do I go to rewrite? And what would have been the indicator that it was an archieved article? Your link was to a temp file for me and that was all that was there. And was what I wrote more in line? If so, how do I post, or would you be the one to post it? --Janicelmcdonald
Could you please have a look at what is now in my temp file User:Janicelmcdonald/temp and tell me if we could go to the next step? --Janicelmcdonald

hullo

In response to your statement on 3rr page, Yes I saw and filed ssp. Even despite YLH there is still 3rr violation question (anonymous [17]and T-Leigh are self-admittedly the same person as established by their posts on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gandhi's_views_on_race ). Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Teabing-Leigh for further corroboration. I am new so don't know much abt doing these things and would be happy if you could guide me. Kjartan8 08:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for attending to this matter. Kjartan8 08:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Teabing-Leigh has made further reverts as teabing-leigh, clearly violating 3rr as this one handle [18] (that's four reverts involved in removing my tags) Kjartan8 10:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

EN Mediation

Thanks for getting this started. I would just like to request that since next week is Holy Week, and the Philippines traditionally shuts down during this entire time, can we please postpone the start of the official mediation action until the week of April 9? Thelma Bowlen^Talk 09:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

3rr*2

I'm leaving radiant/nescott to you. Can I ask you to look at my report of UBeR, please? William M. Connolley 13:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think given William M. Connolley's response to me here we know how this would have turned out if you hadn't intervened. This isn't Radiant! first 3RR vio Seraphimblade. He got away with it before on this same "technicality" logic. (→Netscott) 13:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That may be. I am sorry if you take offense, but I do believe a block there would've been punitive rather than preventative, especially given that a 3O was sought before the report was made. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the 3O... the question is did he wait for the thrid opinion or not? Obviously he didn't... there is prevention in blocking. The user learns to not edit in such a manner and thus such editing is prevented in the future. I'm not taking offense but frankly this strikes of a two tiered admin/non-admin hierarchy... you've got to admit that save for the fact that Radiant!'s an admin he'd be blocked right now, no? (→Netscott) 13:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course not! The same rules apply to anyone, admin or no, and I've certainly declined to take action on very technical violations with non-admins as well. (And blocked one admin, when the intent to revert-war was very clear.) If there wasn't some amount of judgment involved, we could put 3RRBot up for RfA. But non-admins and users receive the same. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well please do know that this is not a fair excercise per the 3RR policy. It is true that further reverting will not occur but it is plainly obvious that this is due to an editor gaming the system. (→Netscott) 13:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You know I can't say that I blame you for your action (or lack thereof rather), all things considered. (→Netscott) 14:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In case you were wondering here are the other vios (one I actually defended him on) 3RR vio 2, 3RR vio 1. (→Netscott) 14:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I don't even remember who all !voted in my RfA, and I really don't appreciate your implication there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Come on Seraphimblade, you can't blame me... this is third Vio that he's skipping out on. Where is the equality? (→Netscott) 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I see a real problem here. Where I didn't violate 3RR at all, you saw fit to block me for it anyway. This fellow violated 3RR, but you say that he only "technically" violated it and therefore shouldn't be blocked. How is that fair?

Mistaken block?

You recently blocked Miaers (talk · contribs) for a 3RR violation. However, when I investigated, it looked to me like this was a second block for an offence he was already blocked for. It seems that the user has made no edits since initially blocked. He's requesting a block review. Could you check it out and consider unblocking? Thanks. --Yamla 16:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the policy is, but PaddyM reported Miaers for breaking 3RR rule after the incident happened on the 22nd. As soon as Miaers came off of block, the immediately reported PaddyM for the very same edit war. I'm wondering that if PaddyM needed to be blocked for 24 hours, it should have been when the incident took place. Madmaxmarchhare 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:71.112.7.212

This User has removed some comments from your Talk page left by other editors. Despite being told repeatedly that they are not allowed to do so, they continue to do so. They have also removed repeated warnings on their page, engaged in edit warring on other pages (in my case, Afro), is contentious, and shows no ability for "growth" as a Wikipedian (especially since they just removed another editors comment on your Talk page, which is not allowed). That's my experience - just letting you know. --David Shankbone 16:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits by blocked user Yahya01

You blocked Yahya01 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours, but he is evading his block via anonymous reverts such as this. I request you to look into this. Thanks. --Ragib 21:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Yahya01

Hi - just wanted to let you know that I've extended user:Yahya01's block to 96 hours, taking into account his multiple anti-Sunni personal attacks against editors and in general. Rama's arrow 22:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again, Seraphimblade

Thank you for letting me know about the AN/I report a couple of days ago. Also I've been meaning to thank you for your page protection ruling at Attribution/Poll a few days ago when I put in a 3RR report. That ruling taught me some things about the difference between normal wikiediting and editwarring, and had a calming effect on me. Re the AN/I report: I seem to have missed your comment the first time I read it. When I re-read it I had a hard time believing that the timestamp on your signature came before mine. Apparently I saw yours as just a contributory comment and not a definitive answer. --Coppertwig 00:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cities

I saw your name listed under Wikiprojects Cities and I was wondering if you could help out the Chambersburg, Pennsylvania article. Thanks, Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 00:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk: Corey Clark

Your continued assistance would be appreciated. :-) Nightscream 05:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you give your thoughts on the specific points I mentioned in my last post? No one, including Liaishard, seems to want to address them. Thanks. Nightscream 16:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your single sentence ATT

I would add "from a reliable published source". Otherwise it's great. ;^) Crum375 05:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, but I think that falls under "verifiable"-if Stephen Hawking tells me something about quantum physics, the source is about as reliable as you get, but unless he's published that somewhere that other people can go look at, it's not verifiable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that 'verifiable' would normally imply that the source had been published, but there are some exceptions. For example, we had a case where an editor insisted that affidavit letters were sent to the patent office and were kept in its files. In theory, the editor said, any reader can send $25 to the PTO and get a copy to 'verify' the content of the letters. We insisted that this is too much hardship on a reader - just getting a book from the library (assuming it's not online) should be enough effort, but writing to the PTO and sending them money to get copies of letters (obviously primary sources) would be unacceptable. We then pointed to the language of 'published sources' and claimed that things need to be published, not just kept in a file cabinet in some government office. You would say that all of this is in 'verifiability', perhaps, but I think 'published' adds a level of accessibility to the source, above and beyond mere 'verifiability'. Crum375 06:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. That is true, although I'd generally figure patent applications to be primary. They could be used to support a general claim that a patent has been filed or issued on something, but I really don't think for much more than that. My main objection to bringing "accessibility" into it is that some editors then tend to insist that all sources must be online and immediately available. I certainly use Proquest and the like extensively for research, because well, I happen to have access to them. Most people can get hold of that type of thing through a public library, though, as is the case with most books and the like. (Even if a given library doesn't have a book, anymore most of them will do interlibrary loans.) But I've had people object that such information is "unverifiable" since they personally, right then can't verify it. (Of course, they get shot down quickly on third opinion anyway, but it still does seem to be a point of some confusion.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In a typical patent application there is the actual issued patent, plus the background material. The issue here is not these items, but additional affidavit letters which are just kept on file and retained for the record (e.g. if there are subsequent lawsuits). The patent itself is generally available online. As far as hardcopy vs. online issue, clearly many of our sources are hardcopy and there has to be a criterion for deciding accessibility - e.g. some rare book of which only a single copy is available in one location may be problematic, and we may then declare it 'too primary' to be used directly unless it is quoted elsewhere in a secondary source. Still I think the word 'published' adds a lot - it gives us teeth to reject sources that are not widely copied and available in many places, even in cases where the few or single copies are held by very reliable parties (e.g. government agencies). Crum375 07:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree, and it wouldn't hurt to use "published" at all-I would tend to agree things must be to some degree verifiable in practice, not just in theory. I think exactly how much so is a tradeoff that'd probably have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Normally, one would think that an incredibly valuable and irreplaceable source will have been the subject of scholarly research and reports anyway, and those reports are probably much more accessible than the thing itself. Also, old or rare books and the like (with some exceptions) also tend to be PD, and available on Project Gutenburg, Wikisource, etc. (Of course, that gets back to the "why is copyright longer than five years necessary" question, but that's a whole different subject...). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree in the case of rare and important books, some secondary source would have picked them up at some point, but not always. I think using the word 'published' gets us to a better 'square one', from which we can argue about individual exceptions. In our PTO case, the proponent argued that by having the affidavits filed with a public agency and effectively available for a fee to anyone, that is effectively being 'published', which we disputed. So even having the word there is no panacea, as one could still argue about its exact meaning, but it's a better starting point than just plain 'verifiable'. Crum375 22:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the discussion here is largely academic, unless you really were thinking of merging everything into a single sentence. (If you think ATT raised hell...:P ) I think "published" would make a clearer starting point though. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for sure. It's just that I liked so much your excellent distillation of a complex set of policies, that so many people misunderstand, into a single short sentence, that I felt it would be even better with one additional word. ;^) Crum375 23:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Just Letting You Know

The block you gave....exceded it's time but just under 2 hours. Do I get a credit or something? - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 22:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I put another unblock request up and AuburnPilot seen that one and let the block up. Now....back to the world of radio and TV stations. Odd note: I don't even watch Robot Chicken that much! - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 23:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

april fools

Love your comments on my nomination of Jimbo ;) AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 05:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

help out

hey seraphimblade

some editors are making personal attacks toward me (calling me a troll and so on). i removed them but they keep re-inserting them. i don't want to get into an edit war over it but i don't think these edits should remain. maybe you could speak to them? User:DavidShankBone is the most uncivil. his last 5 edits have all been personal attacks or re-inserts of personal attacks.

thanks 71.112.7.212 05:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting an anonymous User who has made not one constructive edit, has upset every person she has come in contact with, is a suspected sock puppet, removes edits from User Talk and Discussion pages, should be looking for assistance in her endeavors...will wonders never cease...--David Shankbone 06:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

seraph, take a look at what i have done here. i have not broken a SINGLE wikipedia policy, not 3rr, not vandalism, not civility, not personal attacks, not original research, not verifiability, none of them. but look what i've received:

• one user added 12 vandalism warnings to my page, while i committed none
• one admin blocked me for vandalism, while i committed none
• i removed the vandalism warnings, they were reinserted by multiple editors.

i realize this sounds far-fetched, but you can see none of my contribs are vandalism.

• you blocked me for 3rr, while i committed none, probably because of a false report. an easy mistake to make, but why isn't the editor who submitted the false report cautioned?
• you blocked me for BLP, but i inserted fully attributed information.
• i have been called a troll, an idiot, a loon, a sockpuppet, many times and not responded with similar nastiness
• i am NOT a troll. i make edits that i believe improve wikipedia
• i am NOT a sockpuppet. User:Rbaish uses a confederate flag as his symbol; really not my style
• a loon and an idiot? well who knows, maybe i am a loon or an idiot ;)
• i removed messages calling me a troll from my talk page, and people have re-inserted them
• i removed messages calling me a troll from article talk pages, and people have re-inserted them.
• the above editor has stated he plans on monitoring me and reverting whatever i do without discussion, and that the first time i make "one wrong move" i'll be blocked.

how has anything i've done amounted to this? let's see what i have done:

• i removed a photo from the "afro" page that is not an afro. one editor took this photo himself so i guess he might have been miffed that his photo was removed, but its just not an afro (he later admitted that it is "afro curls").
• i removed "academy award winning" and "academy award nominated" from the introductions of a handful or articles. i believe these inflate the importance of the academy awards, amountint to a form of advertising. it is fine with me if these are in the body of the article but these were in the intros.
• i added information about a well-known, critical biography of nancy reagan to her article.

when this information was removed, i re-inserted it. why? because i believe it all improves wikipedia. i tried to discuss many of these changes, but there has been either no response [19] or uncivil personal attacks [20]

Admin help with spammer

IP address 209.59.33.100 does nothing but link spam. The user has been warned before but under a different IP address. If you look at the history of the Lisa Ann Taylor page then you will see another IP address that spammed the page with the same link and spammed the same pattern of pages. Chicken Wing 12:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VandalBot

Please userfy this so it can be deleted. Funny, yes, but we have to remember we're an encyclopedia. —METS501 (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Done as requested. Still, let's have a bit of a laugh every so often, if it blows off a bit of steam and stays out of mainspace. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) —METS501 (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I gave you a little time for it, because it wasn't really harmful, but then a few hours was enough. —METS501 (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

William Mauco

You've blocked William Mauco indefinitely for incivility. However, I have reasons to believe that someone has began a defamation campaign of Mauco in his absence. See: WMauco, Mauco William (there were 2 established socks, not 9), as well as three IP in the last several hours (on his talk page). If the reason of your permanent blocking of him were actions of those users, could you somehow check if they really are the same person - Mauco? --Illythr 12:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I just got email from him in which he pointed out an impersonation of myself on ANI (removed here), and claimed he was blocked for edits by 84.22.2.25 (talk · contribs), 200.238.102.162 (talk · contribs), 123.199.22.168 (talk · contribs) impersonating him, not for his own actions. I don't have time to investigate this ab initio as he requests; could I get an executive summary of the edits you blocked him for? —Cryptic 13:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to second the comments of Illythr and alert you to some thoughts I just posted on the Administrator's noticeboard regarding the alleged sock puppetry of William Mauco. Thanks for your careful consideration of the evidence. Best wishes, jamason 16:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, WMauco (talk · contribs), Mauco William (talk · contribs), 200.49.177.20 (talk · contribs). etc. are in fact sockpuppets of the banned user Bonaparte, not William Mauco. I am very certain about this. Khoikhoi 18:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Khoikhoi 18:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone of your message

I am very concerned about the tone of this message you posted to WP:ANI. No matter whether the block of a user is justified or not, supplying it with such an inappropriately styled messages unnecessarily injures the user. If one has sinned, the punishment should be a proper one. A block for sockpuppetry is the proper punishment. Administrator speaking to a user in the tone of a king speaking to his subjects making jokes about the punishment and treating the user with disrespect is plain wrong no matter what the user in question did. One of the functions of the body of Wikipedia administrators is policing the Wikipedia. Police is expected to act professionally and with the minimum courtesy towards the citizens, even towards the criminals. In the future, please do not leave the comments in this tone. Thank you. --Irpen 22:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal to replace AMA

I think it's a good start, and wish you luck with it. Thanks for your efforts. --kingboyk 12:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Question=

