This is an archive of past discussions about User:7. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi. Please make the change you think necessary to fix Soxbot. If that works, please restore the phrase "placed on hold". Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you made the right change - we just need soxbot to run now... hopefully it will include the full line of text following the word end. Thanks. 706:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind - another editor has already manually overwritten the bot comment. We'll see at the next run if it sticks... Thanks. 706:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
And I have updated with your pending language to avoid others thinking that they should still provide comments. 706:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Kate. The page looked okay... I've added the disambig template and re-ordered the two because no matter which sort you use (alpha/chrono/importance) the old major general should probably come first. Sedarisfan - may I ask, why you are passionate about this topic? 705:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Actor Rod Keller is a client of mine. We are trying to create ways for fans, as well as industry people to be able to find more information about him. When you enter Rod Keller in google, bing, or use other search engines, the majority of your search results come back for the actor or for a writer of the same name. The ONLY results in searches, using the name Rod Keller(a nick-name I'm not sure the "old major general" used) that comes back for Major General Rodney Frederick Leopold is the Wikipedia entry.
So if someone goes to Wikipedia FIRST, I want them to be able to find him. Can you help me make a Disambiguation page that you are DIRECTED to, not just an "other person" line (which isn't easy to see btw) at the top of the Major's page, so that if someone enters Rod Keller, wants the actor, and hits go instead of Rod Keller (actor) they can find his entry too? thanks Sedarisfan (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
That's what I was afraid of. Unfortunately what you are trying to do is contradictory to Wikipedia's stated NPOV goal. Please take a look at that policy, as well as COI and SPAM. Wikipedia is not to be used for advertising or promotion. If your client is notable per our guidelines then someone should eventually create an article for him. 706:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - not trying to make things overly complex. I had added them (but to the wrong page because the RFA header was malformed) and then added the stat notice so I didn't want it to look like I was taking credit. Thanks. 702:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
You are right - original version was shouting, unreferenced, and didn't assert importance. However a search makes be believe he will satisfy BIO. Will try to improve more later. Thanks for the courtesy notice. 704:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I am out of line with this but if the IP was on a block and that user created an account and proceeded to keep editing isn't that sock puppeting for the purpose of block evasion? Am I wrong about this?--Adam in MOTalk06:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you are out of line, and if you have concerns then the SPI team should check them out and they still will. My comment was just procedurally that
if he was able to create an account in August then he was not doing so from the blocked IP (otherwise he wouldn't have been able to create an account)
the IPs block ended in October, and so it is technically not now a blocked IP
It probably still makes sense for a clerk and a CU to look at it. Not to worry. Thanks for your work patrolling. 708:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
ANI
You made a comment on AN/I aout a UAA backlog. Your comment is resolved - but I've expanded the comment to ask you to consider not reporting violating usernames. Feel free to close the AN/I thread and to use talkpages instead. (The short version: Your username is a policy violation. Allowing someone with a policy violating username to report, and have blocked, other users for having policy violating usernames is absurd.) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
And I'm gonna chime in by saying that 7 is in no way prevented from helping the encyclopedia in any way because NotAnIP83:149:66:11 feels 7 is an inappropriate username. Protonk (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Usernames that consist only of numbers are not allowed. 7 is a username that consists of only numbers. Thus 7 is a username that is not allowed. To respond to Protonk: Can you not see that having a violating username report other users for violating usernames creates probblems? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
No. I see the logic, but it's sort of a fifth-grader argument (not yours, but the hypothetical argument you are suggesting editors would make after being reported). Protonk (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Try creating a username containing only digits - the software does not allow it, specifically saying a username must contain characters. Login error
The name "" is not allowed to prevent confusing or spoofed usernames: Does not contain any letters. Please choose another name. - 7 wouldn't even be able to create the name today. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Ugh. Well. If you feel that 7's username is inappropriate, then RFCN is that way. But the policy page that I directed you to earlier has no problem with it, regardless of what the software says when trying to create an account, and trying to dissuade an editor from assisting at UAA based on the fact that you don't like their name is totally inane and ludicrous. @Kate(talk)19:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you. No importance asserted, and per WP:BEFORE I have looked to see if I can find any evidence of notability myself, but nothing relevant on google [1]. Go for it. Keep up the good work patrolling. 704:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
YOU marked my page about Novelos Therapeutics for speedy deletion.
it is signed: User7 on 01:50, 25 May 2009
AND
Lady Cured of Cancer made the Miami ABC Channel 7 News yesterday!
Here is a link please click "watch this video":
<removed>
Novelos has a 46 patients in a Phase II FDA clinical trial for their NOV-002 medication and are currently enrolling and this is one patients story with her breast cancer cured!
<removed>
The sad part of the story is they are only accepting 46 test patients.
I see that it was 6 months ago when it was deleted. If you have RS which indicate the company is now notable (and if you have read the COI guidelines which I sent you) then you could consider re-creating it but the videos which you liked above would not qualify as reliable. Regards 722:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Not going for cool - mostly trying to avoid it getting lost in the date - but thank you. ;) 702:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
University of Cumbria
Hi- the articles in question have been edited by a user who seems determined to get there own way- if they could be left they way I had edited them, then I believe much of the controversial stuff had been taken out- the 175 year history refers to Charlotte Mason who opened Ambleside campus for teacher training back then, and the Tim Farron (MP) links are relevant, I assure you. Thanks, I shall revert the articles back to the way I set them to see if you agree with my judgement, but please inform me first if they are not suitable- Rup235 (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
My concerns:
This link which is cited as a source for the history of the campus including the 175 year comment does not contain any such info.
The "On 2009 December 1, it was announced that" section is not cited - and I can find no sources that claim that anything is closing.
The Tim Farron cite which is labeled "Tim Farron presenting rational argument to UoC Chancellor, to keep Ambleside open" points to this page which only talks about a police force merger - its title is totally misleading.
Hi- I can and will fix those sources tomorrow when I have time (it's 3.14am now and I need sleep) but there are articles that do back up the information, and there will be more articles being published with press releases going out tomorrow from the University and Students' Union. And it's not closing, the term, apparently, is 'mothballed' lol, I think I have changed this on the article now- thankyou for your relaxed response. Rup235 (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi WSC - I'm not positive, but I've got just about all the extended character sets installed and I cant get this page to render in IE or Firefox. That fact, coupled with the fact that much of it does render as English gibberish (usually a foreign lang would be all or none) made me think ti was a test. I dropped a friendly note on the users talk page right away but they haven't replied. I think you made a fair call though, and we can see if anyone is able to view, translate, and rename it. Thanks. 709:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi 7, on my screen it mostly comes up in something that reminds me of some south Asian scripts I've seen in the past, with a few anomalies. I think the last few Not english ones I've tagged have been speedied as soon as they've been translated, but one lives in hope... ϢereSpielChequers09:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there 7. I'm currently writing an editing tool for deletion tagging, WikiAlerter. At the moment I'm looking for some users to do a bit of testing for me, as I haven't used all the functions myself. This would basically involve using the program from time to time, being prepared for it to mess up on you, and reporting any errors to me :). If you were willing to do so, this would be very helpful, but feel free to say no :). If you do decide to, please email me (so I have your email to send the program to). Also, good luck with your RfA if you do run :). Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you interested in an RFA, I know you are well-qualified for it, and you really need those tools. You interested on one. Thanks Secretaccount20:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words Secret. I would consider running again when the time is right. I assume you saw that my prior RFA did not succeed. I feel there were three impediments to promotion last time (my summary wording):
Article creation / editing
Inclusion/Exclusion
Hasty CSD tagging
On point 1) I am fairly comfortable. Interestingly, at the time of my prior RFA I had created more articles than the person who originally mentioned this as a weakness. Since that time I have created a few more and while patrolling have expanded many from no-context one liners into real articles.
On point 2) I am confident that I know how to better articulate my stance to avoid appearing like an deletionist (which I am not). I had been trying to say that I believe in and understand the various processes of deletion and that without such processes the encyclopedia would quickly swell up with less relevant content, but it came out as if I was a deletionist who wanted to limit the number of articles to some fixed or low number (I do not).
On point 3) I've thought a lot about this, and this is probably the most important issue for a potential admin. I think there was a lot of truth to this concern among editors. I think it comes from the temptation among new patrollers to react quickly, as if the "speedy" in CSD referred to the time after the article was created (which it doesn't), and I may have suffered from that as well. The difficulty is that often when there are a lot of patrollers watching the new page log if you aren't quick with your tagging someone else tags it first. I now realize that I will do more to help the project by accurate tagging (if a few hours/days late) than by an instant A7 tag for a vani/spam/autobio. While I suspect the number of mis-tagged articles which were mentioned during my last RFA was a very small percentage of my total CSD tags, I realize the harm that can be inflicted by any incorrect tags by discouraging editors. For that reason I have slowed (way) down and often patrol from the back of the backlog, as the header suggests. I also find that when I do that I am more likely to find an article that is in need of improvement (and then I work on them) than I am to find an attack that needs blanking. I think tagging since then has been accurate (one potential exception would be the G2 tag which was in fact an A2 that I discussed above with WSC - but even in that case I also left a manual note with the author to make sure of their intention). SoWhy correctly identified a number of my incorrect tags in the past and his valid concerns may have been the turning point in the last RFA. I respect his opinion and so does the community so I think I would like to ask him for a brief review prior to any official nom to avoid this turning into a redux.