Is there anything that can be done about someone who has been twice on the verge of a 3RR violation and has been asked repeatedly to stop his arguementive attitude and wish to start an arguement and his reverts and leave? You help would be appericated - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 19:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A request of CheckUser was deleted by his friend Admin

A request of CheckUser regarding him and Pernambuco was deleted by Khoikhoi in BAD FAITH (an admin friend with a meat and sockpuppet master Mauco):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Pernambuco/Polaron/William_Mauco/MarkStreet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Pernambuco/Polaron/William_Mauco/MarkStreet

Still, Mauco was a sockpuppeter that was found by Dcmevit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.160.43.14 (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

90.240.150.96

Not content with submitting this baseless 3RR report against me, 90.240.150.96 also found the time to leave this equally ridiculous accusation of vandalism on my talk page. Should I simply delete the notice? I would appreciate your advice as an administrator. Kanaye 23:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Kanaye 23:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Socks

No problem, there's a whole load of similarities I could find if I had the time but it doesn't really achieve much as if the account did start getting used again a new checkuser would be possible anyway. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one thing you might be able to help me with, or possibly point me in the right direction. A couple of weeks ago the possibility of resurrecting the Patrick Kelly article was raised as there's possibility for expansion. It was merged per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Kelly where three of the four delete !votes were from the same editor and socks, but according to this DRV log merges are an editorial decision anyway, so it wouldn't be necessary to take it to DRV to recreate the article. However the Patrick Kelly page has now been rightly changed to a disambiguation page, and I know there will be GFDL problems if I just copy and paste the old article into a new page. Would it be possible for you to do a history merge to say Patrick Kelly (Irish republican) please? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Have done, thanks for the help. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Flatts and his "kick your butt" threats

Much of Flatts's edits are based on what SpongeBob SquarePants character Flatts Flounder said in the episode "The Bully." Squirepants101 02:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I used to watch that episode. It was hilarious. --76.117.83.92 19:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin status

I remember your try in December for Admin status --for not so nice reasons (i.e. guilty feelings about an edit [21] ) Any case, nice to see that you've become an admin. :) Nephron  T|C 02:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible confusion

Hi, I noticed your "oppose" edit here that seems to say that I blocked you at some time in the past. Possibly I misunderstood what you were saying. Either that, or you have confused me with someone else, since I am not an administrator. FNMF 10:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. My mistake. Feel free to delete these two messages from your talk page. FNMF 10:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Places with City status in Scotland

The fourth revert by User:Kanaye was 24 hours and 24 minutes after the first. User:90.240.150.96 reverted two of these edits and I reverted another two, so why are both User:Kanaye and User:90.240.150.96 warned, rather than just User:Kanaye? 163.167.129.124 11:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Because all of you are involved in an edit war, and edit wars never solve anything. I've seen hundreds of them, and not once did they solve an issue. Dispute resolution, discussion, that solves problems. 3RR doesn't mean "edit-warring is an acceptable tactic as long as it's less than 3 times a day", and in the end, it's bad for everyone involved. Edit warring is time wasted on inflaming the dispute that could be spent solving it! (By the way, why don't you register an account? You're obviously interested in editing and know the place pretty well, I'm responding here since IPs are changeable sometimes. An account hides your IP too.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to reply. Please also see the talk page and history at Template:Scottish_Cities. User:Kanaye has been involved in a long-standing edit war over this. I have not. The format of this template must however be consistent with Template:UK_cities, which appears at the foot of all articles for UK cities. Cheers anyway, 163.167.129.124 11:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"[A]ny bare votes probably won't be counted much anyway"

Others involved seem to think the vote-count is more significant. PS: Sorry for the sarky tone earlier; I was in need of WP:TEA. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Assist

Advertise it a lot, I guess. WP:GO, WP:VP, WP:CENT. Also, it may help to stick it in the help desk header, or the village pump header, or {{welcome}}. >Radiant< 12:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor assistance

Thanks for clarifying; it wasn't totally clear whether the project was active or not. Since the AMA survived its MfD, is this still meant to be a replacement for the AMA, or a co-existing alternative? And is there any prohibition against me being a member of both organisations concurrently? Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Following up on our conversation earlier, I designed a new userbox for the project, as there didn't seem to be one. It's at Template:User Editor Assistance. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Should we also create a "Category:Editor Assistance Wikipedians", like there is for other Wikipedia projects? It might also be helpful to transclude the members' list on to the main project page. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I'd like to thank you for your moral support at the most recent RfAr regarding Billy Ego's fascism-related userspace content. Your comment was much appreciated. Sandstein 19:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

AMA case

This one was filed a while ago, and JzG weighed in with some observations based on what had happened and the editor seems reasonably happy and hasn't edited since. I've written a rebuttal on the talk page pointing out what a wholly incorrect version of events it is. I had the Robert I. Coulter page undeleted for the purposes of this which could do with deleting again really, is there any chance of you having a quick look at the case and seeing what needs doing if anything? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure really, I thought it might be slightly presumptious to recommend closing a case I'm involved it. If you're happy with my version of events you could delete the re-created page, as it doesn't really want to be hanging around indefintely. 20:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Robert I. Coulter was specifically undeleted for the AMA case, if you check the history you can see the older versions of the article. Without that article being undeleted I couldn't show that the politician was in fact there first, as this diff shows. If you're happy that's an accurate version of events that article can be deleted again now. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure Guy was involved, except to the extent that he knew about the situation having moved the article back in March and deleted the redirects. I asked him to undelete the article for the AMA case, and having some knowledge of organ makers and suchlike he decided to post some comments. He's quite happy for the article to be deleted again as this diff shows, I just thought it best to see if anything should be done regarding the case, and at least make sure an AMA member had seen the actual version of what happened. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Userspace

Hi, you mentioned here [22] that userspace edits are extempt from 3RR and the users are allowed to remove comments from their own talkpages. I have no connection to this particular case but since an editor removed my comments from his talkpage I was wondering what the policies/guidelines are on this. Any link to official rules would be much appreciated (I tried googling but didn't find anything specific). Thank you Mackan 19:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

ProhibitOnions

I have undone your 3RR block of ProhibitOnions, as he neither had 3 reverts nor was edit warring. He was in a dispute, proposed a compromise wording, then reverted some edits mostly unrelated to the dispute. I don't get why it helps to block him in this case when a warning would have probably had a better effect. Kusma (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, should probably have consulted you first; I thought you were away but I forgot that I'm two hours away from UTC now that we're back in daylight saving and so I should have not taken the shortcut... anyway, back to the count: the first "revert" was not a reversion to PO's version, but apparently he noticed something he thought was wrong and changed it. The second "revert" is immediately followed up by a compromise wording that reintroduces the contentious term. Reverts three and four are indeed simple reverts. Which leaves us with two reverts. Together with talk page discussion happening that doesn't look like a simple edit war that needs to be stopped by a block to me. Kusma (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser case closed

Hi, your request for checkuser was completed. You can find it in the archives for 7 days at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/IP_check/Archive#Ararat_arev. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this by the way (above), I think that the situation at both Turkey and Armenia is dire, particularly for the former - it is the third time the article had to be fully protected in ten days. I have four sources (trivial stuff like latest economic figures) and two images that I will use to update Turkey, but every single time I login to Wikipedia, there seems to be a horrible revert-war going on if the article is not full protected. Do you have any idea on what can be done? Cheers! Baristarim 01:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just checked checkuser, if it returns I will let you know. Sorry for taking your time.. Baristarim 01:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Baristarim 01:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how he did it, but he is already back at Armenia with the same old!! At the least maybe a semi-protect would be a good idea since he seems to be using IPs (for the moment).. His perseverance is amazing. As for the earlier AN/I post, no problems - many users had had enough and felt that something had to be done because work was seriously being disrupted - the least being the time wasted on reverts.. cheers! Baristarim 02:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCN closing

Thanks for stepping up and taking care of it - I know it wasn't easy. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeh from me too, no-one else was prepared to do it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 07:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent actions at RFCN

Hi! I saw that you recently closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Fenian Swine. You didn't seem to mention how you arrived at your decision and I feel one is warranted given the lengthy discussion that took place. What factors did you take into account, which comments did you disregard, how did you apply the username policy, and are you aware of the term and its meaning? gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that you took only six minutes between edits when you closed this discussion. Did it only take you six minutes to read through the entire discussion, it's talk page, and then determine the proper course of action? gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why you feel as though there's no consensus on the page itself. It's quite clear that the username violates Wikipedia policy, and since you're a new admin, it's expected that you'll make early mistakes. I just wish you didn't make this one, hehe. Cheers and good luck with your new buttons! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, no, the username is most definitely a slur. I provided not only a detailed description, but also external references to support this notion. In fact, one only needs to check out Fenian and use one's own commonsense regarding the word "swine" to realise this, mate gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Wow. That's all. Just wow.TortureIsWrong 03:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Measuring consensus

May I ask how you measured consensus in the "Fenian Swine" case?

From my point of view, the "disallow" position held up the words Fenian and Swine to WP:USERNAME#Slurs and found them in clear violation of policy, while the "allow" position used non-policy arguments (such as a good editing history means we should allow the username). As I understand "consensus" on Wikipedia, policy arguments outweigh non-policy arguments, and "vote count" is irrelevant. So I simply do not understand a "no consensus" closing here. Please, lead me through the reasoning here. Thank you. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind reply on my talk page. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Chambersburg

Sorry about the delay in reply. I was at a hotel and it used a proxy which was blocked on Wikipedia to access the internet. It wasn't worth it to as for a auto-unblocked because I was only there a few days. Anyways, I was wondering if you could help pull the article up to the WP:CITY standard for a city. I would like to get the article to a FA rating eventually, but for now GA will work. Thank you! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 03:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ararat arev

I heard he was a programmer or something, but we'll have to see. BTW, you're aware that he hacks into old accounts because their passwords are the same as the usernames, right? See [23]:

You got it now?/??? Its me , go check 100 the password is 100

go check k9 its k9 etc etc

Go check those have the same passwords for those in the Armenia edit history

Khoikhoi 03:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I also heard he's a regular contributor to Stormfront, but someone will have to verify that one. Khoikhoi 03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Check your email. :-) Khoikhoi 03:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks by the way, your help is appreciated. Baristarim 05:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 05:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Adult_Porn_Link_Lists.html

Hello,

please note that the article Adult_Porn_Link_Lists.html brings together, and adds to, concepts touched upon in many articles related to the on-line pornography world, such as: Internet_pornography.html, Free_Hosted_Galleries.html, Pay_per_click.html, Affiliate_networks.html, Affiliate_marketing.html, and many others. While, like many other articles, it does need work to fit Wikipedia criteria, it provides crucial information.

IIRC, I had even done a Wikipedia Search for 'link list' in the hope of finding an article which touched upon this aspect, but found no related articles! This was done during its Proposed Deletion period, IIRC.

I agree that it is essentially a link exchange. However, the article covers a particular manifestation of the larger concept. An analogy would be deletion of 'Method Acting' because it falls under 'Acting.'

Initially, I thought of suggesting that the title remain as a link to Link_Exchange.html. However, the original article provides much more information for its field than does the conceptual article. So I would suggest that the deletion be reverted.

P00r 05:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Help needed Re: User:Hamsacharya dan reported by User:Watchtower Sentinel

Greetings Seraphimblade! Our 3RR/Edit Warring complaint is already in its second day pending and that is why I felt compelled to respectfully solicit your attention. Please take a look at it. No need to reply. Feel free to delete this message after you have read it. Thank you in advance. - Sentinel 14:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User RfC on an editor you blocked

There is currently a user RfC going on for User:Martinphi, at which he has disputed the 3RR block he was given and insisted that his policy violations were justified and that he has done nothing wrong (these comments are on the RfC talk page). Since you were the blocking admin, I thought you should know and might want to respond to his comments. Thanks. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martinphi --Minderbinder 14:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:ASSIST

Concerning the earlier discussion on the talkpage, are we going to have a formal position of co-ordinator for WP:ASSIST? IMHO it might be better to have one or two clerks, who will deal with the backlog of requests and (where necessary) assign them to an assistant, and will serve as a point of contact for the organisation. "Clerk" sounds less status-driven than "co-ordinator" and is less likely to put people off. Just an idea. Btw I think you deserve this... Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		To Seraphimblade, for hard work in getting the Wikipedia:Editor assistance project off the ground. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your work at WP:RFCN

		The Barnstar of Valour on Making a Difficult Decision
		For closing a very contentious WP:RFCN ruling. Well done! - Alison☺ 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't necessarily agree with your conclusions, but your handling of it was awesome. Well done :) - Alison^☺ 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-block

Hi! Since you've been dealing with the sockpuppet stuff lately, one of the socks of Neemaz is back to vandalizing again. Or at least, the one edit since the last block is the same vandalism that was being done before. Any chance something more long-term can be done, so it doesn't keep popping up every few days? Thanks, Bbik 05:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do, already ran through the other IPs, seems they've at least been quite since the early spats. -Bbik 05:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Fenian Swine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am sorry to say that you and Ryan Postlethwaite are very naive re the above user and his cadre of pro-PIRA supporters and/or former volunteers. Do you think he is going to change his username? Do you think they care what anyone else thinks or feels? It is absurd that no consensus could be reached for at least the second time. Don't you realize that they act in concert??!!

For example, see below from User:Fenian Swine's talk page:

• While the recent RFCN discussion to require you to change your username reached no consensus, I encourage you to do so in any case. Your username may inhibit your ability to work with some other editors. If you wish to keep the contributions and userpages from this account, you can easily do so by filing a request at WP:CHU. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Congratulations! One Night In Hackney303 11:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• I will add my congrats a chara! --Vintagekits 13:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

They canvass each other to vote on matters important to them; they share info. on their Noticeboard and Project pages, etc. Those who genuinely act in good faith are pitifully disorganized. If Wikipedia had not been corrupted already someone like User:Vintagekits would have been blocked indefinitely by now. You blokced me for 48 hours for using sockpuppets (and I thank you for not making it a longer block as you might have done). I know I did something unacceptable, but I was driven to it because I am tired of being victimized by this gang who put their pro-IRA themes, topics, agendas, etc. and get Wikipedian validation. On User:Fenian Swine's discussion page he references Trinity College, Dublin and "Huns", a pejorative word for Protestants; why isn't he blocked for this hatemongering?