Given all that (I know... TLDR), if you still think I'm a good candidate I'd be willing to start the process by asking SoWhy for his thoughts.
Yes I saw the RFA, go ahead and ask SoWhy for his thoughts, I still want to nominate you, it's clear the concerns of the RFA isn't valid anymore. Secretaccount16:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
7, just so you know, you have my support. I (weakly) opposed last time, over an admittedly picky rationale, but as I recall it was based on a general feeling that you were not ready at that point. Ever since your RFA ended, I kind of regretted opposing you, because otherwise from what I've seen, I believe that you'd be competent and do a fine job with the deletion-type maintenance. Unless other RfA participants would bring up some issue that I haven't noticed, I'll likely be glad to support whenever you want to run again. However, I'm curious to know your response to the BLP-related questions that are frequently asked at RfA; I've never heard your stance on the issue. JamieS9317:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Per conversation on SoWhy's talk page, do you want to try back in Jan/Feb just to let some more time pass? I'm in no rush. Either way, thanks for your support. 708:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to two particular RfA questions - 1) "how would you close a BLP AfD with no easily determined consensus?", and 2) "what is your opinion on the BLP policy, and what work have you done on BLPs?" Those questions have been asked to every current RfA at WP:RFA. Due to the topic and its importance in an admin's everyday decisions, that's something that I would certainly want to know your input on, whenever you decide to run. Good luck with everything. JamieS9318:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll start by saying I'm glad you didn't ask me about the David Shankbone AFD - needless to say I probably wouldn't attempt to act as the closing admin on one that complex right away. For Q1) in general any AFD with no rough consensus should default to a keep - but BLP AFDs are a bit of an exception where someone reliably claiming to be the subject themselves can voice their opinion to delete and override what would have otherwise been a no-consensus keep, assuming that they are relatively unknown NPFs. For Q2) my BLP work to date consists mostly of: removing unsourced potentially negative statements, trying to find sources myself, adding pages to projects so that they are appropriately tagged as BIOs, and when necessary marking for deletion and potentially blanking in extreme cases. There is nothing about the current policy that particularly bothers me and I think it does it's best to balance WP's goal of providing information with the "do no harm" goal which must be followed for subjects such as BLPs. If there was something about the policy that was troubling I would certainly be willing to speak up and start a discussion to get it changed, or as needed to IAR and act quickly to protect someone and start a discussion about it afterward. Tried to keep it brief above, but please let me know if that doesn't answer your questions, or more importantly definitely let me know if you think my views above would be contrary to the best-practices (whether policy or not) for the project. Thanks. 700:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, it already got A7'd - but if you look here you can see the simplest version of BLP cleanup that I do. Of course this was was easy because nothing contentious or negative, but it was just a tiny no-context stub. Tagged, cleaned, linked, added to projects, etc... - and then it get's A7'd. :( 701:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Aww, too bad. Thanks for the response about BLP, by the way. If you do get asked about Shankbone, the best response might be "it's so darn controversial I wouldn't even consider closing it!" ;-) I generally don't look for some strong-deletion BLP guru; just a candidate who knows what their talking about and shows an understanding by using their own words instead of copying from policy. And the BLP questions are one good way to determine how much hands-on experience and awareness s/he has with content issues. Your answers are fine. While I happen to not agree with the first one (in an opinion realm), it's certainly valid and reasonable nonetheless. JamieS9313:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
(←) Thanks for the reply. Out of curiosity, where does your opinion differ? You feel that no-consensus BLPs should be kept regardless of whether the subject has a strong view, or do you feel that any no-consensus AFD should default to delete rather than keep? 713:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
My opinion lies on the "deletion" end; defaulting to delete seems to make many people afraid of "admin abuse" or overbearing actions. I believe that deletion should at least be the preferred action for BLPs with mixed consensus. In particular, an AfD ought to be closed as delete if, a) the "keep" opinions are based on notability that only passes the threshold by a smallish margin, and b) they are supporting inclusion under the "keep and cleanup" condition. With a normal article, "keep and cleanup" tends to weaken an editor's argument, and it's all the more with a BLP. When a low-quality article is kept, that leaves the "burden of improvement" on somebody. What if nobody deals with the problem? I guess I've seen too much of this - it's why I'm adamant about PROD/CSD declining with badly promotional or essay-like articles. Either delete the borderline G11, or do some brutal stubifying. :) That's my mindset with most articles that have content issues (notability excluded, because that's not a real "problem").
Also, c) if the intrinsic nature of the article will always present a BLP issue that needs to be managed, no clear consensus should result in deletion. Those types of articles ("list of people related to XYZ controversial subject") are generally not worth their keep. Same goes for requests from the subject, which should be considered with weight into an AfD closure unless the person is "too notable". This is, of course, an undefined standard, but generally accepted by most that there's indeed a cut-off for people who could not be considered "non-public" individuals. I used to consider myself an inclusionist/delusionist. After editing and being an admin for a while, I've seen too much unencyclopedic cruft, and it's caused me to push for stronger content standards. I would rather see something of lower quality be firmly deleted/removed until it can be written better. So, that's my rant. :P JamieS9319:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
No rush - did you see the section above and the comments from SoWhy? Basically it sounds like it may be too soon after the first RFA. Think Jan/Feb would work better? 700:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
RfA thankspam
Hello, 7! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice.
Thanks. Still good for a laugh though. I must be talk-page-stalking all the people who !voted for you because my watchlist is completely full of your thanksspam. 702:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Change hidden from public archives
Hey. What happened here? The changes are hidden from public viewing, but happened on a WikiProject that I am heavily involved with. Do I get to know? :) SGGHping!20:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It was an IP editor making some pretty strange claims. Authorities have been notified and the comment has been oversighted so nobody gets to see the details. Regards, 722:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Thejadefalcon. I hope to resubmit this after using the sandbox and reading the welcome page, and I didn't want to type that whole thing again.Chip McShoulder (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
We are trying to create a wikipedia listing for our company. If there is a certain type of wikipedia account our type of entry we should make then we would like to be directed on how, where we should create a account for a company wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowpassions (talk • contribs) 02:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello - as noted on your talk page, this type of article represents a conflict of interest. Have you read through that policy? Also, please review this article as well. In addition, you will probably need to change your username because blatant use of a company/website as your username for promotional purposes is now allowed per our username policy. Please consider creating a new account and contributing to Wikipedia on other subjects where you don't have a conflict. Lastly, if you have noticed other websites that you feel are comparable to yours with articles you may want to review this discussion of why that sometimes happens. Thanks. 702:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear 7,
Wishing you, your family, and friends a very merry Christmas (or whatever you celebrate at this time of year), and I hope that the new year will be a good one, in real life, and on the wiki. There is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit; it's a special time of year of almost everyone. ;)
Love and best wishes, Meaghan - MerryChristmas! - 00:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
DJ/Model Kellie Acreman
I have been watching User: George Spink. He has been creating articles about model who lack notability as well as uploading copyrighted images without permission from the photographer. Recently, he has written an article about Kellie Acreman. After some research, I realized a similar article under the name DJ/Model Kellie Acreman was nominated for deletion originally by you. I was hoping you could help me get rid of this article as its in violation of copyright infringement, lacks notability, and is written by a friend/admirer of the subject. Thanks Sid1977 (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Lourie and to all who sent along holiday greetings. I've been away for a few weeks, but I'm back now! Happy New Year! 722:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Dear 7/Archive 2, I just wanted to wish you and your family a happy new year, however you're celebrating it. Whether 2009 was a good year for you, or if it wasn't the greatest year, hopefully 2010 will be better. Cheers, and happy editing in 2010.
Thanks 12/21/2012Freak, and thanks to all who sent along holiday greetings. I've been away for a few weeks, but I'm back now! Happy New Year! 722:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
How did you do that? every time I tried to change the capitalization it ignored me because the article was already set up! I would have fixed it if I knew how. Didn't find anything in the FAQs but then at that time of the night I might have just blown by it.
Thanks, and no problem. Renaming a page in WP is accomplished with the WP:Move function. If you use friendly/twinkle the "Move" function is shown in the Page dropdown list. 701:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I have read your emails and as much of your talk pages as I can, but I'm afraid that I won't be able to help you this time other than providing you with two simple suggestions:
Move on from the hotly debated topics which you have been editing and find other, less controversial work to engage in, and
consider the comments left by at least one user on your talk page to speak directly, rather than in metaphor or using quotes from Confucius. While we can learn a lot from Confucius we need to learn it on our own, at our own speed. You cannot force somebody to have the "ah-ha" lightbulb moment by giving them a prolific quote to muddle through in their head. It may take hours/days/years or it may never happen. In this environment it is better to make your point, make it politely and succinctly, and if necessary provide a proverb that illustrates your point after you've made it.