There is only relentless refusal to abide by the rules everyone else follows, and the inevitable humiliating defeat for their opponents or "enemies". What they want is everything their own way and what they are willing to concede voluntarily is close to nil. I wonder if a User could user the name say Osama's Watching or Al Qaeda underling or Hamas Hashemite or Taigkiller or some other offensive, terrorist-related username. I think we both know the answer to that, and to pretend the IRA is not as terroristic an organization as any other is revisionism.Jill Teed 20:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I am offended by that outragous personal attack, the second today in fact. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• User:Seraphimblade had the onerous task of closing the RFCN is all, and while I didn't like the final outcome, due process was followed. I'm also more than aware of the connotations behind the disputed name and also behind the offensiveness of having "Tiocfaidh ár Lá" pasted on one's userpage (removed yesterday). However, the accusations you made above are inexcusable and without any foundation at all. Please retract those accusations and apologise for such a suggestion. It's appalling - Alison^☺ 00:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's sad that at a point in Irish history where terrorism is clearly on the way out and the worst hatemonger left is the senile and half-dead Ian Paisley that user Jill Teed can't let it go. It's no more "hatemongering" to refer to oneself as a Fenian than it is to refer to oneself (in the US) as a Yankee or a Rebel. TortureIsWrong 01:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What's sad is that this conversation is continuing. Ian Paisley is now sitting down with Nationalist politicians for about the first time ever and is receiving a lot of flak from his own DUP for his troubles. "Tiocfaidh ár Lá" is offensive in the extreme, and you know it. I've had (Nationalist - ha!) friends who were badly injured by IRA thugs, so phrases like that grate on my sensibilities. Pardon my bias, but I grew up in the Republic and can remember the hatred and violence so well and so much of it was kept going by ignorant armchair chuckies who should have known better. Jerry McCabe was murdered by provos only 10 miles from my home. Phrases like that are just like flipping the finger at victims of IRA criminals & that really gets my goat - Alison^☺ 04:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Three-revert rule

Matthew has for the second time broken the three revert rule. I'm not sure why he wasn't banned the first time.

Replied on editor's talk. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied to your last comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.18.93 (talk • contribs)

Replied to your last comment. 69.130.18.93 23:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Since you are currently participating in both AMA and ASSIST, your comments might be taken with more weight than others'. Regards, Iamunknown 17:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Best of Mauco's sockpuppetries

Moto: "Checkuser does not lie" (User:Irpen)[24]

Personages of the show

1. User:William Mauco, puppetmaster, indian origin, coloured skin (sometimes suffered from racism), excellent English language skills, interested in small statelets which want independence, like Montenegro, Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia in 9 March 2006 [25]
2. User:Pernambuco, active sockpuppet, brazilian, interested in a wide large of unrelated topics, some of them which nobody else really care about (like Brazilian made toy trains), native portuguese speaker, making some grammar and punctuation mistakes in English, little knowledge about Transnistria but willing to learn more, started contributions at Wikipedia in 21 September 2006 [26]

   Comment: While a succesfull sockpuppet, in the process of creation of Pernambuco some mistakes were done, like using edit summary, words from Wikipedia slang (“redlink”) and Wikipedia abreviations ("rv" instead of "revert") from his first edit.

3. User:Ştefan44, sockpuppet, romanian, interested in Romanian-related topics, marginal interest about Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia in 4 February 2007 [27]

   Comment: Creating a sockpuppet with a "Romanian" identity is a good idea for editing disputes about Transnistria, where an ethnic conflict between Romanians and Russians exist, and you want to push a Russian expansionist POV. Your opponents will be most likely of Romanian origin and it will be difficult for them to argue against a "Romanian" sockpuppet.

4. User:Kertu3, sockpuppet with small activity, started contributions in Wikipedia in 18 February 2007 [28]
5. User:MariusM, opponent, bad guy, edit warrior, black sheep.

Practical usage of sockpuppets in editing disputes

1. Sockpuppeteer protesting for the fact that sockpuppet was not invited in a formal mediation: At Request for Mediation at which he was invited, sockpuppeteer was reluctant to accept mediation because at the begining the RFM didn't listed as involved part his sockpuppet, as he explained in this message to User:Khoikhoi, and afterwards, in the mediation discussions, to the mediator User:Flcelloguy. Quote: "Khoi, (...) the editor (User:MariusM) immediately filed a request for mediation. I have some problems with this and would like your advice and that of any others who can give advice: (...) In his mediation request, MariusM provides a very misleading list of "involved parties"; in effect stacking the deck. In the past week, he has been reverted over this by me, you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni, Int19h. Yet he leaves out you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni"[29].
2. In the same mediation were sockpuppeteer and sockpuppet took both part, accusing others for "Use of sockpuppet to influence outcome of formal mediation in dispute resolution": [30]. According his own words, sockpuppeteer was doing "what every responsible Wikipedia editor would do: Making sure that voting and mediation processes are not circumvented by malicious use of sockpuppet" [31].
3. Sockpuppet strongly denying that he is on his sockpuppeteer side in a formal mediation: I just got into all of this because I moved a revert war to Talk (...) Mister William Mauco was not even involved that day (...) What makes you think that I am on "Mauco side"? [32]
4. Sockpuppet asking sockpuppeteer to be more active: "you should check in more, I just reverted back to restore some excellent edits that you had made, and this man Marius-M deleted them, but he is an edit warrior with a long series of bans, and I dont want to start to fight with him, it is best that you defend your own edits, I am warning you, I dont want to do it for you" [33]. "I have defended your intro compromise with Vecrumbas on Transnistria, but where are you, I saw that you were back two days ago, but I am tired of doing this for you and I dont care about Transnistria, not anymore, there is a man there who calls me a liar ("MArius-M") and even reported me, he wanted to get me blocked, so if you want to fight the battle then come back on wiki-pedia and do it yourself"[34]
5. Sockpuppeteeer asking sockpuppet "where are you? (...) defend your own edits!": “Pernambuco, where are you? Your block should have been lifted by now. I want to bring this to your attention: MariusM just undid your edit for the third time. If you don't want to take sides, that is fair. But at least defend your own edits”[35]
6. Sockpuppet accusing opponent for poll fraud through sockpuppets: "It is easy to create sockpuppets, and at least three have been made specifically for this page within the past 24 hours. Don't be surprised if MariusM soon proposes another "vote" or "poll" on something so all these new identities can get a chance to cast their votes"[36]
7. Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that he trust him as an "outsider with a cool head":[37]. Previously, the sockpuppet just explained to his sockpuppeteer: "No reason for me to get involved again because I see on the talk page of that article that some of you know a lot more about this subject than me. When I have time I want to try to learn about it but meantime please all of you could try to work it out among yourselves"[38]
8. Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that in a particular problem the opponent is right (that's excellent! It creates an image of honestity and integrity for sockpuppeteer): "Pernambuco, MariusM is right. The links are there. If you check the source code of the page, it was a Google Ads javascript. Possibly you can't see them because you have javascript turned off in your browser"[39]
9. Sockpuppet asking both his sockpuppeteer and the opponent to reach an agreement, meantime deleting a disputed [40] [41]paragraph with sourced information: "Keep it out until both of you can reach agreement"[42]. Explaining afterwards to the opponent: "I did not want to take sides. My edit was the same kind that I used in the other page. I just moved it all. That way, you can agree in the "talk" section. and it will not affect the main page. If you need me to help you decide then I can do it. but I try not to get involved otherwise" [43]
10. Sockpuppeteer making big effort to convince his sockpuppet of the correctness of his position, in the user talk page: Actually, if I may give my side of the story. Regarding the paragraph which you moved: There is still no consensus, and the debate is ongoing in Talk. Someone who is a selfconfessed editwarrior (a user who calls himself "EvilAlex") is now helping MariusM add it back in, so that they can skirt 3RR ... which is a similar tactic that they have used in the past [44]
11. Unrespectfull sockpuppet, naming his sockpuppeteer "hot head": Both of you are hot heads. Chill out. Don't call each other names[45]. That's good, is consolidating the reputation of "neutrality", and nothing is more difficult to fight with in Wikipedia than "neutrality".
12. Sockpuppet disagreeing with his sockpuppeteer:[46], [47]
13. Sockpuppet asking other editors to be careful when they revert his sockpuppeteer, not to revert also his work: When 'Dpotop' did his revert, he also overwrote some of my changes. The things that he point out can be discussed with the person he reverted (Mauco). (...) Please, I ask, When you revert someone, you should be careful to not overwrite the edits of other people that were done in the meantime.[48]
14. Sockpupeteer drawing attention to his sockpuppet that he was reverted: Pernambuco, I know that you already said that you don't like to get involved in edit disputes, but you just got reverted even as part of a wholesale rvv done by MariusM. He reverted me (as usual) and in the process, he decided to get rid of your work, too, even though your edit was agreed upon by EvilAlex and not by me (...) That sort of behavior is unacceptable. I don't know if you want to defend my edit, but at least you should defend your own.[49]
15. Sockpuppet asking other editors to wait the return of his sockpuppeteer: We should wait for Mauco to come back and respond to this. I already replied to him.[50]
16. Sockpuppet mediating dispute between sockpuppeteer and opponent (but reverting in fact only the opponent): Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space [51]. "Again? Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space" [52]. Also: "mauco and mariusm you need to learn to get along!!!"[53]
17. Sockpuppet explaining that both his sockpuppeteer and his opponent are doing wrong things: "you did not revert mauco and he is not just revertng you, but both of you are undoing the work of many other people also, as part of your conflict, so please stop this. I will just have to look at your log and look at his log, and start to whole sale undo both of you from now on, as a lesson" [54]
18. Sockpuppet telling that he will keep an eye on his sockpuppeteer and will revert him if necesarry: "I will keep an eye on both of you from now on, I will certainly also revert Mr William Mauco (...) the wars between you and him are not helping it, it is just making it worse, both of you"[55]
19. Sockpuppeteer aknowledging the fact that his sockpuppet never supported him, but still trying to convince him: "I know that in the past, you never wanted to stand up for me or take sides. But at least defend YOUR OWN edit" [56]
20. Sockpuppet criticising sockpuppeteer for not following the agreed rules: "You do not follow it either mr Mauco, but right now it is important all of you need to stop that edit war, and I will keep restoring the article if you all keep doing it" [57]
21. Sockpuppet calling his sockpuppeteer "warrior": "I will not take sides, and I never removed anything (...) I do not agree with your warrior friend Mauco either, but he has more sense in this than you do, I am sorry to say it, but you are acting badly"[58]
22. Sockpuppet assuring that he will not ask aproval from his sockpupeteer: "I will never ask Mauco for approval"[59]
23. Sockpuppet outlying the necesity of agreement between his sockpuppeteer and opponent: "my position is that you can not close the mediation (...) because I can see that you do not agree with Mauco and that Mauco do not agree with you"[60]
24. Sockpuppet characterizing sockpupeteer and opponent as "two fighting bears": "Why are you two always fighting? (...) I see the both of you again, and again, just like everywhere else, you are trading in insults, why? Mariusm, you need to adjust your attitude, you have a wrong understanding of the "assume good faith" and "be civil" rules, and William Mauco, you need to stop provoking this man, he has a short temper, so just ignore him" (see also edit summary) [61]
25. Sockpuppet asking other editor to wait until his blocked sockpuppeteer and the blocked opponent will return: "just wait until the two M´s return, and see what they say" [62]
26. Sockpuppet explaining how bad the opponent is: "I am more concerned with the return of MariusM, it was so peaceful when he was away, and now he shows up, and immediately he edits the page and gets reverted, then he edits again, then he goes to my page and starts accusing me of not using common sense, and here on the page he accuses immediately of "plain fallacies", it is his style, why can he not be like the others, we can all make compromises but not him or it seems"[63]. "the troubles only started when you came back from your ban, it was more peaceful here when you were blocked from edited wiki-pedia"[64]. "stop this inane edit warring, marius-m" (edit summary) [65], "the person who is most rude is the MariusM man, he is ignoring all the decisions of other people here on this page"[66]
27. Sockpuppet defending the compromise achieved by his sockpuppeteer but dissapointed for sockpuppeteer's lack of willingness to defend that version: "it is also very bad that Vecrumbas and Mauco will not defend their compromise version, where are they both? if they dont do defend it, then I´ll also stop this, and then the whole compromise falls apart"[67]
28. Happy sockpuppet because of sockpuppeteer's revival: "today Mauco came "back from the dead" and also new user Pompey64 restored the word"[68]
29. Tired sockpuppet, disapointed for lack of support from his sockpuppeteer: "i am tired of trying to help with Moldavian things (...) the people who made their proposals are Mauco and Vecrumbas and now they dont even defend their edits, they want me to do it for them, I dont think I will keep doing that for them"[69]
30. Sockpuppet asking his sockpuppeteer to explain proposed changes in talk page first: "why dont you make a proposal and post it here first before you change the main page, thats the way to avoid all the reverts from the usual edit warriors that hate transnistria, I am neutral but I like to see the proposal first and then decide"[70]
31. Sockpuppet claiming no knowledge about the protection of a page where his sockpuppeteer edit-warred: "I want to move this: (...) but the page is closed, what can I do"[71]
32. Cooperation between sockpuppets: "The Stefan44 version has the latest info,and it is sourced, and all the other editors also gave their explanations, read the log and do not blank this without discussion Mariusm" (edit summary)[72]
33. Sockpuppet teaching Wikipedia policies to both his sockpuppeteer and opponent: "this is about something that Mauco and Mariusm was arguing about six month ago, I just found this policy that I want to share since its so relevant: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (shortcut: WP:REDFLAG). See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories"[73]
34. Sockpuppet removing information against which he didn't express any reason for removal during months of formal mediation, where both he and sockpuppeteer took part: [74]. At same article removing links allegedly dead, which in fact are not dead [75]
35. Sockpuppet, denying knowledge of the other sockpuppet: "thats not me, I was going to revert you, but kertu3 did it (not me), so I was just watching the two of you" [76]
36. Sockpuppet disscussing with sockpuppeteer about the bad conduct of opponent: "Does anyone know what happened to my edits?"[77], "User:MariusM returned, that was what happened"[78], "I see. That's bad news"[79]
37. Sockpuppeteer explaining legitimate use of sockpuppetry and challenging opponent to accuse him of sockpuppetry, after 2 of his sockpuppets were caught being the same person: "I am going to defend Pernambuco (and now you'll say that I am his sockpuppet, too). (...) I am almost going to give Pernambuco an anti-vandal barnstar here, because at least he/she restored the page while you were busy trying to blank the work that took place by lots of people over the past month"[80]. Opponent was stupid enough to assume good faith of the sockpuppeteer: "I am not going to say now that you are Pernambuco's sock"[81]
38. Sockpuppeteer accusing opponents for "contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles": "Did anyone stop to look at what Pernambuco was actually doing? I checked the log. He/she didn't introduce anything new, but just kept restoring the page from over-zealous "editing" done in contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles. I am not in agreement with the methods, but I can understand the motivation" [82]
39. Sockpuppeteer explaining that he didn't edited the page for two weeks, after edit wars between his sockpuppets and opponents: "I was away from this page for nearly two weeks, and when I came back, I checked the History log. The logs speak for themselves: Our "clean" friends have engaged in a lot of blanking, reverting, warring" [83]
40. Sockpuppeteer explaining that his sockpuppets didn't help him, as he haven't edited the article in last 12 days (but his sockpuppets did); explaining also a disagreement with part of the edits of his sockpuppet: "Dude, how can he "be helping me"? The work he protected was not my work. I haven't had a single edit to mainspace in 12 days (...) I notice that Pernambuco supported (and protected) your graveyard edit. (...) I don't agree with it, but at least I play by the rules here[84]
41. Sockpuppeteer asking opponent block for edit-warring with 2 of his sockpuppets: "I believe he needs a significant block to understand in the future that edit warring is clearly unacceptable" [85]. Explaining afterwards that he was not part of the conflict and criticising admin decision for small duration of block: "I was NOT part of the conflict. I didn't have a single mainspace edit to this article for 12 days prior to when this started. Also, MariusM sent an email to his fellow Romanian admin-friend who did a bit of wheel warring and reduced the block to a week, in breach of normal 3RR enforcement practice. Which is much too low"[86]