Please stop stalking me - trying to locate the source of my I.P. and collapsing my discussion. There is no reason for that behavior, and I consider it unwelcome. 144.189.100.25 (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have not been stalking you. In fact, if you review the situation, I have actually been the most vocal supporter of your viewpoint (which is that the essay should be deleted). Further, I have refuted another editors allegation that you may be one of the people you have written about by saying your IP was different from the subject. Unfortunately, editing under and IP will offer you no projection from people trying to guess where you are, but naturally there is very little that anyone can gather from that information. You may want to consider creating an account. Lastly, collapsing the discussion on Jimbo's page did no harm, and in fact is common practice for people to suggest that a conversation be located in one area to avoid fragmentation. I had posted this request as a note, which people ignored for an hour, so collapsing the discussion is a more obvious way of suggesting that people take it to MFD. All of your text is still there, and the MFD and the talk comment on Jimbo's page are all linked to eachother so anyone who is interested can see everything. Regards, 703:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I can help you clean it up, but you are off to a good start already. Please see WP:UPLOAD for help in uploading a file (and note the recommendation to do it at Commons). Also, please take a quick look at some of the policies I sent you including BLP and Close paraphrasing - please be careful not to copy information directly from copyrighted sources. Regards. 708:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Secret - How have you been doing? I know it's got to be a tough process, but I hope it helps to know that you've got people all over the world rooting for your health and well-being. As for me, I think enough time has probably passed since my first attempt but I am wondering if the current glut of candidates may make the community overwhelmed by another. I'm in no rush, but it would be nice to be able to help with some of the backlogs (which I see during the Japan timezone in UAA/AIV). If you think there won't be an issue with too many concurrent RFAs then let's go for it. Thanks again for thinking of me. 723:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
I kept having issues with the template malforming...but copied the template and pasted it anyway...thanks for cleaning that issue up...[3]--MONGO03:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I tried to add a few things to the EDIT STATS part...like a link to the edit counter...hum...well, appreciate you fixing my mess.--MONGO04:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to the warped world of Wikipedia's weirdest weirdo. What you just saw was an ongoing problem of more than seven years with an autistic savant in San Diego, California with a real knack for computers, a bunch of shifting proxies and a dynamic IP at his disposal based on what we've been able to glean about him. He's basically harmless, but he's a pain nevertheless. Don't bother trying to communicate with him; he absolutely will not answer. WP:LTA/MG has the down-and-dirty on him. Heck, he even has his own abuse filter. No need to answer me...I am trying to take a break from the project and I've temporarily routed my talk page to my user page. If you have admin rights, just block his main account and his socks. Even if you don't, the odds are really good he will never use the accounts and most admins are familiar enough with his actions that he gets clobbered quickly. I don't know how he does it, but he has probably in excess of 3000 sockpuppets and he's never duplicated a username. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it just looked weird which is why I mentioned it at WT:SPI. NawlinWiki blocked him quickly this time, and I won't bother trying to talk with him next time. Hope you have a restful Wikibreak and return to help keep the place tidy once you are ready. Thanks. 704:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
RfA Question
Hi, I was thinking of retrying for RfA. Hypothetically, would you support or oppose me? This way I can know what to work on in case I actually do decide to go for it again. If you could reply at User:Ctjf83/RfA, which also has a link to my first failed RfA. Thanks, CTJF83chat20:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I posted a link to a historical non-profit (.org) web site that has scans of original US Army maps and other historical artifacts, and is clearly related to the three historical wiki pages I posted it in, and now the links have been deleted.
I do not believe that these postings violated the policies of Wikipedia and would have provided a significant benefit to Wikipedia readers.
7/Archive 2 - Thank for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The New Mikemoral has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Thanks for the heads up, I actually did notice that. However, the page was delete right after, so I didn't think that it mattered. Also, As a result of doing five things at once, I missed that he was the author. Thanks again, Ajraddatz (Talk)02:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've had a go at addressing some of the concerns you raised on my RfA. If you could have a look then I'd be grateful. Thanks. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Overbite (dentistry)/retrognathia
The terms overbite and retrognathia are not synonymous and the overbite (dentistry) page should not be redirected to retrognathia. I have posted one of many citation where the definition of overbite, in medical terms, can be found. If you read the actual definitions carefully you will see that they are not the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgremore (talk • contribs) 16:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
RE: Engology
I coined the words 'Engology', 'Engologist', 'Ingologist', 'ETechnician', 'EProgrammer', and 'ETechnologist' in the year 2000. I am using these titles in my promotion of Engineering Internationally. Suggesting that I am doing it for personal financial gain is ridiculous. It is, and always been, a deficit private venture. I do not even carry advertisements on my THREE websites, www.Engology.com, www.Engg-Kids.com, www.EngineerAWARDS.com. I am doing this in my retirement. All Engineer-societies, worldwide, are aware of my activities. I have not applied for trademarks as suggested on my index pages. This is to stop begrudgers from sabotaging my efforts for now.
I hope that this clarifies the situation.
Regards,
Fintan Lynch, BE., M.IEI
PHD2 22:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Engology (talk • contribs)
I am certainly willing to discuss the issues, but first I would like to ask whether you have reviewed the COI, OR, and SELFPUB policies as a number of users have written on your talk page. Thanks. 723:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Linking to other wiki pages wbenton (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused as to how to proceed.
I want to use the abbreviated form of a word (i.e. "RIP" instead of "Routing Information Protocol"), but if I make the link RIP I get taken to a page with many other rip meanings (one of them the RIP I'm referring to).
However in other instances I want to use a word (i.e. "IS-IS" instead of "Intermediate System to Intermediate System")
But I also want to allow the reader to cursor over the abbreviations (i.e. "RIP" or "IS-IS" and have a pop-up explanation "Routing Information Protocol" or "Intermediate System to Intermediate System" show up onscreen when they cursor over that abbreviation, but when they click the link, I want it to link them to another wiki page with details of that word.
My problem is that I can use Routing Information Protocol or RIP but prefer the latter except that I want to go to the link I desire, not the one wiki chooses for me.
However a similar, but just the opposite problem is that I can use Intermediate System to Intermediate System or IS-IS where the first one will link me properly but the second one says "Page does not exist".
So my question is... how can I somehow modify the RIP or IS-IS page such that they will link properly, or how do I code my page properly so that the links will take the reader where I want them to and not where wiki thinks I mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbenton (talk • contribs)
Sure - see Wikipedia:Linking#Piped_links for the full details. In your RIP example, the second one is the right way to do it - this is called a piped link from an ambiguous term (like RIP) to a specific page - like the one specified first. The IS-IS example doesn't work because you have used a capitalization that does not exist. The correct page is Intermediate system to intermediate system - not Intermediate System to Intermediate System (even though the Is and Ss are capitalized in the abbrevation they are not capitalized in the regular article title. Therefore, you can link to either one (and you technically don't even have to use a piped link) but to spell the name out but avoid a "double-redirect" you should use something that links directly to the final IS-IS page. Does this answer your question? 701:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Just about, but with one exception. I can link to IS-IS using IS-IS but what I would prefer is that when somebody cursor's over the IS-IS link, I don't want "IS-IS" displayed, what I would prefer is "Intermediate system to intermediate system" to be displayed.
Perhaps you've already answered my question and I don't fully grasp the entire meaning so I'll try it below:
Maybe it was just the capitalization which was the problem! Still trying to get the hang of things so bear with me please! wbenton (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no single perfect way that I can think of to do what you are trying to do. Your first example above is probably as close as you can get, where when mousing over IS-IS you will see first the full word version of it (as you wanted) but then you will see that it redirects right back to IS-IS. Plus, this "double-redirect" will usually be optimized out of the system by a bot. I think you may just want to go with the fact that popups already shows the first few lines of text of the article - and in the case of the IS-IS article the very first line is the spelled out version of the acronym. 702:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
New OSPF (complete) re-write
My http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wbenton page is still one MAJOR work in progress and still has a long long way to go prior to it's completion, but every day it gets better and better so hopefully... sometimes before the end of the year {* GRIN/WINK *} I'll be requesting that it replace the current OSPF page.
But as mentioned above, I'm adding things daily and still have much to create!
Don't have a lot of spare time to devote to long reviews but will try to take a look through. You're off to a good start. Are you comfortable with me just making changes directly to the article. Also, just curious, why do you put four tildes in your edit summaries? That only works on talk pages to add your signature. 702:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Well I didn't hear back so I didn't want to edit your page directly but here are my thoughts in no particular order:
Editorial prose or narrative - please take a look at MOS:NOTED.
You said: "To understand OSPF, one must first understand the basic principles..." which should probably be: "OSPF relies heavily on the basic principles..." or something to that effect.
You said: "But let's first take a look at the history of OSPF and how it came about into today's standard." which should be removed all together and just rely on section headings like ==History== and ==Standards==
Ditto for "To grasp how OSPF operates, a need to understand some basic terminology used throughout the OSPF world is required." - just leave it out.
Copyright - are you sure of the copyright status of the image you created File:RFC-2328-Fig6.jpg? I am not a copyright expert, but if the IETF article is copyright protected and your drawing is just a nicer color version of the ascii drawing in that document then there could be issues.
Your "Bottom Line" comments - will likely get tagged as OR unless you can point to an RS for them... which brings me to
Sources and verifiability - it might be good to have some more sources (both more in numbers as well as in reliability).
That's about all I have time for now. Lastly - can I ask you why you are interested in this specific topic? Just curious.
Also - *important* - I completely missed your comment about "replacing the current OSPF" article. That's not the way we normally do things (delete one / replace with another) as there are a lot of long term valid contributions there. Is there any reason why you cannot gradually make the changes that you think need to be made? 703:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I guess I didn't see your previous question before, but I prefer that you not make changes directly to the page as I'm constantly reformatting/re-ordering it and adding a bit here and there as well as modifying a bit here and there as well. It's hard enough for me to even keep up with all the changes I make, much less incorporate the changes of others into my draft. I'm using special Idea formulating software to create the entire document and thus when I get done, I just dump it all out to a text file and then cut and past that text file over my previous copy (in my User:wbenton area only). When I edit other pages, I usually make only minor changes and thus do them online.
Your recommended changes have been implemented for the most part... I went a little further and changed a few other things to make it less ambiguous and more in line with the MOS:NOTED.
On the copyright issue... I'm in contact with the IETF right now on that one. Derived work can be used but I'm waiting for their reply on the matter before I make a final statement. I may have to replace my currently uploaded one with a Full Copyright Statement, but that will just about double the size of the picture if I must include it within the picture itself. perhaps there are <ref> tags which I can use to embed the copyright notice in... I'm still looking into that one, but if the pic I've already uploaded is deemed inappropriate I will replace it with one per their guidelines in their response back to me.
As for why an entire replace? The current OSPF page itself is quite lacking in many areas (missing many 'important' bits and pieces here and there) and not structured very well to really do it service. It jumps around here and there talking about various aspects of OSPF but not in any smooth mannered way. I want to add quite a bit and make it really worth while. I hope to include many RS which can be verified. Some of those bottom lines are my own words, but in essence, I'm sure the same thing is said elsewhere online... I just have to find the right instances and include them as verifiable reference. For those which I cannot find... perhaps I'll remove them or ask whether they're really OR or allowable if everybody can come to the same conclusion with properly referenced material. (i.e. It's not an opinion, but a fact which can be proved.) I hope to include all the current links and references which are in the official wiki OSPF document into my final as there's no need in getting rid of those valuable links, but that's quite a ways down the road. I still have too much meat to add as well as digging up verifiable links (should be no problem finding them but it will take a little bit of time).
As for why my interest in this subject?
1) Mainly because I have already created a lot of Japanese training material to teach our in-house technical staff which incorporates many things spread throughout numerous RFCs all into a single training session. I created SNMPv1/v2c/v3 training material and LDAP training material as well but the wiki/SNMP and LDAP pages are much better organized and more full bodied than OSPF thus I didn't need to add much to them.
2) OSPF is/can be quite complicated and largely misunderstood by many. Current RFC documentation is also hard to follow because it goes back and forth referencing older RFCs in the latest RFCs, but then updates to those older RFCs exist, but the updates are not entire replacements and thus trying to tie all the strings together and walk the OSPF walk is quite difficult when you have the left shoe string tied to the right one! (* SMIRK *)
3) Perhaps this is is just a dream/wish, but in accumulating all of my training material along with new additions I'm adding here might just assist me in creating a new RFC to replace one or more of the current ones!
P.S. I've been a technical 'support' guru in the computer, networking and security related business for the past 29 years with tons of experience tucked under my belt.
wbenton (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... interesting idea and thanks for taking the initiative to create it - but I am guessing that most of these users (many of whom were infrequent IP editors) won't even know what that means. To really help them I think you might need to add some extra text to tell them how to fix the problem (and to be honest I don't know what they would need to do to disable the feature in skype). I think the only long-term solution is a change to the interface of WP - but aside from the two of us nobody else has noticed yet. 713:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Per your request on WP:EF/R, I have added a filter to detect these edits. Please try to keep an eye on the log and let me know if the filter needs to be modified. Thanks, Nakon17:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The irony is that I am a teetotalling Quaker, a civil servant with a boring job, a union steward and union brother of more than a few folks in law enforcement, and generally just so not the person Frank assumes I am! --Orange Mike | Talk15:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Some people will just never be satisfied with peace. Frank's assumptions serve to betray his lack of intelligence. At least his name indicates his accurate self-perception. Keep up the good work. 703:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you marked Request 46215 on ACC as handled and created, even though it was differed to CheckUsers. Was this a mistake? Please leave a {{talkback}} on my talk page (because watching your user talk page is a technical impossibility, as I have over 1,000 pages on my watchlist). --The HighFinSpermWhale03:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if you mean what does FYI stand for, or what was I trying to say... Wiktionary link is left - it's just a side note "for your information". What I am trying to say is that watching recent changes on a watchlist of 1000+ pages, or 10,000+ pages is not impossible. 703:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I know that mine just passed, but I of course have a few people in mind that should run, and you're near the top. Are you still interested? I think you have a good shot, though you'd probably prefer for someone else to nominate you (if not, I'm very willing :). Best, ceranthor20:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
First, congrats on yours! Well deserved. To your question, thank you for your confidence. I suppose I could try again now. I know that Secret had wanted to nom me, but I was a bit busy for the last few months and had asked him to hold off and I think he may be away. If you wanted to check with him for a co-nom (or if you want me to) let me know, otherwise I'd be honored if you would be willing to give it a shot. Let me know. Thanks. 704:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, once I run through some more contributions of yours, I'll make a decision. Don't worry, I'll probably be contacting Secret. ;) ceranthor11:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm, erm... transient! But the day will come soon when I can be properly considered back, I suppose! :) – B.hotep •talk• 13:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome!
Once again, thank you for the warm welcome! I really do appreciate being greeted and helped.
I also get the feeling (and I might be wrong) that you'll be watching me for mistakes and notifying me if I've made one. All I can say is thanks in advance, because the sooner I know, the sooner I stop making them! Artume's Shroud (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem - and don't worry, I'm don't have that much free time that I'll be watching too closely. 705:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with the person or the article, and was not involved in its deletion - I have a problem with your personal attack on another editor, and I appreciate the new comment you have left for him which is much more polite. 709:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. Next - maybe a not-now version for Shawn? I recall a number of people using the "While I applaud your enthusiasm. . ." wording, but not sure if theres a template for it. 711:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Well spotted. Having read the references, it's clearly a deliberate hoax - they say nothing at all about modulating solar radiation. I have taken it to AfD here. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
If you spot another user similiar to these usernames, rest be assure they are not me. You can report them but also leave me a message on my talk page or email me. All of my none dobleganger account will include my CI (Committed identity) template.
--Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time!11:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I like it, can you personalize it by linking "My Talk Page" here ( If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place ), That would be nice. If not I'll use it from now on anyway. thanx Mlpearcpull my chainTrib's03:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, is there a way I could do a little work on the ( I don't know what it's called ) but it's the "core script" for the ( {{wmnc}} ), there's a lot of redirects in the welcome message and mostly the directory. I would like to fix those. Mlpearcpull my chainTrib's14:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure - help yourself. You should probably do the same on {{wm}} that you do on {{wmnc}} because that's where I got the code from. Thanks. 722:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Good work - thanks. In retrospect I should have created {{wmnc}} as a parameter of the to be passed to {{wm}} so that there would only be one template to change. Maybe I'll do that in the future - e.g. typing in {{wm}} would use the same template as {{wm}} but would change the second sentence to the correct format for someone with no contribs. If you really wanted to test your templating skills you could try. 701:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated.