Hiding evidence

1. Partial deletion of User:Dmcdevit's message regarding the discovery of sockpuppetry, in order to hide the exact names of sockpuppets and the usage of open proxies: [87]

Comment

Hi, Seraphim. I am the editor who was involved from already more than 6 months in editing disputes with sockpuppeteer William Mauco and his sockpuppets. My concern is that in those disputes I received already a lot of blocks and now anybody who will look at my block log will consider me a bad guy. All my blocks were a result of the disputes with this single person - William Mauco and his sockpuppets. Mauco and one of the sockpuppets also received blocks in editing disputes with me, but it was not a fair dispute. He allways evaded his previous blocks through his sockpuppets, which were not discovered at that time. I am asking your advice regarding how I can add an explanation for everybody who will look at my block log that all my previous blocks until now are result of wrongfully being labelled as edit-warrior. This happened after I made a report at WP:ANI regarding the pattern of not enforcing 3RR in William Mauco's case [88]. After that report admins started to label both of us as edit warriors (despite the fact that usually only Mauco broke 3RR and I stopped at 3 reverts) and block simultaneously both of us. I am wrongfully accused of having a "pattern of 3RR violation" by superficial admins who look only in my block log. Checking "what links here" from my userpage can prove that there are not so many 3RR violations by me. In the latest case my reverts were against 2 Mauco's socks, I explained in my edit summary that I revert a sock, however I was still blocked for 3RR for a long period (my block log was taken in consideration). The report against me was submitted by Mauco the sockpuppeteer, who even pretended that he was not involved in the editing dispute. I received the advice to change my username in Wikipedia, however I don't want to do this as I am very proud of all my contributions at Wikipedia.--MariusM 09:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar! Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Artaxiad

Please see the relevant discussion. -- Cat ^chi? 18:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your help with my recent inquiry. 19:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Raryel

Clarification

You have some wrong impression about me based on fallacies spread in Wikipedia by Mauco and his socks. The idea that I am a person who is only reverting and not willing to talk in fake. Check my contributions [89]. I have (today, when I am writing) 2231 contributions at English Wikipedia, from which only 622 edits in main space. I did discuss all my edits for long time, I brought sources for all afirmations. However, I had as opponent a person who was only simulating the willingness to disscuss.--MariusM 20:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

3O

Would you mind if I relist the PVC article? I appreciate your opinion but I really want to get some wider exposure for the other editors there in order to dispell the idea that they're being bullied. NeoFreak 00:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've merged the article. I would also ask that you take a look at Uniform fetish and Schoolgirl uniform fetish articles as I'm having the exact smae issues there. NeoFreak 00:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible block-evading user

Seraphimblade, you indefinitely blocked WikiManiac64 (talk · contribs · logs) on 18:38, 31 March 2007 with the block summary "Sock (or perhaps appropriately puppetmaster) of Wikiloco, block evasion." Three and a half hours later, at 22:18, 31 March 2007, SuperNESPlayer (talk · contribs · logs) created an account. They may be the same user because of this revision history and because of similar contribution histories. I'm not sure if anything formal can be done now, but it seems pretty obvious to me. Regards, Iamunknown 20:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Denied RCU

Hi Seraphim. You just advice me to ask RCU if I have suspicions about other socks of Mauco because the community will back me up if I am right[90], however my request was denied [91]. This was my only request I made after I returned from my block. Why there is no desire to verify my request?--MariusM 21:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Your statement about a rule

In the VP you said "If reliable sources have not been found to indicate that mainstream science accepts an idea, mainstream science rejects it. " Is this in any WP policy? Bubba73 (talk), 21:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It is part of the WP:FRINGE guideline, under "A note about publication." However, it's also common sense. Cranks send stuff like that to science journals all the time, and it gets pretty much uniformly rejected. By choosing not to publish, they're stating their take on it just as clearly as if they specifically stated "This is baseless." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC) ^{(Copied from [92])}

In a modified form it is an application of the principles embodied in WP:NOR. When mainstream science ignores (de facto "rejection") a subject, it is either because it doesn't deem it worthy of investigation because it is too nonsensical, or because it is too new to have been researched as yet, so in either case no V & RSs exist. Until they do, the subject is likely not notable enough for mention at Wikipedia, as such mention would be OR. That automatically means it's a minority position, often not worthy of mention, or of only peripheral mention, IOW a likely target for speedy deletion.

To make this easier to understand, let's take Seraphimblade's statement above and make a slight change:

• "If reliable sources have not been found to indicate that mainstream science accepts an idea, mainstream science Wikipedia rejects it."

Lacking such sources, its only notability is because it is being promoted by nutcases, radicals, ignorants, or well-meaning true believers, and such sources are normally not considered V & RS here. Does that make sense? I think that should be included in policy. -- Fyslee/talk 22:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks, the statement of the rule is helpful. In many cases no reliable source for saying something is nonsense can be found (it is simply ignored). Bubba73 (talk), 22:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Lam Tin

WP:WPHK and WP:CHINA usually don't help in this kind of subtle things. I'm actually asking for some volunteers to help writing an intro. Anyway thanks for the answer. I think I need to go somewhere else. Looking at the current request list, I also believe that I've gone to the wrong place. --Deryck C. 03:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case I think I'd first finish off the details of the article and then put it through GA, where I can have the article subject to greater scrutiny. --Deryck C. 03:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Digital rights management

Is Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Digital rights management closed? It's listed in the list of closed tasks, but the template on the talk page still reads notice instead of closed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RJFJR (talk • contribs) 20:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, looks like I misread it. RJFJR 21:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for the DRM work. Do you have an opinion on the discussion on the DRM talk page regarding the linking of "Rights" (as in the R in DRM) to legal system rights as opposed to computer file permissions ("rights")? I and apparently at least one other user on the talk page think that it clearly referring to computer access rights. I can see how it could be interpreted either way though, which is why I unlinked rather than relinked. Also the linking to "restrictions" IMHO isn't particularly informative & clutters the text. Both got reverted & nobody has commented except myself & the reverter. Ripe 04:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Person Needing a Time-Out

This anon user seems to be having some difficulty working with others (1, 2 and is often uncivil (1). The user has a short but unhappy history within the WP community. Usually, one can find at least one or two positive edits that a user has made. Unfortunately (and surprisingly), this user has none. What might we be able to offer the editing community in the way of protection from this user? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits from a blocked user.

I noticed you blocked User:Emeraldher for 3RR. That same user is now editing under his/her IP. I have place a suspected sock notice on the IP's talk page and have been reverting all his/her edits. Would a block extension be a good idea? Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a blocked user, and I'm not a sock. I'm not Emeralher. Do you get it? Ask anyone.

wiki policy

Thank you for your third party involvement.

In the example of PSI World and several other organizations.. Smee or her counter parts wrote the articles, in order to link them to LGAT in web searches (and thus discredit them). Another example of this is Klemmer & Associates as well as Mind Dynamics. Once she is forced to remove her anti-cult rhetoric and labeling, (in the example of K&A) she tagged the article as an advertisement.

I am new to wiki and I was told that I needed to spend more time watching the process before I attempt to have pages removed.

While an argument could be made that 'LGAT' should be on wiki, it is clearly a pejorative term and Smee's edits demonstrate that she is using it as such, to discredit and label organizations.

Historically, when she is forced to permit (or remove) things which are counter to her views, she re-writes the page or section.. (see List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations as an example.) After you posted your view, she flagged the page as 'undergoing major re-write' without discussing it in talk first. There was no need for a 'major' rewrite. All that was necessary was to remove the references which were invalid, based on unreliable source material. However, she wants those groups included, so now, presumably, she will rewrite the page so they can be included.

From the reading I have done, since my encounters with her, she is involved in many such disputes and edit wars.

Is this how wiki is supposed to be? Is there any simple process to stop such behavior?

What will stop her from simply writing another article on PSI if this one gets deleted? Lsi john 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. I don't know if you review or see updates on my page, so I am putting this here.

Smee has now claimed to be 'back' from a break and promises to 'add' and 'remove' things from the LGAT article. Much work on both sides has gone into this article and it would be a shame for her to simply re-write entire sections (again). Is there any wiki policy or rules which prevent an editor from re-writing entire articles or sections, which have been a group effort and for which a group discussion of many editors is in place? Without seeing the final product, I will not predict the outcome, however I would like to know what the options are, as historically she re-writes (or reverts) things which don't suit her adjenda. Lsi john 22:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So, basically, my experience so far is.. whoever has the most free time and strongest desire will prevail. If you (whomever) do not like what someone edits, you re-write an entire section and remove the work they did. If someone catches you violating the rules and makes you remove references, you re-write it to something else and make them complain about that. And, if you persist long enough, eventually they will go away to real-life, and you can have the article you want. And if someone happens to complain about the 'collection' of your work, you cry foul and say 'its not about you its about the work' and thus divert the focus from you and your mission.

Mind Dynamics has no more business as an article than does PSI World and now that its threatened, Smee found one reference which mentions it.. and that justifies an article on it? Bah. Wiki is being used to discredit legitimate organizations and the rules are being used to protect those people writing the articles. The only people truly using the term are anti-cult activist and since no specific definition exists, and since the apa has no definition for it, LGAT can be used any way the anti-cult movement wants to use it. They are the ones publishing articles using the term and since no 'reputable published source' has said xyz company is 'not' an LGAT, nobody can refute claims that xyz IS an LGAT. It can not be claimed that 'no single accepted definition exists' because no reputable source has made that claim, yet it is still a fact, none-the-less. 22:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

When something looks like rotten fish, smells like rotten fish and tastes like rotten fish, I do not need to find a scholar to write a book to proclaim his pov that its a rotten fish.

I'm sorry but this gives me a very poor view of wiki and its reliability on anything but milk-toast subjects and issues.

Lsi john 22:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade: If you have a moment, please take a look at the history on List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations. You were kind enough to give a third party opinion that a reference was unreliable and should not be used. Smee ignored your decision, completed her other edits and left the reference in place. I removed the reference, and as no other references were in place for numerous entries, I removed the entries. Smee has 'reverted' the enteries back onto the list (without the reference) and marked them 'reference needed.' Please review this history as smee has routinely done this with unreferenced names on this list. Other authors have deleted her 'unreferenced' material on this same page and she continues to revert it back onto the list. In my opinion, this is a clear sample of how she ignores rules she doesn't like. Unreferenced is unreferenced and has no business on this list. She can put them back later if she finds valid references. Invalid information, even for 5 minutes, makes wiki an unreliable source of information. Marking someone else's edit as 'unreferenced' is one thing, marking your own is absurd.Lsi john 01:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade: I am unfamilar with the mediation process and am ill-prepared to fully document all the liberties that Smee has taken. This entire situaion is frustrating and confusing and I am far too green to take a case to court and expect to prevail. The situation is not restricted to one article and I am not the only one who has had these issues with Smee. I am more than willing to comply with any ruling. I am almost equally willing, at this point, to simply walk away. She knows far too many rules and can keep me spinning around chasing my tail for days and accomplishing nothing. I have a real life and though I find the imbalanced articles and her tactics extremely distasteful, I've had about all I can take of it. It simply isn't worth my time to challenge every edit only to find I have to start over again. If the arbitration does not require me to spend hours upon end collecting documentation for her actions, and if the arbitration process will prevent future abuses, then by all means I accept your offer to open the case on my behalf. Lsi john 02:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if it is relevant, but this, from her talk page, also gives an example of her stance on the issue: She views LGAT as a 'phenomenon', not a simple descriptive term.

**I also hope that you can see that I have lately been adding material from very reputable sources, such as secondary source books, and scholarly academic journal articles, as well as psychology textbooks, that describe the LGAT phenomenon. Smee 02:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Lsi john 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack fruit

Sure! Yes, viewpoint-type material must be attributed. In this case, we've got an emperor talking about fruit. Is that some kind of botanical expert? Of course not. But it's a bit lighthearted (especially given just how bad he seems to hate them), and sometimes we can use that-it's an interesting and striking quote, and it's made clear that it's not a majority opinion, just Babur's. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then sir, based on the two points you agreed to (neither majority opinion nor the opinion of an expert), you are agreeing that it violates the NPOV rule and hence does not belong in Wikipedia if contested. I am contesting it because I find it offensive. I am sure many more people would find it to be so, if we took a survey. In addition, if someone is interested in including Babur's views on jack fruit, they should include it in Babur's page - not the page of jack fruit. Just imagine someone, from say Helsinki, who has neither heard of Babur nor Jack Fruit reads the article. Would they get a good impression of jack fruit? Should Wikipedia be responsible for biasing them for/against the fruit or should it present objective opinions (neutral points of view)?