Thanks to both of you for the endorsement. I wouldn't mind trying again now. If you can wait a day or two, please let me send a courtesy email to two others who had mentioned a nom in the last month or so and I'll see if they want to be involved. 722:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
You mean it doesn't take that long for email to send around the world? - I meant that I'd send the email but suspect the users might take a day or two to reply as they may not be on WP daily. 723:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I know I'm a bit late, but here it is: Congratulations! I just wish you could have been added to WP:100, but oh well.... Hi878 (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
That's Brilliant - I was actually thinking about doing the exact same thing with my renewed coding skills (did you see my reply to NW about this script?). 723:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Glad to see that you've earned your tools and that I might have had a small role in helping you mature and learn towards that end. Work hard! bibliomaniac1506:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
A bit late, but I would still like to say: Congratulations on becoming an admin! I could find nothing that could make me oppose you in your RFA. Cheers, —MC10(T•C•GB•L)23:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
A bit late, but just wanted to add my congratulations on you being promoted to admin. I've seen you around a fair bit whilst I've been reverting vandalism, you'll do a great job :) --5 albert square (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
{{trout}} You spelled my name wrong. It's spelled Pilif12p, not Sphilbrick ;) (You DID say to trout when you did something wrong, so why shouldn't I be the first :P ) Pilif12p : Yo 15:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Glad to see you're making good use of your new mop :). I've seen you around a few places lately and your good work isn't going unnoticed. Btw, you might find a useful script or 2 in my monobook.js. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It was wrong. Verified with the corresponding article. Besides, theres no reason to extend good faith for one edit vs at least 10 page blankings. _Tommy2010[message]15:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
However, it would be nice if you could give some kind of indication as to what license the media is under. That way other people can be confident in making use of it for many varied purposes :)
Adding license information also helps prevent media you've put effort into creating from being deleted :)
1-2 paragraphs explaining what is shown in the image.
As well as helping those categorising the image at Commons, it will help other users of the image (including other academics)
make better use of the image :)
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It was for debugging a scripting problem. Thanks for reminding me - I've deleted it now. 713:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Seeking feedback on a possible future RfA bid (Richwales)
Hi. Congratulations on getting the mop.
I recently decided to prepare for a possible RfA bid of my own. I've written up a draft set of answers to the standard questions, and if you would be willing to review them here, I'd be grateful for any feedback you could offer.
I anticipate that an RfA bid could be controversial in my case — partly because I have "only" about 3,500 edits in my 5+ years on Wikipedia, but also because of a messy edit dispute I was involved in earlier this year (explained in my extra question #4) — so I'd like to prepare as well as possible. Thanks. Richwales (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rich. I took a look and have a few thoughts, but first - let me apologize because I won't give too much definitive feedback because (to be frank) I think that these pre-RFA q/a reviews make an RFA seem too choreographed. The answers definitely need to be yours and yours alone. That being said, here are a few thoughts:
The edit count doesn't bother me. 3500 edits over 5 years should be enough (but it may bother some people)
Re: the past conflict, I would suggest you provide as many diffs to show your side of the story as well as the opposing side. As you have already done, be willing to admit when/if you were wrong.
For Q1 - decide clearly what you think the tools will help you do. Fighting vandals, working to establish consensus and stopping edit warring can be done by all editors, and the only thing being an admin will add to the picture is the ability to block when/if it is needed as a last resort. I don't think that someone reading your Q1 answer may assume that you want that ability to lend weight to your other activities which all editors can do, and this is obviously not the purpose of the tools.
I rade the link and still don't know why the article was deleted. The company is Ethiopia's Huge investment group and well known in east Africa. Please you should appriciate us to write more. Actually I only started the article and was planning to finish it later, but it was deleted. Please don't stop us by deleting such contributions. Because if articles like this one are deleted, there may be no Ethiopian private company, like S.Africas MTN. Please let me finish it? Please? Thank you. Aniten21 (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't speak for Acroterion's edit summaries, but can only guess that he felt repeated recreation = vandalism. However, CSD-G3 has some pretty limited criteria: This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including images intended to misinform), and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism. I don't think these fall under that definition - although they were easily A7, G11, and G12. Regards, 704:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not the first time I've used the criteria an admin used and subsequently was criticized for it. I find that a bit disheartening. Eeekster (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand your feelings. I too used to wonder why some pages I had tagged one way were deleted under another criteria. I can only tell you that nothing that I wrote was a criticism of your patrolling efforts (which are commendable). If I had any concern that was worth raising I would do it on your talk page, not in a deletion summary. Furthermore, I clarified what type of concern you were referring to in the AIV note. The only reason I included "(not vandalism)" in my summary was so that when/if the editor sees the deleted page they will understand clearly what the issue was. This is especially true since the majority if the CSD tags on the editor's talk page now are using the standard vandalism note, not the Promo/Vanitsy/Spam/Copyvio comments. If you still feel bothered by my response you can also discuss with Acroterion or raise to DRV if necessary. 704:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
User talk pages are generally not deleted. Please see WP:CSD#U1. It looks like yours was deleted once in the past, despite one admin declining it, another felt that since it only had a templated welcome message it was not an issue. However, now that you have received a notice (the speedy deletion notice) it is not appropriate to remove all history from your page. Plus, as you continue to edit people will see that you have no talk page and will likely welcome you (I would!). I understand you prefer a redlink, but there's really no way around having people leave you notes from time to time. 706:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm okay with people leaving me notes. I just don't like having them around after I've already read them. Is there any way to transfer a watchlist from one account to another? Faceless Enemy (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's possible technically to copy a watchlist, but you transferring accounts each time someone leaves you a note is not allowed. Please see this page. You can blank your talk page as you wish, and people will only see details if they look into the history. 706:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Am I allowed to overwrite my talk page a few thousand times? And I'm not trying to vanish, just to kill the blue link to a blanked page. Faceless Enemy (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)\
Ugh. Looks like I have to live with the blue. Is there a way to vote for giving users more power over their user/talk pages? I know it's not your personal policy or anything. Thanks for the explanations.Faceless Enemy (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I was reviewing the contribution history for Rattenkrieg (talk·contribs) and did not find anything constructive, just a long history of unconstructive edits and blatant vandalism. An indefinite VOA block might be justified here. Thanks. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib00:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed - changed. I had seen one edit back in 2008 where it looked like the correctly added a space that was missing between words, but it turned out that even that was after a prior edit of theirs which was vandalism. Thanks for the note, and I'll never take offense if you choose to modify an action I take. Thanks. 701:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Usernames containing references to sexual acts are generally not acceptable. Although in this case it is a mildly amusing (if misspelled) configuration of words, still not acceptable unfortunately. :) – B.hotep •talk• 10:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The endless and completely unsourced list of awards appears to fall under "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable" (emph added) Active Banana (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. I expanded quite a bit on what I wrote earlier (see here), and I'm running into a quandary. On the one hand, I understand I need to be thorough (especially involving conflicts I was a part of), and I realize I shouldn't just give pat answers. On the other hand, I'm very concerned about being too long (one person has already said people are likely to react to my current stuff with "tl;dr") or too controversial (almost anything I say beyond a pat answer is likely to upset someone). Clearly, I can't please everybody, and there are people who would find a reason to vote against me no matter what I said. Any more thoughts? Richwales (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe you actually pursued this matter. The reasoning you gave, [4] that users would be unable to AGF with this person because they would be offended by the word "stupid"(or was the word "weasel" the problem?) is beyond ridiculous. The only policy I see being stepped on here is WP:BITE. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe that a name such as this could make "harmonious editing difficult or impossible", especially considering the confusion which may arise when the user signs talk page posts - e.g. "thanks stupidweasel", "i disagree with you stupidweasel", etc... 723:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
So, since they have indicated they don't wish to change their name, are you actually going to block them for it? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I would have thought the answer to that would be apparent by the fact that I did not take action already. I still feel the username is inappropriate, but specifically to avoid being bitey and because the user's first contrib seemed fine I discussed it with them rather than blocking them. When I saw their reply I left it outstanding on UAA so others could review. You and another admin have both indiciated it is not a vio so I will not push the issue. I am somewhat surprised by the intensity with which you expressed your opinion, both on UAA and calling my point "beyond ridiculous" here, but we all have our own styles. Regards, 700:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It's just that there seems to be a trend toward taking bot reports more seriously than is merited. The bot just looks for the word "stupid" it isn't capable of seeing the context in which the word is used. This user's very first interaction with another Wikipedian was to have their perfectly innocent username questioned, with the implied threat of a block. That's something to be avoided if there is not a blatant violation. If it had been "Jimbo is stupid" or something like that I would agree with you, but the word "stupid" is not taboo in any culture that I am aware of to the point where merely having it in your username would make it difficult to work around you. I'll grant that I am not easily offended, but this strikes me as an overreaction to a harmless name. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, 7, there's a script for quick granting of reviewer rights y'know. You;re welcome to pilfer it from my monobook.js if you want. Once you have it, you just go to the user page of the person you;re granting reviewer to and click the button at the top that says "make reviewer". Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - I've actually got it already. However, I found that to be more useful for people who are going around and providing the userright on an unrequested basis. It isn't as useful for dealing with those who request it from the RFPERM page because we still have to manually mark the section as done... but I've still been using it periodically. Thanks again. 701:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you SO much
I appreciate your help in reverting that jackass on my talk page. What a dick. :) Anyway, I am genuinely touched that you'd take the time to lend a hand. I owe you big time. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
With all that you do to keep this place clean I'm just glad I could be there to help out. 714:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello
The I.P. you banned for tampering and vandalizing the Rugrats in Paris: The Movie has resurfaced and changed the soundtrack to an entirely different list and genre. I noticed this after adding information on the recording period and was forced to undo my addition in order to revert the changes made by User: 66.39.171.8. Please help. Thank youCarmaker1 (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
While I do appreciate your prudence in protecting my pages, there is a reason that I have a note on there requesting it stay unprotected. I would prefer that vandals, particularly /b/tards, are able to vandalize my pages, because it diverts them from raiding the article space. I'd rather take a lot of vandalism to my userspace than to have that same amount all directed at an article. Thanks. The Thing // Talk // Contribs11:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, I did not see the note when patrolling via diffs. Will try to remember that request in the future. 716:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Will do. It was not my policy change. It was my query about what appears to me to a proposed policy change, being used to challenge an edit I made. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay I understand that, as his most recent edit was too vandalism after his final warning. Just because I didn't have the time to put in a report then, he doesn't get blocked or something? STAT-Verse05:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I get how you feel, but see the second sentence in that section - AIV blocking is preventative, not punitive. If I block him now, a day after he last vandalized, I am not preventing anything. If he vandalizes again, he would be quickly blocked. Keep up the good work patrolling. 705:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Seeking editorial consensus on File: Skip Spence Columbia Promo Photo.jpg
I am encountering editorial acceptance difficulties in relation to Eekster (whom I notice you addressed in relation to another matter), concerning a promotional photo of Skip Spence that I have now uploaded twice to illustrate the article. I don't know how much more justification I can provide to User: Eekster and am concerned about the photo continuing to be inaccurately categorized as one for which a fair use justification has not been provided, and hence possibly deleted. If you have a moment, could you please review the talk on Eekster in relation to this and perhaps convey a second opinion to him or her. If you have the authority to change the photo categorization and believe that a change is justified, could you please do so. On the other hand, if both of you are of the opinion that there is inadequate fair use justification here, please let me know. Many thanks in advance. Dreadarthur (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll be honest that I am not an expert in fair use copyright rules... but based on his lack of further challenge on his talk page or on the file itself this may be resolved. If it continues to be a problem I would suggest you post the same note on this page and you should get a quick response. Also, as a courtesy, you should let Eekster know if you post a note on that board. Regards, 723:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree he definitely appears to be adding unsourced information (lineage / confiscation of temples / etc...) despite multiple warnings and blocks for the same. I suspect you were looking for an admin 3rd opinion, but to be honest I don't think anyone would have challenged you if you had blocked directly. In either case, he's taking a 1 week break now and if he continues after that I guess he's done. Can I leave you to tidy his unsourced changes / deletions over the past 24 hours -- because I know very little about these topics? 723:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I just can't help but laugh out loud. A relatively bad movie, with that one ridiculously funny character. If I ever get famous and change my name that will be among the top contenders. 707:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I think this was a bot reported note to UAA which I acted on - the bot reported it based on this edit filter where the user added a URL matching their username. 711:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the explanation; good memory :-) I couldn't figure out what Washington Blaze could be, and I don't understand the edit filters very well either. Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
How did you find user Pele Sports? I was in the process of submitting a report, but then you blocked the user. In future, if I see a username like this (with the same activity of adding external links), where should I report it? I got lost going through the administrators' noticeboards (my first time) Davtra(talk) 12:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I found it because Favonian reported it to AIV here. However, it probably should have been reported to UAA instead. It's possible that they clicked the wrong button in the Twinkle ARV menu. Do you use Twinkle? If not you should give it a try, as it makes the UAA and AIV reporting processes a lot easier. Keep up the good work. 712:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Cheers for the reply. I have Twinkle enabled, but I haven't tested the features yet. I looked at the UAA, but I wasn't sure what blatant violation meant compared with just violation, so I went over to the WP:COI/N. Thanks for your advice, Davtra(talk) 13:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Interview request: The newbie experience, revert communication and $10 to the WMF
I'm concluding the study related to the NICE user script (that you installed at some point), and I'd like to ask you some questions about your experiences with and ideas about Wikipedia. The questions will be related to how you interact with new editors and the way you communicate when reverting. The chat should take about 45 minutes to an hour and can happen over phone, voip(skype) or instant messenger(gtalk, ICQ, AIM, etc.). As thanks for your time, I'll donate $10 (US) to the Wikimedia foundation at the completion of the interview. If you are interested or need more information, please let me know. --EpochFail(talk|work)16:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply to the message you left me last month, I have been away. I won't be able to make the changes you requested for a while longer, as I'll be away again for a bit (hey, what can I say? It's summer! :D). But I will make so that it doesn't add or remove the RFP template (but it will move it to the bottom of the page, if it was already in the page), and I'll look into adding the Reviewer subpage. It will probably end up archiving them with the other requests (at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Archive) rather than at the subpage (as has been done manually). But we'll see, basically just letting you know that your message was seen and I will get around to doing something about it sometime :). Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
S/he continues to make the same edits over and over again without providing an edit summary or any justification. Can s/he be given another block? Thanks Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not seeing this as passing WP:DUCK. Yes, it's a bit strange for Popplejohn to start editing straight at that article, but Popplejohns 2 edits (while unsourced) aren't trying to change the article the same way as LindaLees edits. You can start an SPI, but to me these appear unrelated unless you are seeing more similarities that I missed. Thanks. 700:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
You may wish to revise your blocking rationale, as I'm sure you meant that you blocked that username because it was offensive/disruptive. –MuZemike21:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the followup note - I had missed your reply as it slipped off my recent changes watchlist. I agree with your point about some people likely objecting to it, but in the few months it has been around I haven't heard any complaints yet. Don't know if anyone has used it (I have once) but it doesn't seem to be too controversial at this stage. 700:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The first 3-4 I looked at from the top of the list did not appear to satisfy WP:EL. I think the bulk of the list should go. But rather than slash the list myself I wanted others to take a look. You feel they are appropriate? 713:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the tag is justified - the article has gone through a review process and reached GA status on 30 October 2009; nobody else seemed to have a problem with the links, which existed at the time. So far no other administrator has expressed concern with the links , and I would assume there have been a few who have looked at the article since. (also added to the article's discussion page) Minorhistorian (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Me being an admin has nothing to do with the tag, nor should it have any bearing on your agreement (or in this case disagreement) with the tag. The reason I added the tag (and the reason I found the page at all) was because someone had added a spamlink which I already removed right before adding the tag. The other links in the list all looked to be of a similar nature to me, but I didn't have time to go through them all. Now that I have gone through them the only one I can say that I really have a problem with is http://www.spitfiresociety.com/ - a variant fo which was also in the article when it reached GA. However that site, as it's organized now, appears to be more promotional in nature selling memberships and merchandise right from its home page rather than providing any additional relevant information which is free for all to access. How do you feel about that link? 722:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean with that site (which link is repeated further down BTW); would it be worth "fencing off" and getting other opinions on it, before removing entirely? Minorhistorian (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I have a question for you if you can answer. It is possible to delete something from my Upload log, if is possible then if you can delete File:Clash2010Soundtrack.jpg, file is deleted by my request and I do not want to be on the list. This is my Upload log, and see if it is possible to delete because you really do not want to be there. Thank you in advance. Corey.7.11.1992 (talk) 5:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
May I ask why? It is techincally possible - see WP:CFRD. However there only limited cases where its use is appropriate, and I don't see this situation falling into any of those cases. 722:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Because it is a file that I upload by mistake and I know that this is not a reason for deletion but since the file is deleted I think that there is not need to be there with other uploaded files, so if you could delete or enable deletion I'd be very grateful. Thanks again. Corey.7.11.1992 (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Revision deletion is really not appropriate here. If you would like the log file to turn blue (instead of red) you could upload another file with the exact sae name. That's the best suggestion I can offer. 711:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Samarai109
Hi 7 - This account looks like a vandalism only account - could you maybe raise the block to indef? If not, I've got the talkpage watched, and can do it myself if the vandalism continues after. Thanks, Connormah (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to extend, I won't mind. However I was following the normal guidelines of WP:VOA. In my opinion, it's hard to tell from one bout if it should be indef. Their first post doesn't seem to have been vandalism. If they vandalized after their block I'd agree with an immediate indef... but as I said if you feel the need to raise it now that's fine too. Thanks for checking with me. 705:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
ACSDistanceEducation (talk·contribs), who you spam-user-name blocked, requested an unblock "so that I can have a discussion with the editor about the deletion of the page we created. I do understand the reasons for the deletion but I don't think it was a very fair decision given that there are many other schools on wikipaedia." I declined, saying that they could ask any questions on the talk page. I also pointed them to WP:COI and WP:BFAQ, which I said would answer most of their questions; but perhaps you should watchlist their talk page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over
Hey there 7, hope I find you well :). Just so you know, I run a bot which removes this category from the talk pages of blocked users, so there's no point removing it from these pages using AWB. A bot is more suited for this task, as it doesn't clog up watchlists/logs, and doesn't trigger the new messages banner (with minor edits to talk pages). Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I was thinking this would have been better suited for a bot. Should have checked first. Probably makes sense for easyblock to also remove any of the relevant categories upon blocking. Will suggest that as well. 722:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Clerk elections
Hi, this is just to inform you that elections for Clerkship at WP:UAA have started on the talk page. You have been sent this message because you were recently active in handling submissions or discussions. Discussion is ongoing and you are encouraged to voice your opinion on the candidates.