Your view point is interesting. Nevertheless, as I mentioned, the comment is not light hearted at all and I will explain why. Jack fruit holds a very special place in South Indian culture. There is also some cultural sensitivity involved in comparing this fruit with intestines and such. India is predominantly a vegetarian nation and any such comparisons would be very difficult to take lightly. Put all this together and you will start getting the picture. Think of a scenario in which some portion of the US is taken over by a middle eastern emperor and the emperor starts comparing the consistency of an apple pie to that of bird shit. Would you take the comment lightly, especially if it shows up front and center on the Wikipedia page for Apple Pie, 500 years into the future? The question to ask is, is the comment really giving any additional information about the fruit? Wouldnt it be better to put pictures and leave it up to the users to judge? None of the other fruit pages have such comments in their pages. Why should this one have it? In addition, please substitute 'jack fruit' with 'national fruit of Bangladesh' and read the sentence again. Does it sound derogatory or not? Let me know what you think Sentryman101 23:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV Removal

Hi! I see you removed User:Sdfghjkp, and you said take it to RFCN. However, WP:U states random usernames aren't allowed. You don't think this username is random? --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 01:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I should look down at my keyboard more. I still take it to RFCN. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 01:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 15	9 April 2007	About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA	Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus	WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -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. Ralbot 08:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack Fruit

Kindly do not misrepresent me. (And if, for example, George Washington had at some point compared apple pie to bird shit, I'd think that probably could go in the article.) Most articles include notable criticisms of the article's subject, and those criticisms are not censored, even if they may offend someone. So long as they're properly attributed to the critic rather than presented as factual, that is not problematic. Of course, there's also plenty in the article about the good points of jack fruit. We exclude neither, so long as it's attributable. That is not a violation of NPOV. Indeed, it is a violation of it to suppress such information due to it being "offensive". Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. What if Saddam Hussian had that opinion (George Washington:America - not the same as Babur:India - so the analogy is not accurate) and is written so in his biography/autobiography? Do you think it would do justice to use it in the Wikipedia page for apple pie? Sentryman101 08:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Remember, we mirror sources, we never "correct" them. If Saddam Hussein hated apple pie so bad that someone writing his biography saw fit to write a whole diatribe he'd launched against the stuff, that's attributable and verifiable. Like I said, we have no problem including notable criticism of something, whether or not someone may find it offensive. Even if I would find some criticism of apple pie offensive, so long as it's attributed and verified, it can certainly go in the article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. Would this be applicable even if the opinion is "irrelevant", in the sense that it adds no further information to a user trying to get information about a topic? While I understand the "attributability" clause, I still do not understand how non-majority opinions of single, non-expert sources conform to the NPOV clause. Please elaborate when you get a chance. (You can ignore the offensive aspect of the argument. I understand that it is not relevant to the attributability clause). Thanks. Sentryman101 21:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright in school song

Hi, noticed your comment on the last edit of Saint Joseph's Preparatory School regarding the copyright of the school fight song. That song was written circa 1940 and likely published without notice anyway. After looking around, I see many other school pages include lists of songs and lyrics. In some cases the songs have whole articles devoted to them. I was just curious whether your decision to remove it was due more to the possible copyright violation or because there was really some reason to avoid content such as that. Thanks. Ar-wiki 13:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

List of pubs

As someone who has contributed to the talk page discussion on List of publications in philosophy and/or that article's previous deletion debate, I thought you might be interested in participating in its new nomination for deletion which can be found here. Thanks. - KSchutte 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A proposal for stopping a long standing edit war.

See Talk:adolescent sexuality for information on the proposal. It would create a branch off article containing solely views on the subject and hopefully get rid of the POV currently in the articles which are supposed to say what adolescent sexuality is. Not is it good or bad. In my opinion I say let the POV wars take place in an article ABOUT POV. not elsewhere. Tell us what you think at the above link. Nateland 02:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Thank you for your advice on that issue, however, there is already a third opinion. The war seems to be between three people: Myself, Zythe, and DrBat, And yet still no valid reasons have been posted by either of those two. The only explanations given by those two have been "He refers to himself as gay", "Gay is the politically correct statement" and "You're the only one who wants your version". (Also, one edit by Silvestris, who's reason I'm not sure about. See my talk) I've posted multiple reasons, yet they continue to repeat one of the three statements above and revert it, starting the whole process over again.

I'm honestly stuck here. Any ideas? DSMeatte 03:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

For you for being bold to start Editors Assitance

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		I Aeon award you Seraphimblade the da Vinci Barnstar for being bold in starting a new project aimed at helping Wikipedian's in need. Love the direction you and the others are taking. Æon Insanity Now! Give Back Our Membership! 04:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

improvement in sockpuppet notification

RE: User: Enorton. An issue was whether or not the user was notified in a sockpuppet complaint made by someone else. Notifications get placed on the user page. Not every user checks these. It's better to be placed on the user's talk page because that's the page where the "new message" warning directs. Shouldn't we modify the SSP complaint instructions to reflect this proposed notification change? (Disclaimer: I have no stake in the outcome of that case, whether or not Enorton is determined to be a sockpuppeteer.)VK35 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. A random check of 2 complaints show that the warning is on the user page, not the user's talk page. If this is happening a lot, then a lot of people are being denied reasonable notification and a chance to respond. In many cases, the SSP is obviously misbehaving but in a few cases, the complainer is being a busy body (and that's when an opportunity to respond to complaints is very important).VK35 21:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Voting Irregularities

Can I get your opinion on this matter? I had noticed a lotof folk weighing in who had never been tot he article before, and I thought, we should screen them out. I am in unfamiliar territory, and could use a bit of guidance. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Never done mediation. I am not sure how to proceed with that sorta thing. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your general not coolitude

Is this the best you can do? You banned Kinghy permanently for much less than what I did. You suck at life (and Wikipedia). -El Maxo 17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Trotboy

I am tired of the abuse and petty vandalism by Trotboy; please see:

• User talk:Bridgeplayer#Castle Close Iron Age Hillfort in Devon*
• User talk:Bridgeplayer#Idiot warning!!
• User talk:Trotboy#WP:CIVIL
• User talk:Trotboy#Vandalism warning
• Talk:Stoodleigh
• Talk:Castle Close
• diff for 'Good article'
• diff for 'Good article'

He has a tendency to produce unsourced stubs, an editorial matter than I am dealing with by editorial means, but I should welcome some action before I edit more of what he regards as "his" articles to curb his behaviour. Bridgeplayer 01:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

M/S Sea Diamond / User:Neoelitism

Thanks very much for the block and for deleting the image. I was starting to get mildly cheesed off :-) --YFB ¿ 03:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Hey, I am considering applying for adminship, any thoughts? Alan.ca 08:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Out

Attempt to out someone's real name, whether you're right or wrong, and you're out the door

What does that mean? That he was trying to find the name of an editor? That is a blockable offence? --Thus Spake Anittas 23:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I assume that it would fall under the disruption or trolling criteria, because I don't remember reading specifically about that subject being against policy. However, if the info was retrieved from a public place--such as a public forum--and used to identify the person with the nickname:--would it still be considered as private info being released against the editor's will? --Thus Spake Anittas 01:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting that vandalism. The Behnam 01:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is unjust

Seraphim, I was blocked momentarily on 3RR, when user Piotrus complained on me. Biophys violated 3RR rules tens of thousands times on Boris Stomakhin, and you give him just a warning? This is so unjust in realtion to me. I haven't been given a warning.Vlad fedorov 07:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You also haven't given any warning to Biophys.Vlad fedorov 07:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You may be interesting in commenting at ANI where in discussion of Vlad's incivility he also claimed this block (which I fully support) was unjust...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments at Music

Based on your comments at Music, do you feel that the same applies at PORN? Some compromise including the PNC tag was posted by AnonEMouse, but promptly reverted by Jeff. What do you think? --Kevin Murray 20:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy Ego and a related issue with El C

Hi, and thank you again for your kind and thorough support in the Billy Ego matter.

If you could spare the time, I would be grateful if you could try and assist me with resolving a somewhat similar dispute. It concerns El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), whose user page, I believe, is inappropriate for much the same reasons Billy Ego's was. However, El C has flatly refused to discuss the issue. He has simply deleted all my comments on his talk page ([93], [94], [95]).

At this point, I think it would be helpful if you could ask El C to talk to me about it, and possibly if you would add your own thoughts about the appropriateness of this sort of user page content. I am also making this request because I am thinking about opening an RfC on this issue, which requires that two users have unsuccessfully tried to resolve the dispute bilaterally. Best, Sandstein 23:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is highly inflamatory to call this a "similar dispute," and in light of Sandstein's latest actions, I am inclined to see it as a provocation. El_C 23:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, regardless of any of that, I'm staying out of this one, as El C blocked me once, so it's entirely possible I could be seen as biased. I would encourage El C to talk to Sandstein about it, though, rather than just deleting communications-that just tends to inflame things. If a resolution can be talked out, that's always the best. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't speak to him so long as he makes these horrific comparisons. Wikipedia is not HUAC.El_C 23:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your 3RR block of User:SchmuckyTheCat

Hi. You blocked SchmuckyTheCat for a 3RR violation incurred in edit-warring with User:Pointe. However, Schmucky had posted to ANI that it appeared Pointe is the reincarnation of User:Instantnood, who is currently banned for repeated violations of an ArbCom decision. This appears to be a plausible claim although I don't know Instantnood's work well enough to feel confident in blocking Pointe without another admin agreeing. If Pointe is indeed Instantnood, as Schmucky believed when she made these edits, then the edits were reverting a banned user and exempt from 3RR. Please re-evaluate with this in mind? Thanks, Newyorkbrad 00:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not only do I believe that Pointe is an incarnation of Instantnood based on what happened today, but I suspected it long before because of edits like this [96]. SchmuckyTheCat 01:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCU is fine. But if they are knowledgeable enough to report me for 3RR, then going to 7RR[97] shouldn't require any warning for lack of knowledge of the rules. SchmuckyTheCat 01:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

categories

Seraphimblade, I am curious about the category list on the category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Large_Group_Awareness_Training

I am trying to understand what the standards are for categories.

In the case of LGAT, it also has a category of the same name. And within that cagetory are listed a multitude of other categories.

I'm dont quite understand why LGAT should have its own category, nor why that category would then need to be listed as being in other categories.

My question is: What is the wiki-process for justification of a new category and also for justification to include a category inside other categories? (you can reply here if you wish, I will watch) Lsi john 18:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends a lot on the category. Categories are intended to be navigational aids to our readers. Generally, a categorization should be uncontroversial, and if it is controversial at all it shouldn't be used. They're more intended so that the reader can easily click a link at the bottom of the page, and find related topics. (For example, if the reader is reading about the Sopwith Camel, they can easily click to go to Category:World War I aircraft and find out about the Rumpler Taube.) They're not generally intended to provide negative information, as they really can't be accompanied by a citation, so sourced negative information should be in the article rather than its categorization. In this case, it would depend how the companies self-identify more than anything. If they self-identify with "large group awareness training", sure, we could put that. On the other hand, if that has some negative connotations, and some have identified them as such but the company disputes it, the article should cover the subject, where the position of both sides could be explained. We don't use categories to editorialize or "take a side" on matters which might be contentious. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the companies listed generally do not apply the label LGAT to themselves. It is a category/label which was generated and primarily used by anti-cult individuals and groups. While there may be references where one or two training companies have use the phrase, it is not an industry wide term nor, to my knowledge, does any official group, like the AMA, use (or define) the term. The term has no clear definition and is typically defined on-the-fly in articles or books, or is defined by-example. Popular on the Rick Ross anti-cult form ( http://www.rickross.com ), the term is generally used as a pejorative label.

From the category page, it looks very similar to the List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations and contains a description line which appears to only list two other pages, which are already in the list.

It would seem to me that this category provides no overall benefit to wiki and only serves as another list of organizations which seem to be targeted by the generally negative tone of LGAT articles. Would it make more sense, or be more proper, to include the relevant categories on the individual articles themselves, rather than have an LGAT category? Lsi john 03:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

AMA to possibly nuke

This one is surplus to requirements now, as the editor was a sockpuppet of the community banned [email protected]. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cinderella

Hey—Wanted to let you know—I reverted a revision you made to the article Cinderella. I felt the text you deleted, while quite weasel-wordy on the whole, did have some value and, perhaps, could be revised instead of deleted. I posted some brief comments on the Cinderella talk page. Anyway, you're certainly a more experienced editor than myself, so if you feel the text should go, I won't undo your revision again. best Fixer1234 04:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROF dispute tag

Hey -- would you mind removing the dispute tag? What's under dispute I would characterize as a hypothetical point, but I'm concerned that the dispute tag might make it seem like disagreement is much more substantial. When WP:PROF was still a proposal, it was a recurring problem that people who were supporting articles that were ultimately deleted would point to the fact that WP:PROF was "just a proposal" and I think the same thing could happen with the dispute tag. Mangojuice^talk 12:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hello Seraphim. I'm User:AlexCovarrubias. I have sent you an e-mail requesting your help. Please check your inbox or go to my talk page. Alex. (I told a friend to paste this msg in your usertalk because I'm blocked).

Jack Fruit

Todd,

 I read your opinion on Jack Fruit and the inclusion of the quote from Babur. Could you please elaborate on how it meets the wiki NPOV requirements? Here is an extract from the Wikipedia NPOV policy.

Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority).

Babur was a notable figure in Indian history. However, he has nothing to do with Jack Fruit, which is indigenous to India. In addition, I am very sure that this is not a majority opinion at all. I am a little surprised that someone from Bangladesh wants to put such a quote about their own national fruit but of course that is his/her choice.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks!

deletes

Seraphimblace, what are your thoughts on deleting the Klemmer & Associates article? They are a seminar company and the founder Brian Klemmer is a pastor, author and speaker. They do works overseas for orphanages in Africa,, etc. But I'm not sure its a noteworthy article on wiki. your thoughs? Lsi john 23:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. Yes, indeed, it gets very frustrating when a contributor applies a strict application of the rules against others and a diametrically opposed set of editing standards for their own edits. Is there no way to have a contributor's overall actions, edits and general behavior (including repeated conflicts 'of the same nature' with multiple people), and ultimately have them censured by some governing body? Lsi john 12:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I attempt to stick to 'facts' even if my frustration leaks out in the specific choice of words and I apologize for my choice of words in those situations where I may have allowed it to become too personal. Lsi john 12:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

K&A was deleted under speedy-delete. Thank you. Lsi john 21:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Human Potential Movement has been tagged for No-Sources since Nov 2006. It still has _no_ sources cited in the article. Would this also qualify for deletion as it has been nearly 6 months and not a single cited source has been added? Lsi john 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, do remember, we don't delete articles for not having sources, just if there are no sources. The Human Potential Movement article could certainly do with a cleanup, but it looks to me ([98]) like there is plenty of source material available. I'll go ahead and tag for cleanup. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for your time.

The Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-10 Large Group Awareness Training appears to have a volunteer to mediate and I've posted my views, as requested. Lsi john 03:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A question

Regarding about not writing "in-universe" articles, I found that it's quite contradicting to have Star Wars with a very long article comparing to others (e.g. Japanese anime like Gundam SEED Destiny and games like Gunbound) where they are being stubify numerous times. I wonder why is there such inconsistency. Is it simply because Star Wars is more popular in the community comparing to others hence they can around this writing style rule? OhanaUnited 16:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you accidently wrote your reply in my user page and not in my talk page. I have moved it to talk page. I hope you don't mind about this. OhanaUnited 00:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I have accepted your mediation case. Please watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-10_Large_Group_Awareness_Training

I will go through the discussion pages and history later today.

RogueNinja_talk 17:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 16	16 April 2007	About the Signpost

Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article	Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag"	News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 06:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Candidate

Not sure, but this page seems like itsa big ol' ad for the company in question. It doesn't seem noteworthy. I first looked to edit out the peacock words before realizing it was simply a marketing brochure, which WP is not. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A Little Protection

The Robin Hood article has been dealing with a lot of anon. user juvenile vandalism. Would it be too much to ask for semi-protection? It would seem too harsh to block out the en tire IP address. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Magicmiracle

This user is back with another sockpuppet account, Great_Sarkar (talk · contribs). The account creation date, the contrib log, and self-declaration that he/she is a sockpuppet in Talk:N.R. Narayana Murthy page, have left no doubt that the account is from the puppetmaster User:Magicmiracle. Request you to indef block this new account, and extend the existing block on the master account. Thank you. - KNM ^Talk 20:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Layout Messed Up

I tried it under FF and IE 6 & 7 under windows, and everything is in a narrow column one the right side of the screen.Nousernamesleft 01:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment on discussion from Cyde's page

Hello, I'm sorry, I did not mean to imply any attack. It was just more expiditious for me to type defend than the other things that popped into my head. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh no trouble, just wanted to clarify myself. No harm done. :) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Eugene Ionesco

Thanks for the extra comments! mcr616 _Speak! 20:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Vorarephilia

Thanks for adding your comments. If you could say something to ValarClan I would really appreciate it. I'm the only person he's really dealt with so far and I don't want him to have the impression I'm "picking on him". NeoFreak 23:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Hi Seraphimblade. You recently decided to take no action on my report about Al Sharpton. After looking at your reasoning on that case and on at least one other, I believe that you misunderstand 3RR policy. As I see it, even if you revert different sections written by different editors, each revert counts towards the limit. I'm happy to be shown I'm incorrect, though. Hate to waste my time making up the reports (which take forever), if I've got the wrong end of the stick. Oh, and I'm not advocating a block now for the user in question, I believe it would constitute a stale report, although I also believe if you'd looked a bit deeper into the matter, you would have seen, for example, a previous block for that user on the same article. Thanks for taking the time to read this. IronDuke 23:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for responding so quickly. I can see how people might interpret that fact tag thingie differently. However, that would still have left four reverts, and still be a violation. Technical? Sure. But then, they all are, right? If I make my fourth revert at 23:59, I'm still going to get blocked, or at least warned if I haven't been blocked before. Anyway, thanks again for engaging on this. IronDuke 23:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi RFC

Hi Seraphimblade,

I have taken an interest in the RFC and ArbCom problems over the pseudoscience articles, by way of (1) encountering Dakval at dowsing and (2) joining ScienceApologist in other pseudoscience articles. On the RFC, which you outlined here, you made a gross error of completely mischaracterizing something, and I wonder if you have since corrected it. This might be of importance to the ArbCom debate, which may heavily draw upon this RFC. I would not want this ArbCom decision or pseudoscience advocates to make an issue over such a mistake. Your error is in the way you portray Butler's website; he comments on the behavior of the skeptics; further, his advice section does not advise such behavior, nor does it advise in any other kind of disruptive behaviors (other than perhaps: "If you have a good understanding of one subject or another in this field, and the time and skill, register as a Wikipedia editor and learn how to make changes."). Now, I do note that the page has been changes since your posting on April 4th. But if it was a change to this section, it would be great if you can document that somehow (either google caching, or web page archiving). Either way, I strongly urge you to act proactively here. Otheus 15:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment on AIV

Have I or you got /8 and /24 mixed up? I'm not sure :) Daniel Bryant 02:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Your 3O statement

Seraphim, I just want to ask you something. I'll take your advice, but it nevertheless worries me that someone can describe themselves as a trained wrestler on their talk page and get away with it. In Australia there is a major problem with people claiming to be trained. There is an effort being made to clean this up, but a lack of regulation is hindering that process. People like The Legendary One make the wrestling industry here look very bad. That's why I took this matter up with him to begin with. Yes - perhaps I mishandled it and maybe I crossed the line into personal attack. But my concern remains. I hope you understand that. I'm told that the Adelaide area is a major problem anyway in this regard. I just want to know if it's within WP rules to lie about yourself on your user page. If so - then OK. If not - then what is the correct procedure to fix this up? Mal Case 05:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There's not much point starting a website or blog about it that hasn't been done already. I suppose I could suggest to my friend Curse of Fenric that he add something on his own Wiki, but because he's got himself an undeserved bad name within the industry it may just cause him even more trouble. He is involved as a referee by the way.

But you're right. Because The Legendary One isn't trying to do anything on WP along the lines of what you're talking about, there's not a lot that can be done. I'll keep an eye on his edits just in case that changes, but I won't actually do anything unless he crosses the line. And even if he does I'll get a third opinion before doing anything anyway. Thanks for your help. Mal Case 05:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please block 87.234.79.22

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mesopotamia&action=history

Thank you very much :) --Sandycx (Talk) 11:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Seraphim

Wow! Seraphimblade himself has visited my talk page? I'll faint! ;) Seriously, dear - just, thank you for the kind words and warm wishes, and although you're right in that we have only heard of each other so far, today is a perfect day to start solving that - so here's a small gift to you with the hope that this is but the beginning of a friendship. Nice to meet you, dear Seraphim! :) Love, Phaedriel 16:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment from my RfA

I'm pleasantly surprised and humbled. Thanks for the commentary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Really, I think too big a deal is made at RfA sometimes. My only question is "Is it likely that this person would use the tools abusively or in poor judgment?" In this case, I don't believe it is, so a support. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For keeping Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets free of its previous long backlog. Of course I see you have so many this may get lost in the pile...AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Hezbollah

Hi, I don't think the editorial war was so harsh that you was obliged to protect it. As I know this article have never been fully protected even during war of last year. At present we are trying to build consensus in the talk page. Please remove protection.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We have overcome worse editorial war in the past successfully. As a wikipedian who has worked in that article since July 2006 I think it will be solved peacefully EnSha Allah. I put a comment in the talk page talk:Hezbollah#Consensus building and invited others to participate in it. You can put semi-protected tag and write in your edit summary Please participate in current consensus building in the talk page instead of reverting the article. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess that IP belong to some wikipedians. Most of wikipedians who participate in that editorial war will are active from 21:00 to 6:00. By the way, thanks for your efforts. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Rules assistance request

As you are aware, I have been involved in editing the contested series of LGAT articles.

My question is this..

Given that LGAT has no specific and universally accepted definition, can we claim in an article that Company XYZ is LGAT ? A dog is a dog because it meets the scientific test to be a dog. A company is LGAT because someone said it is. Would it not be a violation of WP:OR and WP:POV to make the claim that a company is LGAT instead of saying the company was called LGAT or was said to be of the LGAT category and then citing the person who said it?

Its a technical distinction, but one that I feel is important.

Additionally, how can I get a formal ruling on this which can then be applied across the series of articles?

Thanks. Lsi john 00:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That seems wrong in this case. (The procedure, not your answer.) This means virtually any company or organization can be LGAT and because that fact isn't cited, it can't be included. Because nobody has said LGAT is loosely defined or LGAT is defined by each author or LGAT does not have a universally accepted definition then those claims cant be put in wiki either. Which seems to make the entire series legally unbalanced. (you may reply here, its easier to follow a thread for me) :( Lsi john 00:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... actually, I need to re-address the question. Can we misquote a source? Specifically if a source says "ABC provided LGAT seminars" can we say "ABC is LGAT" ? Or must we strictly adhere to the letter of the cited remarks? Also, the terminology being used is "ABC IS LGAT" not necessarily "ABC is a company that provided LGAT seminars". To me, a company is an company. A company isn't LGAT. "LGAT" is a method of training. Lsi john 00:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The abuse I'm seeing is sort of like porn, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. Actually thats just like LGAT, its not defined, but authors seem to 'know it when they see it'. Lsi john 00:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the terms I'm looking for are WP:TE and WP:BOX though another editor suggested "pattern of subversive behavior" Lsi john 04:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, generally we should stick to sources as closely as possible. If someone has studied "LGAT" in depth, you probably can find a source that states it's loosely defined. (If it really is, I honestly don't know the first thing about it.) Now, generally we don't have to stick dead exactly to sources, we can certainly paraphrase, but such paraphrasing shouldn't substantially change what the body of reliable sources available have to say about the topic. That's why the term "editor" rather than "author" really is appropriate for writers here-we're specifically not trying to write anything new, just provide a good and useful summation of what's known and verifiable. The best thing to do is ask yourself "If someone read the sources available on this subject, and someone else read this article, and neither one had ever even heard of the subject before, would the two come out of it with essentially the same understanding of this subject?" If you can answer yes to that, it's done well. If the answer is no, it needs work. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How familiar are you with Rick Ross? (I know its a highly contested subject)

I'm looking for guidelines to follow and how to apply them.

Please take a minute or two to scan some of the links here: http://www.rickross.com/apologist.html which has been used as WP:EL.

Though apologist is not directly related to LGAT, LGAT is used as a similar label.

I'm also curious if wiki would consider the writings on that link be considered reliable as either WP:RS or WP:EL? Some are Letters to the Editor, however others are simply opinions by RickRoss on his own cultnews.com WP:UBX.

The challenge for me, is that LGAT is both used to describe a training methodology by some authors, and used as a pseudonym for cult to brand companies by other authors. I believe that distinction is being blurred on the wiki articles. What guidlines apply? With cult, wiki clearly states we must not say "XYZ is a cult" but instead "XYZ has been called a cult by ABC". With LGAT, it does not appear to be quite so clear.

Thank you.

-Peace in God. Lsi john 05:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR issue

Hi Seraphimblade. I just wanted to tell you that within five hours of you warning User talk:Joseph.James00 for a 3RR violation he is at it again. This is essentially a second 3RR violation (if you take the start from what was previously the second revert). Will you deal with this or should I re-log it at the 3RR reports page? PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 13:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Corey Clark

Hi. User:Liaishard continues to insert non-NPOV material into the article. Right now, she she insists on changing a passage so that a point of view taken by Clark reads as a fact. Specifically, in the passage detailing how the producers of American Idol told Clark and his fellow contestants to select one of two attorneys for representation that the producers presented to them within two days or be dismissed from the show, the wording indicates that Clark and his fellow contestants felt this was a conflict of interest. Liaishard keeps changing this passage from "felt" to "knew". Liaishard insists that it's a fact, not an opinion, that it does not require a legal conclusion, and that because it's from Clark's book and his own words, that it's a "direct quote". I've tried to explain to her a direct quote is a word-for-word reproduction of someone's words with quotation marks, and that the passage "Clark felt" or "Clark knew" is a third-person paraphrase, but she refuses to listen, insisting that no, it's a first-person direct quote. Wen I try to correct her on this terminology on the article's Talk Page (as I have done numerous times over the past month or two), she disagrees, but without explaining why my assertion is wrong. She also continues to insert a dead link that she herself previously removed for that reason. Nightscream 23:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corey Clark, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Northern Ireland Flag Issue

Thank you for your decision on the Template:Northern Ireland cities dispute, just regarding your comment about the lack of comments on the talk page if you check the edit history I did refer them to the Northern Ireland flags issue they talk page on that and the Talk:Northern Ireland deals with the dispute, I didn't think it was useful to restart the whole debate again on another talkpage. As for the editor that made the report against me, he/she was involved in a similar dispute on another template with me, which you can see on my talkpage, and also in the edit history on his, he deleted the comments after he made the reprt against me.--padraig3uk 12:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why has this editor not been blocked for such blatant breaches of the 3RR? I'm afraid this leaves me with very little confidence in the (fairness of the) process. He has a political agenda and has now started destroying other templates here and here for instance, with his controversial POV, ignoring your advice to seek consensus on the talk page first. 163.167.129.124 13:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If you care to check the talk pages on both articles the issue is being discussed, removing POV from WP is not disruptive or vandalism, the edits Iam making are factual.--padraig3uk 14:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, glad to see the two sides talking in any case! I still would advise talking about changes to a template on the talk page for that template (not least, so that anyone else who comes along can see what's already been discussed, always very helpful), and of course since if two templates are completely redundant to one another one of them should be deleted anyway, so it's entirely possible what's proper for one is not for another. Best to discuss individually. Also, removing (what you see as) POV is not vandalism, but it can be disruptive (depending how it's done), especially if it's edit-warred over, and is most certainly restricted by the 3RR. As to no one getting blocked, we block preventatively. For now, the page is protected, so blocking someone can't possibly do more to stop disruption to it. Future edit wars will likely lead to blocks being handed out on both sides, running right up to 3 reverts repeatedly isn't acceptable either. Perhaps the two sides could request a mediator. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As a result of this and other disputes over the mis-use of the Ulster Banner on templates and articles I have put forward a proposal Here to put a Notice on the template pages that use this flag icon, to try and prevent future mis-use.--padraig3uk 00:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a question

Dear Seraphimblade,

Please explain to me why you issue warnings to Biophys, but admin Naconkantari blocked me without any warnings. You create yourself, double standarts in Wikipedia. Some users are slaves, and some are masters, doing whatever they want, without any fear to be penalised. This is dishonesty and disrespect for all Wikipedia users. Vlad fedorov 12:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

rickierich

Haven it is now time to release me from the blacklist I have discuss everything on my talk page and it is clear A B and Nposs form a tag team to harass me on all counts they can not argue against the common sense of my points they did in fact lie to you on several issue and continue to allow company catalogues on sites which is what I deleted from wikipedia they are scrapping the barrells of the rules to make there point do not allow them to manipulate which you have allowed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.248.184 (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

No 3RR Warning for Biophys

Hi, you said you would warn Biophys (talk · contribs) for his 3RR violation, yet he hasn't been warned, and he removed the warning I left for him. You had a question about the first revert but as I explained on the 3RR page, the first revert shifted stuff around but still reverted two full paragraphs of material (the same material he reverted three more times). Your point that everyone was edit warring is well taken, but if you are letting him off with a warning, you should at least give him a direct warning. Thanks! csloat 18:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for intervening here. I just could not see such distortion. This has nothing to do with reverts. I changed the title of the article to "Operation Sarindar" (as was recommended by other editors during AfD), and created a very different text to reflect new title and the partially different topic. It begins with words: "Operation Sarindar (meaning "emergency exit") is an operating procedure designed by the Soviet military intelligence", etc. Biophys 23:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Figured you'd note the warning without having to deliver it to your door. Do remember it applies to you as well-no matter how much you may dislike someone's edits, unless it meets the very narrow criteria for exemption, don't edit war over it. We have talk pages for a reason, we have dispute resolution if that doesn't work. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand, although your advice is difficult to follow if another side deletes a well sourced text or inserts word "alleged" three times in every sentence...Biophys 02:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand it can be frustrating sometimes. But we've got dispute resolution to seek outside input, and it really does result in much better (and usually quicker!) results for all concerned than an edit war, even if it seems agonizingly slow at the time. (And try to remember, the other guy thinks he's just as right as you think you are!) Getting a mediator, or some outside opinions, really does help. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 17	23 April 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator goes rogue, is blocked	Wales unblocks Brandt, then reverses himself
Historian detained after his Wikipedia article is vandalized	Efforts to reform Requests for Adminship spark animated discussion
Canadian politician the subject of an edit war	Virginia Tech massacre articles rise to prominence
Wikipedia enters China one disc at a time	WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"
News and notes: Unreferenced biographies, user studies, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 07:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Craig Ferguson and User:Mais oui!