Hi 7, I was patrolling the User Creation Logs, and noted User:MTAEntertainment and not sure what I should have done. I ended up ARV'ing it for username violation (WP:UAA), followed by User:Pharaoh of the Wizards beating me to G11'ing it and such. Was the correct actions the combination of what we both accomplished, or would either have been sufficient, or a specific one been more appropriate? Thanks for your time, ROBERTMFROMLITALK/CONTRIBS04:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you were right to UAA it, and the G11 of the userpage was right too. Some admin aren't specialists in WP:U violations and may have deleted the userpage without automatically blocking the user so it is fine to have it listed at both places. Thanks for your good work patrolling. 704:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Much thanks for the answer (and for your thanks - as well as the effort you put into this). And of course, credit and thanks to PotW for the tag-team on that one. Best, ROBERTMFROMLITALK/CONTRIBS04:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
To be a joinin' the fun and frolicks, yer can be addin' {{User:Chzz/pirate}} to the top o' yer talkpage / userpage for today, fer a fine fancy decoration. Emptied after midnight it'll be, so don't be dallyin' now!
Disclaimer: It's very rare for me to send messages like this; it might seem frivolous or hypocritical, as I often complain about myspacing of the project. However, as a pastafarian, this is my equivalent of a Christmas greeting. I seriously believe we need to have fun sometimes. If you object, I apologize; let me know, and I won't bother you again.
User INGfertility
You recently deleted my article titled Pre-Seed, and from the explanation it looked like you didn't like my user name of INGfertility and suggested that I create a new user ID. I've done that. My new user ID is Darb8033. I would like to edit my original Pre-Seed article and try to make the necessary changes in order to have it published. Is there anyway you can give me access to my article so I can make changes and try again? If that is possible, can you allow me to access the article from my new username, Darb8033. If you can help me with this, it would be greatly appreciate. Thank you, Darb8033 (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for changing your name. The article can be restored in your userspace for you to work on, however before doing that I need to confirm that you have read the COI notices on your userpage. Are you affiliated with the company in any way? 723:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
INGfertility
Hi. Thank you for getting back to me on my previous question about my Pre-Seed article. I have read the COI notices, and I am affiliated with the company INGfertility. However, we have a rather unique, one of a kind product that provides aid to couples who need help in trying to concieve babies, and we are not writing this article to try and advertise the company, but rather to provide information and the science behind the product to those people who need this help. If couples are having trouble conceiving a baby, and they start doing research Wikipedia on Pre-Seed, we want them to be be aware of how and why it works. We feel it is important to to get this information out to the public so they can make informed decisions when trying to conceive. We also tried to support the science and any claims by our many references to scientific studies that have nothing to do with our company. If you can please allow me to have access to the article, so I can try to improve it, I would greatly appreciate it. And if you have any specific ideas on how I can improve the article, I'd love the feedback. Thank you Darb8033 (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the intent that you described is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia, not a yellowpages or a news forum. "A unique, one of a kind product...", that you want "to get the information out to the public" should be advertised on your own webhosting services. I am not willing to restore this article, as it would be inappropriate for you to write the article yourself. Rather - you should follow the steps listed at WP:BFAQ#COMPANY. Regards, 722:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
INGfertility
Can I ask one more thing about this article. I do work for INGfertility, and I posted the article about pre-seed, but the article was actually written by a scientist who has done many labatory tests on pre-seed as well as other lubricants. She is recgonized as one of the leading experts on sperm physiology with over 75 publications. The majority of our article actually talks about the science behind the product, how sperm can be damaged, cervical mucas quality, and why Pre-Seed was developed. It has many valid refrences to publications that are not related to our company at all. In fact, pre-seed itself is mentioned in many articles and publications such as Toni Weschler's book "Taking Charge of Your Fertility" which is referenced in numerous Wikipedia articles. I can see how the first paragraph seems kind of like it is advertising, and maybe a few other lines in the article. Would it be possible for us to edit paper and try again. Maybe I could delete that first little paragraph that starts with "Pre-Seed is the first fertile-friendly personal lubricant...", and some other lines in the article. We really believe that this is an encylopedia worthy topic, and it's not inteneded as advertising. This article was written by an expert in order to educate. Would it be possible to edit the article try again? Thank you Darb8033 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
That actually introduces additional complications. You publishing something written by someone else has copyright issues and even if she published the document itself it is not appropriate to post original research on Wikipedia. Again, I suggest that you follow the steps at WP:BFAQ#COMPANY to see if others agree with you (that there should be an article on the company or product) and from there someone who has no COI might write (or re-write) the article. When you post your comment at requested articles you can refer to the deleted version at Pre-Seed - any admin will be able to see the article, and you can tell any non-admin to contact me and I can email them a copy of the article... however given the copyright concerns it would not be appropriate to restore this now. 723:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
INGfertility
I just want to assure you that there is no copyright issues. I least I don't believe there is. I posted the article, but it was only because the author is not the most technological person when it comes to things like this so she asked me to put it up for her. It is 100% her paper, and was posted at her request. I just posted it for her on Wikipedia because she didn't know how. Also, you mentioned that Wikipedia is not a place for original research. I also want to assure you that this article does not have original research that is being published for the first time. The labatory test and studies I mentioned have been going on since the early 90's, and she has over 75 publications based off of these. And we have many references from other books and studies that have already been published on the subject. This was just an article about a 16 year old product because we felt that it is an encylopedia worthy topic. Is there anyway to edit and try again? I think we can see the parts that sound like advertising and will take those out. If it would help, I could have the author, who is an internationally recognized scientist with over 20 years experience contact you to ensure you that this is indeed her article and it is not intended to be advertising. I know I can take your suggestion and see if someone else will write an article about Pre-Seed, but a lot of work went into making this article and then also by me in learning how to post on Wikipedia. We would just love to have our article published on Wikipedia. Can we please try one more time? Thank you Darb8033 (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Need help
Hi, first I'd like to say that I'm fairly new here, so please forgive me if I'm unsure where to respond (not sure of watchlist).
I found a fraudulent (forged) US government PDF used as a source on a wiki page. Could you please contact me and let me know what I should do or who I should contact. Thanks --Westcoastkitty77 (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete a revision
Hi 7, I have a simple request if you can do. Can you delete one my revision in this article. The reason for deletion is that after editing, I wanted to type a description of my changes but in the middle of writing I accidentally pressed "Enter" and it is preserved by (this is description that is not completed "Added better soundtrack cover and", you will find it there). It is stupid to remain and I would really like to be deleted, and I know that revisions of articles should not be deleted but I ask just this one. Thank you in advance. - InfamousPrince (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but that type of deletion is really not appropriate for the guidelines of WP:REVDEL. Believe me, I have made many such typos in the summary so I wouldn't worry about it. 722:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Moron award of the day goes to... ME! I was running away from my desk and meant to block the guy hitting his page but got him instead. Thanks for alerting me guys. 707:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
On Cheese Shop sketch, someone made a "presumably" disruptive edit which increased the page size by (+1,101,763). Even I know that edit does not need to be seen by public, it might be RD3 eligible. mechamind9022:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Happy to help. Watching the page, but feel free to ping me directly if there is anything I can help with. 722:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Welcome aboard from me also, 7. Aside from the general to-do list stuff, what we do need is an admin to monitor the questions and discussion pages; there was a bit of blocking and deleting to do last year when things got out of line. Best, Skomorokh23:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Added all the relevant pages and subpages to my watchlist. Don't hesitate to nudge me if there is anything specific I can ever help with. 700:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
A Note
Hello, I am working very hard on Wikipedia to revert disruptive edits, and I would like to help the community more, so would you be able to grant me the Rollbacker right? Thank you very much. -- LS C HIST (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your work patrolling. Given this edit, right after your request to me I'm not prepared to set the right for you at this time, but you may wish to log the request at WP:RFP/R at a later date for review. Thanks. 712:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I will request the right at a later date. In fact that was a mistake, actually I just intended to issue a level one vandalism warning. -- LS C HIST (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I am interested in volunteering at the Arbitration elections, mostly out of a desire to help Wikipedia, but also out of an intellectual curiosity spurred on my my academic training in political science. I have three questions.