Seraphimblade, you recently reviewed this 3RR report about User:Mais oui!. Here you can see he has refused to discuss the matter with me outside of a quick uncivil response to my renewed effort. Here you can see that he has deleted all three discussions I have initiated on the matter in order to come to some mutual understanding. Now he has issued a further threat here if I change the article following my desire to reach consensus simply because he won't work to reach consensus with me. I believe it will be more than easy to pass any review of WP:BLP on this matter as almost every biographical source on the subject of the article describes him as Scottish. Rather, the issue is not his nationality but whether the article should be linked to Scottish people or Scotland. Mais oui is continuing to be disruptive and threatening. He is continuing to refuse to discuss changes. As an administrator, I ask you to review the matter and, if you would, please suggest a course of action. Thank you. 67.101.243.74 10:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also refer to User talk:67.101.243.74#Your question

Thank you. I didn't mean to seem as though I believed you could force him into the discussion. Your suggestion regarding the third opinion was what I needed, so thanks. I believe my comments here will draw an additional opinion within the three day period I have set out. As an administrator, do you feel there is anything more than this I can do regarding the policy review threat by Mais oui? Thanks again. 67.101.243.74 10:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I also believe your summary is correct, which is why I can't understand the reasoning for half of the points Mais oui has struggled to make nor why he refuses to discuss the issue like myself and the rest of his colleagues. Thanks for putting in the request. 67.101.243.74 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedied page from yesterday

Seraphimblade, I have an editor protesting on my talk page here about an article I tagged for speedy deletion yesterday, BOUML, which the log says you deleted under the same criterion I tagged it. I was trying to clarify to him more precisely why this was a second ago, but I can't remember what that particular article said exactly, only that it was vanity/spam.. Is there any way you can access deleted info, or perhaps you have a clearer memory than me? Sorry to bother and thanks! - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Turkey

The article is deleted, please inspect this, it was Winhunter. Also please check this new Ararat arev sockpuppet: Special:Contributions/Builtare. Thanks deniz^T_C 16:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a tidbit

Allo.
I wasn't going to mention this on the MoS page, because, by now, I want to provide as little fodder for argument as possible, just but an interesting tidbit of information:

"A gallon or quart represents one fixed quantity."

Um... just some advice... neeever say that around a Canadian. :D
There are different types of "gallon". It's probably not an issue in the states, or in countries where they actually use metric, but in countries where they "officially" use metric, but typically don't, it gets kinda confusing. :) It's actually a very ambiguous unit of measurement. (but, um, for obvious reasons, I didn't want to say that on the MoS talk page) Bladestorm 17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ararat arev

I was just writing up a CheckUser case, but if you want to do so, be my guest! I'll let Dmc know. Cheers, – Riana ^ऋ 18:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Although, if it's screamingly obvious it is Ararat, just block him. Checkuser isn't going to prove more than you already know, in that case. Though it is better to be safe than sorry </convo hijack> Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 19:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I added it to the "IP check" section of RFCU. Will let Dmcdevit know unless someone else has already. CMummert · talk 19:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(reply to Will) Checkuser won't prove anything we don't know (they're screamingly obvious throwaway socks.) However, as autoblock is ineffective against the guy, he's got to be using proxies or otherwise rotating his IP. Checkuser can uncover, and if possible block, the proxies or nodes. Dmcdevit did something last time (obviously they can't reveal what, and I wouldn't ask), but it slowed him way down for a while. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

10 more socks added, FWIW, I don't want to make that page too long. – Riana ^ऋ 19:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you need to do a subpage or something, do, but I would imagine the more we can give the more effective it'll be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, time to start digging :) – Riana ^ऋ 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Fair-use photos on userpage

Fine,Thanks for indicating that they were photos not for use on my page.Hurricaneshady 05:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Request

If you have a moment, would you mind sharing your opinion, whatever it may be? Thanks. -- Pastordavid 19:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words -- I am considering the mop and bucket, but probably not quite yet. I'll let you know. If I could trouble you with one other request; I simply don't have enough experience to know about this. Could you take a look at this. Over 100 userspace subpages seems to push the limit of what is acceptable. Many are being used for article building. Many others appear to be used for OR around his theories about Petrarch and a bible code (for example, see User:Doug Coldwell/Revealing the Code and User:Doug Coldwell/Coincidences relating to Petrarch). I appreciate your taking a minute to check this out and give me your impressions -- I simply am not sure whether this is acceptable, or if something should be done about it. Thanks. -- Pastordavid 14:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Response on Sungenis from Assistance page

(reproduced for your convenience)

Seraphimblade, I understand that the links actually need to pertain to Sungenis. The documentation that Sungenis uses them is on the talk/discussion page, replete with links and all. It's all there. But we're trying to keep the article from becoming excessively cluttered, that is why they are not in the actual article. Truth-seeker (the one who keeps removing them) does not dispute that Sungenis really did use these sources (it seems clear that he doesn't want them there because he believes they do not reflect well on Sungenis). Although today he finally allowed them to stay, so we'll see what happens.

BTW: after writing the paragraph above, I went back and took the links from the discussion page (documenting that Sungenis indeed used them) and put them in the article. We'll see if criticism is forthcoming again for following your advice. I agree your advice seems logical, but I can also see the complaint about clutter to a degree, I suppose. Liam Patrick 15:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

NEW INFORMATION:

No sooner was the documentation you said I needed to provide up than Truth-seeker once again simply deleted the entire paragraph. I once received a warning for far less than this, although it was retracted. Should he not receive some kind of warning about this?

Liam Patrick 16:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

MFeinburg

[99]

As you can see, I don't know if this was from you or him but he's trying to hide it. He had me blocked earlier for 24 hours for "violating the 3rr rule" even though I didn't and was apologised to and now he's on the warpath with it. His main problem is with the Glock article where he and (his sock puppet?) are at war with several editors on the inclusion of the VA Tech article, even though it's reached a consensus on the talk page that it shouldn't be included, he and 2 other editors (Mysteriously all 3 editing only the same articles) are reverting everyones edits within minutes of each other all claiming people blanked the page?? I don't know, try to follow with it.

CINEGroup 18:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You were blocked for disruption and making a false WP:AIV report on another user. See your block log [100]. Nothing to do with 3RR. Dina 18:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since your a bandwagon wikipedian, read the reason he wanted me blocked. for posting 3rr on his page ( which wasn't me, look at the history!) and for giving warnings to users that were making up bs pages on wikipedia, in which even Netsnip said all were FINE.

Quit being a bandwagon wikipedian and start looking into edit histories. CINEGroup 18:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

help out?

could you help me out, i keep getting warnings on my talk page and when i delete them well-meaning but misinformed editors replace them, over and over again, claiming that its vandalism to delete them. you helped me remove these once before and it was very effective.

71.112.6.35 06:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Question on marked copyvio

I also checked Google for that case, and found nothing. However, I suspect that the editor who added that material was simply copying a primary source (presumably a text). I base this on the style of the writing, the fact that it was uploaded all at once, and the editing history of the account (new account, posting material at a rate faster than any human can type). Michaelbusch 21:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources, such as blogs, should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

I have no problem with the source being used but it should be stated in the page that he is a primary author of the page, and that his own blog is used as a source of criticisms of the movie, this is clearly potentially a point of bias and readers should know this.

Also you reverted my correction about the number of scientists that sent the letter of complaint, this a very specific detail from the source given for the sentence. Hardyplants 10:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC) The authors of both the letter and of the page in question are pretty clear. It looks to me like the proper use of a primary source, generally speaking (purely descriptive claim, attributed to the source rather than in an editorial voice.) Regardless, though, the inclusion of the material should be discussed as a whole. If you believe the source is inappropriate, by all means argue against its inclusion, but we've never done "disclaimers" like that. Specification of the exact number isn't problematic, of course, an increase in specificity is always good. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

From your somewhat verbose answer I am going to conclude that you did not understand the issue. Simply stated: If Tom says that S=4. And Ken produces a book saying that Tom is wrong. Then Tom produces a article in wikipedia about Ken's book, and says "many think" Tom is wrong and uses a quote from his own web (Toms) page as evidence that Ken is wrong and Tom is thus part of the many that he uses as a reference.

Would it not be proper to state in the page in wikipedia that the page is heavily produced by Tom when the pages uses him as an expert also.

I do not have a problem with the reference as long as those reading the page know that the person being quoited as an expert, is also the one producing the Article.Hardyplants 15:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Turkey

I have no idea how the FA star got removed - I did do a history dump last night, but it screwed up halfway through and I needed considerable help from Shresth91 to get it all fixed up. If you look at what I deleted, you'll see that all the lost revisions are completely useless, and I didn't remove anything that added useful content to the page. So I'm really, really not sure how the FA bit got lost. I'm not sure who to ask for help, though. – Riana _ऋ 15:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted back to the 25 April version by Denizz, which seems to have restored things back to normal. Fingers crossed. – Riana _ऋ 15:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Turkey

Just a quick note - I noticed you'd tagged that article as fully protected but that protection has just expired. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 18:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Yeah worth trying it with semi for a while. Will (aka Wimt) 18:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Belginusanl's sockpuppets

Many thanks! You couldn't indefinitely block his IP address too while you're at it? All edits from this IP address over the last year appear to be from this same user, and today, possibly as a response to the blocking of the sockpuppets, he's posted the same image to another 8 or 9 pages. I've posted the request at the intervention page. Again, thanks. - Gobeirne 11:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Zile

Hi, Can you copy edit the article when you have time? Thanks--Ugur Olgun 17:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I rewrote a huge portion and I wanted to hear your comments about syntax and flow. By the way, I have to say that any comment will be useful.

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 18	30 April 2007	About the Signpost

Students in Western Civilization course find editing Wikipedia frustrating, rewarding	Statistics indicate breadth of Wikipedia's appeal
Featured lists reaches a milestone	Backlogs continue to grow
WikiWorld comic: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Board resolutions, user studies, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 06:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

LOEs

Be aware I have reverted your edits to LOEs. There's no consensus these images are copyright infringements, it is pure matter-of-opinion. Your edits are disruptive, please cease. Matthew 11:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A few dissenters gathering on a noticeboard does not equate to consensus. Be aware you've yet to provide any evidence of them being copyright infringements. Matthew 11:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Recess episodes - Reverted. Please do not make disruptive non-consensual edits. Matthew 11:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Read over Wikipedia:Copyrights to get a basic understanding of copyrights. Matthew 11:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that as per WP:IAR (an official policy) I am banning you from making any disputed edits to these LOEs until such a time as consensus is reached. Your edits are disruptive, cease. Matthew 12:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Historically, Matthew has an interesting notion of consensus. His solution of "no consensus reached" always falls into his favour. Of course, we could remove the images under the same argument. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Stating you know it is not enough, you've yet to prove it. From what I've seen it's evident you don't know anything about copyright. And in regards to IAR: You're preventing me from improving Wikipedia by being disruptive, hence I've skipped the community ban and issued it my self in order to get you to converse. Matthew 12:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You could try to counter it, yes, but that would be dishonourable. You've yet to prove they are copyright violation, until then my invoke of IAR is very valid. None the less, if you can prove where the foundation has a) set an arbitrary numbers or b) called LOE image usage copyvios... then I'll concede, I have every confidence you can't do it, though. Matthew 12:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

and hence matter of opinion, hence I believe you are admitting that your edits are indeed disruptive with nothing to back them but opinion? Matthew 12:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You've yet to prove that. Matthew 12:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We've already come to consensus, Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists, it's your job to prove otherwise now. Matthew 12:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you should read the archives. Matthew 12:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You've yet to present anything to prove the law agrees with you. If anything it agrees with us. That also includes the foundation's resolution. Matthew 13:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Matthew 19:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade, I just thought I should tell you that I invoked IAR and unbanned you, so don't worry. John Reaves (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My (Selket's) RfA

Thank you, Seraphimblade, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I recieved to heart. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. Thank you again· --Selket Talk 18:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Rodolfo Valentin website

I've previously added the link to Rodolfo Valentin website,as you answered to me before ( if WP does it with Ebay and others, it is okay). Also, I noticed that other hairdressers ( as Rodolfo) like Frederic Fekkaior Vidal Sassoonare having their website listed. I added it in the "infobox", but editors keep deleting it! Please let me know. ALSO: the editor Endroit, editing Frederic Fekkai article, states that the external link to the official website must be there as a "primary source references"... Rodolfo Valentin also needs the website listed as a "source for verification" as the "winner of the haircoloring techniques award". the thumbnail showing the certificate is loaded into Rodolfo Valentin website, and since Rodolfo Valentin page shows that it needs "verifiable sources", it is also important! right?. The page that directly goes to where the winner certificate is: [101] "Award and accolades". Can you please help me and add it to Rodolfo article? Probably you can add it back into the infobox or just the link as a verifiable source for the award. It is getting very stressful for me! thanks again!Ralicia 21:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC) thank you!Ralicia 20:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

EN Mediation

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this. We have been very busy at work. Due to the very large number of issues to be resolved in this mediation, we are going to try to tackle them two or three at a time to hopefully make this process easier for all involved. We've posted the first two issues we'd like to address - Finances and Inpop Records - on the mediation page you created. We'll try to resolve these first before tackling the rest of the issues. Thanks.