Am I elegible to join (I'm not an admin, but I am an editor in good standing)
Is it too late to join (The elections are only what, a month away)
If I can join, what still needs to be done.
Please use a talkback to inform me if you respond.
Hi Sven. I think non-admin are welcome, because there are other non-admin signed up and there are no requirements mentioned. I don't think it's too late - I just signed up myself a few days ago. To be honest I am not sure what needs to be done. I signed up and haven't heard anything since. A lot of those checkboxes are already checked on the to-do list, but maybe as it gets closer to the time they'll need more help. It can't hurt to volunteer. Thanks. 722:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Hiya 7, help please? I was the one who filed that AIV report. I think I messed it up big time. Anon just came off block for disruptive editing to write a personal attack (at link in AIV report). I think I've either picked the wrong board or method for dealing with this. Your guidance would be appreciated. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLITALK/CNTRB23:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you filed the report correctly, however it's the timing that I commented on. They made their attack at 2 minutes after the hour, and you gave them a final warning, and then they were reported to AIV. In other words, they haven't vandalized since their final warning. They just made one more edit that does not appear to be an attack. But I'll leave a note for another admin to review. 723:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation... guess such attacks are something I have little patience with (which is kind of ironic, since they dont bother me if directed at me) when coupled with such a short time of being unblocked for disruption. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLITALK/CNTRB23:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I just removed the attack comments, which I actually thought you had done when you warned them. I have no tolerance for attacks either, but since the editor was warned and it appears that English is not their first language I am willing to give them one last chance. 723:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
You have been invited to comment in a special Request for Constructive Criticism page. I am looking for areas in which I can improve. I have identified you as both an experienced and trusted Wikipedian, and as someone that has had sufficient contact with me to able to recognize areas in which I can improve.
Please feel free to visit and post any comments or criticism you have. At a certain point, I cannot improve if no one tells me what I need to work on. Thanks in advance, Sven ManguardTalk00:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I Sven - thanks for the words of confidence. I have no special comments at this time, because I feel that 1.5 months of WP experience is really too early to start looking for ways to improve. My only recommendation to you or to any editor would be to explore all areas of WP, because even if you feel like you are good at one thing (e.g. vandal fighting) you may find that you are even better at something else (DKY, on this date, etc...) after looking around. 723:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
203.16.208.241
Hi. I noticed you gave this IP a last warning for vandalism. I also noticed this IP has recieved multiple last warnings from other editors, and obviously does not seem to care. I just wanted to bring it to your attention that your last warning was ignored, and every time their block is lifted vandalism starts again. Can something more permanent be done about this? Freikorp (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Question
Posted a question to you, at meta:User talk:7 - Do you have any proficiency in other languages? Can you please mark your language proficiencies, and/or lack thereof, using babelboxes, at your userpages at Meta and also on Commons? -- Cirt (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain what this was about? I cannot find reference to it in the specific link mentioned in the unblock summary? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
See this summary which I put together to help explain it when this question came up during RFA. Will try to find the actual ANI diffs in the archives. 704:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't (for the life of me) find the ANI archives of this, but here is the final oldid of the discussion. I was able to find the AN archive and that's here. That all happened while I was asleep, and by the time I came in I had been blocked and unblocked already. The only details I know are from the comments by AnonymousDissident that there were some sort of ghost accounts created in the usurp process. Not sure if those ghosts were easier to hack or had default passwords, but after I renamed I tried to re-register my old account (and to login with my password) and I couldn't do either. 705:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I realize not everyone is a ann old geezer like myself who still listens to the Dead Kennedys, so maybe you were unaware that this is a song title and not an actual business. I think the block should be reconsidered in that light. --Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed the box at the top of the page saying it's ok to reverse your blocks if made in error, so I am going to do that now. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I did reply again to the message on my talk page. (I did see the thing at the top of your talk page) I just want to make sure you didn't think I was okay. Thanks, and sorry for doing this, I just really wanted to make sure! Endofskull (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I want you to go back to Huggle because you've reverted vandalism on Huggle since April 2009 and I think you belong to Huggle. I'm also encouraging you to go back to Huggle. WAYNEOLAJUWON01:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Received and agreed. Thank you for the time spent putting that detail together. I may need to modify the admin highlight script to highlight edits by those users. 700:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Mario's First High
Y'know, under the circumstances, warning him about the page deletion was a bit of a kick to the shins seeing as the next thing you did was name-block him... HalfShadow03:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. He created a hoax userspace page. It looked like an article, and had 30+ references. However investigating the references made it clear that the article was just copied from another (possibly Sonny with a Chance) and they replaced some names with what I assume was their friends names. I found them because of the report at UAA, but if all I do is block them for a username violation (especially when the template says "your username is the only problem") then they would not have been informed that the inappropriate page creation was also a problem. Was not trying to be bitey, but rather to inform them of two separate issues. 703:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I was joking, actually; it looked kind of funny, with you giving him a speedy-delete warning and then slamming the door on him. HalfShadow04:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh - sorry - I get it. Without a wink ;) it's hard to tell sometimes, and I am sensitive to try to avoid biting. Thanks. 704:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Quite some time ago (October 18, 2010), you provided me with some help on my Talk Page. The issue was about my trying to sort a Wikipedia Table by combining two tables to appear as if they were only one table. I have put that project on my "back burner" for now, as I have become preoccupied with other matters. But, I wanted to thank you for your time and assistance. And I wanted to thank you for replying to my Help request. If I have further questions in the future (when I tackle that issue once again), I may be in touch. Thanks for all of your help. Much appreciated. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC))
Oh, heh. That was for the requester, sorry - I was just a bit bewildered by the comment they made. What you did was just fine. Hersfold(t/a/c)16:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Is that we can't put corporate info in Wikipedia?
Hi Admin 7,
I'm just posting corporate info, is that not allowed?
Hope to hear from you,
okie...understand, but I saw so many other company puting their company info but the page is still live...i not promoting any product...just says what the company doing. the latest version i don't even name any products brand & name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix2011 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
As Orangemike said, a big difference is that other companies are not posting their own info - that would be a COI as you've been warned about. If your company is notable then someone will write an article about it. 701:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks a lot for the info. I will becareful on that and sorry for make you all keep on delete the page I setup earlier. Great to know you Mr.7 & OrangeMike. Page like F&N and its subsidaries were make promotions in their page anyway. Good day ahead.Felix2011 (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem. I was still in the middle of leaving a note on the image's talk page, and hadn't even gotten around to leaving notes for you and Colin Old, when I saw that you had already DR'ed it. So I left a question for you at the DR discussion, because the message I was going to leave on the talk page might be irrelevant depending on what this OTRS ticket says. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear 7, Best wishes to you and your family this holiday season, whether you are celebrating Christmas or a different holiday. It's a special time of the year for almost everyone, and there's always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! ;) Love, --Meaghan[talk] ≈14:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear 7, will you please have a look at my talk page, section "Clan of Xymox, cont'd"? An accusation of socking is made, with a note on IP/username interaction--a technical note, if you will: if I understand it correctly, the thought is that since Hablador (talk·contribs) is blocked, Knowitallfortoday (talk·contribs) can't edit either, so they must be the same. Is that so? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm on a voluntary drama-out now... but seriously, the outing issue should not be taken lightly and any further conversations about the nature of any COI should be handled on the appropriate boards. If you suspect the two editors are the same please open a case at WP:SPI, but your suspicion about one being auto-IP blocked may be accurate. 722:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Mind you, it wasn't my suspicion--I'm actually pretty trusting by nature. And please don't think I go around looking for drama: nobody is sicker of this article and (most of) its editors than I am, and I don't even like goth. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Your uw-block warning message said it was a temporary block and I didn't notice in the block log that it was indef. 703:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Blocking IP 70.68.152.254
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for blocking that IP. He just kept vandalizing on and on and on. He was causing quite the headache to me. Cheers! Bped1985 (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, FWIW, I also had 7 months of activity in my RfA, and in my opinion that was (and still is) sufficient time to understand customs and policies here. "Enough experience" is of course not simply gained through logging enough months of activity here, you need a certain amount of involvement in behind-the-scenes noticeboards and talk pages, and enough clue to process it. But it's in my opinion certainly possible to get there in seven months. Cheers, Amalthea00:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Possible, absolutely. You've been around longer than me, and I respect your opinion as well as those of many of the supporters and could have been swayed. However I don't feel that is the case here. GW has now withdrawn the nomination and gone on indef wikibreak. Not the temperament I would hope for in an admin. It was the time span, when combined with the other factors that left me there in the weak oppose section. 700:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't post this to try and sway your opinion in the slightest. As I said, it takes more than just 'time', and if anything you would have found my signature in the same section. Just pointing out that pinning it on "not enough active months" is too easy. :) Amalthea00:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
7 03:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Done Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 23:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Done 7 22:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
delirious and lost ☯ 06:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Davtra (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