Thelma Bowlen^Talk 08:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fantasy-TV deletion

I wanted to indicate that to me there seems there is an inequality in your application of various wikipedia guidelines when applied to a categoy such as "Internet television channels. It would seem that tests for (Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content) pose a bias when applied to content that is meant to delineate a broad subject such as this. If Wikipedia is meant to be a broad resource related to informational content such as a directory of channels as this subcategory appears to be, then it would seem that all channels are relevant. If any channels are listed, then Wikipedia is violating its own rules against bias. Therefore, I propose either a removal of this test for remarkability in this category or the complete removal of the category of Internet television channels due to bias.

Babalooey^Talk 15:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Chris Griswold

My apologies for doing that if it offends you or goes against Wiki policy, but can you at least see my perspective of not logging in—or contributing for months—to Wikipedia based on the behavior of what I thought was two users and then login in find that both of them are the same person? I agree that kicking someone when they are down is bad, but considering the damage ChrisGriswold did, I feel saying that I am 'trolling' him is a harsh assesment of what I said on his talk page. He's causes stress and contention for no good reason to dozens. And he's even been interviewed in the press as an example of a 'good' Wiki editor. And now this? I will not post again, but I hope there isn't a Wiki rule against me watching his behavior in the future. I'm sure others will as well. —SpyMagician 09:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

So is Truth in Comedy one of his sock puppets? The notice was removed.--Twintone 15:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks.--Twintone 16:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You can watch my moves. I will be gone for a while; I was looking something up just now and saw I had messages. I stand by the edits I made as Truth in Comedy. Looking back on them, they're all edits I would have made with this account. Unfortunately, there's no basis for removing those talk page comments. I will instead add notes to show that the account is mine if you would prefer. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris Griswold you are a liar and should not be trusted. In my case you clearly engaged in a 'tag team' talk-war/edit-war under the Truth in Comedy login and then backed yourself up with your 'real' account. This is simply pathetic and unacceptable to me personally. And to others as well. You have laid waste to DOZENS if not hundreds of comedy articles based on you using Truth in Comedy in one place, and then your 'real' self as another. This debate by me is pointless, since you clearly do not want to come clean about how disgusting you have acted. But I am happy you're arrogant enough to stick your head out and defend what is truly undefendable behavior. We will watch your moves. Mainly because you have shown yourself to be beyond abusive in behavior and truly a discredit to the admin title you had. —SpyMagician 04:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As requested

Since you mentioned you needed some....

A cup of coffee, as you were once kind enough to improve my Congrats message. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris Griswold sock?

Did Chris Griswold used socks as an admin?--T-man, the wise 06:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Chris Griswold and a "friend" (meat puppet?) Ned Scott have taken to deleting any comments/tags on his page that discuss his 'puppet master' past. I realize he did step down, but I am baffled why someone who claims to want to 'come clean' is making an effort to have any tags that acknowledge what he's done removed. Admins and others know of his past, but most casual users won't know or understand where to look. I believe a tag needs to be placed so most anyone else can see what's happened and why. —SpyMagician 07:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, see ANI - you may want to intervene per your warning to SpyMagician. Also note that T-man has been (re-)blocked indefinitely. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see that any discussion of an ex-admin's behavior results in a hive of other admins swooping in and threatening others with 'warnings'. So the concept of 'assume good faith' only applies to nepotistic ties? —SpyMagician 10:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your admin coaching request

I've decided that I'll just "lurk" around Wikipedia for a time being and try to get to know how everything works. Maybe later I'll consider it. kai ^{{talk/contributions}} 12:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I wonder why this Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lukas19 has been closed as "inconclusive". Every person who commented agreed that this is a sockpuppet of Lukas19. I fail to see how 100% of people agreeing is inconclusive. This is certainly a consensus, which is what Wikipedia usually requires. Why bother to ban someone if they are allowed to keep a sockpuppet account? Seems very weird to me. Alun 12:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I see your point. I'm going to take a break because of this, I've had enough of this user and don't think I can take the stress of this obnoxious person being allowed to continue editing. You can see from their attitude on the sockpuppet case that they are more than happy to introduce irrelevant content disputes into cases like this in order to attempt to discredit other users. This user has tried to undermine my integrity on numerous occasions in exactly the same way and this is typical of this user. I do understand your reasoning, although I disagree with your conclusion. At the moment I feel that it's not worth the stress or effort of dealing with this particularly tendentious and difficult editor. Indeed this has been the modus opperandi of this editor from the start, he wears people down with his tenaciousness. all the best. Alun 15:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

3O follow up

Seraphimblade, I thought I had better check with you about this as you helped out before. My friend Curse of Fenric has created an article on his Wiki about The Legendary One and I was thinking about putting a link to it on his talk page. But I thought I'd better ask for your opinion on doing that before acting. Once bitten, twice shy you know!

For reference have a look here. Mal Case 04:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Does the Offer still Stand?

Seraphimblade ... I was wondering if the offer you made on my editor review to pen my RfA nomination still stands. I think I am ready (although if you think I should wait a little longer I trust your judgement). I am offline the rest of the day, but just leave me a note. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 18:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am quite flattered - and humbled - by your generous description of my activities here. I have accepted on the nom page, and filled out my answers the quesitons. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to do it or let someone else, so I went ahead and added my edit count to the talk page as it is on other noms. I'm going to go ahead and dive in and transclude it to the main RfA page. Thanks again for your support and very kind words. Pastor David ^† 23:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I will wait to tranclude, and ask you to please do that. I would like to make sure that everything is as it should be on the nom, I would hate to step in it before even starting by posting a malformed RfA. Pastor David ^† 23:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for transcluding for me, things seem to be well under way. I have responded to all optional questions as they have come up, and otherwise plan to lay low (mostly) for the week. By the way, best of luck with the request below - Looks like a bit of a sticky situation/request. Pastor David ^† 18:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Turkey

Ararat arev is back Deniz^T_C 19:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

assistance

Hey sorry to bother you again. If you have time, can you please check Talk:Tanbur#copyvio. I strongly suspect that those IP's at the end of the section belong to the the same person, and I think the person has no desire to make constructive edits. Please check the next section, and other sections, too. What should I do? I might be in the wrong there as well blaming the person with no proof etc. I don't want to edit war, I don't think those IP's will stop after a while either. Please check this diff and the section Persian Kurdish tanbur. Thanks a lot. Deniz^T_C 01:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 19	7 May 2007	About the Signpost

Four administrator accounts desysopped after hijacking, vandalism	Digg revolt over DVD key spills over to Wikipedia
Debate over non-free images heats up	Update on Wikimania 2007
Norwegian Wikipedian awarded scholarship	WikiWorld comic: "Friday the 13th"
News and notes: Election volunteers, admin contest, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 06:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A recent block

Hi, you have recently blocked this user. While I don't endorse quite some of his edits, I disagree that he is a sock of VinceB. His POV is similar, but not his behaviour - for one thing, he asked for my help in an e-mail, which is something Vince seemed too proud to even consider. On the other hand, the two users who opened his case are not neutral: Juro has already been indef blocked once for being disruptive, including sockpuppetry proven by CU, then he was unblocked as a "last chance" (itself a questionable decision); while Tankred was the target of constant harassment by VinceB while the latter was around, so he may well be less patient towards users with a similar POV and level of activity. I request that, in line with WP:BITE, Odbhss be blocked only if a checkuser proves he is really the same person (which I believe it won't); else he should get a fair chance to prove he is willing and able to abide by Wikipedia policy and enter into constructive debate regarding content. Regards, KissL 08:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, this is fine with me. BTW he contacted me before he was blocked, but I didn't want to go out of my way to help him until he starts bringing up his own arguments, which he hasn't, as yet. KissL 12:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade, if you decide to review that block, you may be interested in this thread, created by an IP very likely belonging to the banned User:VinceB at WP:ANI after you blocked User:Odbhss. I can be wrong, but I think this collusion provides even more evidence justifying your block of Odbhss. Tankred 14:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Pre tags

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) - WinPT 1.2.0
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=YLmg
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

-- Avi 20:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A message

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) - WinPT 1.0.1

hQIOA0IinhNbZDJzEAf/evlNdSrB7cdEpBzmMaM2U8v68JR9oOXAcZCGVy12YVHW
LUsIxBMe4yI7i7JiT//9M0Tr5L9jKGyvUrNubKShqQwFKKWeMqZCOg1UfVj/dX3V
NBW2PV900P4ftCjmz3kik3h4Z6NCxMaUj++IsCirft6ldSucgW9vR3cIKjna8+2Z
M25ppdlExTnYlU1P0S9K2/ppH7oZ++4tSLKSP5ei4f6uqf5xBb5FuD2adzLw0LdF
UwscBtYA+TOOrjg2VFjHHeEaE5jWIF7TvM3/theNG8pKKcACIpBVC7IkEfrL7vKc
M1zGW+RROpRTmZIzDJB7eTET6oyYellTgtfh4FGaIAf8DjKVX8GCF7xRR/X9P54Y
ayk6VZ1Qois+sdhXM2rB7yPueRp73x26Lz3wBoEs/uDXaa7t9I5KswOPcBxkGaKu
erDtRoUdTV55ZEnr9+e2N0WwJpGHAmeHj7gUWW4iR/PhPdgqhLSrRA4Vig/IwcL7
ICMrLdGIS32aZd+pNUzNsq1rC3zzV0cuXZO/HkGXR1Z4R+fKBqSlHvVgerh5uUqL
Ukln9ofMQxi44yKtWYQ+N4DRXd7NoLWOiPJorDelIAfKwVokvNbMb7BgEYIv4p+x
tRfT25F17H59XLptUcmZk6H0bkTiFaiR1jNiHbJ1v13ryNtXhx+2M7vsLI3YcJHp
J9LABgGVyUULm6AqJdl+UIoc2ieOp2EbFtUz2+KuUQGMWfP8nygqhqJlgBwjdRhc
5SR1yYAssAFuvgs1vA7Y1dyQCXyTMqKP6XOcwelm2fY+XbBv6GznRe4LVNbZ6uXH
XAGhzPqmrGuNXRXX2vTdifVBtlaggY76O0krIq44Hp+GwDzERxbOZMZa9oDkfX04
dUkvQF2mOVgoZyFbk7nInqNUvTbq8aaI1io/AbzcLHdXXO1K+s12khxIfcsV+89O
KcHUTT5Hyeg/vw==
=+ZOO
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

--Cyde Weys 21:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Another one

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) - WinPT 1.0.1
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=lHOW
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

--Cyde Weys 21:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Battlefield Earth

Hello,

My name is John Goodwin and I am the president and publisher of Galaxy Press. We publish all of L. Ron Hubbard's fiction books. I want to do a project of going through and updating all the entries that exist with the correct information providing best seller list info, sales quantities, quotes, etc. and then to separately add more more titles that may not be listed. Is there any special way I should go about this? Some of the extant material is quite slanted and in at least one instance, Battlefield Earth, devotes considerable time to talking about the movie, even after noting that it was a separate citation -- so this would be a case that I would want to have the movie stuff just listed under the movie.

Thank you for your assistance.

John Goodwin [email protected]

John Goodwin 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Thank you Seraphimblade. I'll finish reading all that you recommended and if I have further questions, I'll get back with you. John

Your Assistance

(I also posted similar on Krator's page)

Seraphimblade, I need your assistance. As you have had some exposure to the conflict between myself and Smee in the past, I would like your help, if you are willing, to clean up some muck that Smee seems to be trying to stir up.

Smee recently struck perverbial gold when he *cough* uncovered my original username [here] (which I wasn't even aware still existed - though I also hadn't thought about it either) and to which I openly admited.

Now he's creating smoke, to imply that I'm intentionally committing some wrong doing with socks: [here] and [here]

Its absurd, of course. I had no idea that admin was a protected phrase (after all, the system had let me register it). At that point, I also had no idea that a wiki community even existed.

A quick check of the edit history on that account shows it was locked immediately after the 1st posting. It took me a while to figure out what the hell was wrong, and then I saw that

"You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under a more appropriate username. Wikipedia:Username policy provides guidance on selecting an appropriate username. You may also edit Wikipedia without creating an account."

So, following those instructions, I created this account, and you will see that no further posts were made which could count as abusive.

I posted commentary [here].

I tried to get a sock check on myself, [here] to establish that I'm not one, but mr COI Smee tried to get a speedy delete [here] by demonstrating COI and declaring it an improper check. He was reversed [here] and reprimanded [here]. He again reverted the speedy [here] but reverted himself [here].

I have posted more information regarding his technique [here].

I have no doubt, base on history, that he will show up here on your page and on Lucasbfr's page to add innocent commentary.

Please help me stop this insanity and get those spurious and improper allegations removed.

If I am blocked from doing a check user on myself, then Smee can keep the allegations going, without any formal charges. I request a speedy trial to be able to clear my name and move forward.

Thank you. Lsi john 13:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

-

At this point, my goal is to get the original account removed. It was, as you say, an innocent (and common?) registration. I had not given it any thought until now. But now it is being used to imply wrong doing. And, it is being used to imply wrong doing by someone with serious COI in the matter.

How do I get those pages properly investigated, deemed innocent and removed?

At least for now, that puts out his fire and prevents him from mis-using facts and implying guilt.

If you look through his posts both on those pages, and the comments in my checksock request, he is clearly implying without outright declaring. This innuendo is harmful as it creates a shadow where one should not exist.

Can you help start, and walk me through, whatever process is required to remove those pages? And help see that the removal process is not derailed by Smee in another COI clerical delete?

Thanks. Peace in God. Lsi john 13:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• In order to avoid another edit-war with smee (see the history there), as well as to avoid any appearance of COI, would you be willing to remove the inappropriate tags?
• Thanks. Peace in God.
• Lsi john 14:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Can nothing be done to stop him? He continues to follow me around and I have asked him to stop. Lsi john 18:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)