User talk:Caulde/Archive/12

Jason Kane deletion

Hello. I was trying to add an entry for Jason Kane who is mentioned in an article here. This is my first entry on Wikipedia and it didn't occur to me that Wikipedia would have policies that I might violate. I should have read them and for that I apologise.

My intention is to include a list of Jason's accomplishments. I would still like to do that. May I proceed? Hortaculture (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You may want to read this help guide. If possible, next time you create a page make sure to show the notability and always back it up with reliable sources and a neutral point of view. Rudget. 17:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A Gsearch for "Jason Kane" pool only brings up 450 hits. There's stuff like this and this, but I'm not sure that it's enough to have an article about him. WikiProject Cue sports wants an article about him; they have him listed at WP:CUEBIOS, which is their page for wanted bios. Pretty borderline case. GlassCobra 17:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, ditto. Do make sure to show notability. Rudget. 17:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I'll put together something and hopefully it'll be acceptable.

Hope so. Rudget. 17:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Darn

you beat me to it, I was going to block him. [1], don't forget to post why, etc on talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Was that a suitable length? Rudget. 18:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and I have to ask you a question go on email in a minute.

I'd say it was the outside of okay as he has recent warnings, but okay. I'd have gone 72 hours I think. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Eeek. Anyway, you got mail! Rudget. 18:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't fret, it's not like you went 1 month or something. Not all admins will block the same time, that doesn't mean you're wrong. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching

I have been looking for a coach for the past MONTH. Could you please coach me? If not, then who might? Thanks, --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 18:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I won't be able to. Have you been looking around or have you left a request at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching? Rudget. 18:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking. I requested a coach already. He agreed to teach me, but he didn't and is using my name as a trophy by putting it on the "Former" list. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 21:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Username blocks

Also, when blocking a username, remember to turn off "Prevent account creation" and "Autoblock any IP addresses used", unless it's a blatant bad-faith or disruptive username such as this one. Thanks. Acalamari 19:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protection

On behalf of everyone at WikiProject Law, I want to thank you for semi-protecting the article on Thurgood Marshall. I suspect that one of the reasons his page is so heavily vandalized is because he was the first African-American justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. --Eastlaw (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess so. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Best, Rudget. 20:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page :-) LightAnkhC|MSG 20:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Rudget. 21:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

re: puppetry case

Absolutely, please do close it, I regret having brought it to suspected sockpuppets. I genuinely was concerned something improper was going on, and hadn't intended it to be construed as a bad faith act. Next time if I'm questioning, I'll go to ANI or Request for Comment. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yey! More spam!

Just in case you don't have enough congratulation spam, here is some more! Well done on your RFA, now don't go overloading the server with your Cabal-ness. Icestorm815 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

IP blocks

Hi Rudget. New admin? Congratulations. Please don't indef-block IP addresses. This one is a dynamic AOL IP and the block should probably be less than a day. This one is probably also dynamic and should be 24 hours at most. Please re-read Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses, and please review your recent IP blocks. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, okay. Thanks for the heads up. Rudget. 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll leave you to adjust those blocks then. If I may offer another bit of advice (and I don't want to be critical since you're a new admin, but you'll be glad you know this sooner rather than later), Qwertyuioplkjhgfdsazxcvbnm1234567890 (talk · contribs · block log) is a good faith bad choice of username. If it is to be blocked it should be blocked with account creation enabled, autoblock disabled, and with the {{UsernameBlocked}} template. In other words a totally softblock, so they are not deterred or prevented from immediately creating a new account with a better name. Bad usernames should only really be hardblocked when they are chosen with an obviously deliberate intent to vandalise, not just when they are inappropriate. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I would have dropped you a note but saw that zzuuzz took care of it. This is a really minor mistake, but don't hesitate to ask me any questions you've got or if you need help repairing something you broke - I have a feeling you'll be just fine though. east.718 at 23:16, January 12, 2008

Advice

Hello again Rudget! Or should I say Captain/Sir/Commander Rudget? I'm joking of course.

I liked your feedback in the past when I faced contentious contribution. I appreciated your third opinion. I was wondering how you felt I should work with User:Lancsalot's edits? I'm concerned about pretty much all of his contributions since his return (there is a history however), but particularly the following diffs: [2], [3], [4], [5]. This user is an advocate of the "traditional counties" which is opposed explicitly by WP:PLACE. Do you think this could be a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, a part of WP:POINT? Some of this material seems to be a little over-personal for my liking. I'd be grateful of any input you could offer, but appreciated you may now be overwhelmed with adminship. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you on all the congratulations and good luck you've sent me over the past few days, I really appreciate that. But getting back to your question, since mostly WP:POINT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT aren't policies, but instead generally accepted guidelines that sometimes dictate the direction of dicsussion, we can't just place him under that straight away. Being able to persuade people to our point of view isn't always the best way, even if correct, as that can encourage some un-cooly behaviour and maybe even go as far to violate the most important rule. Seeing as this is mostly a content dispute, I can't really go any further that what you may have done already unless of course he does break 3RR or attempts to harrass you or other editors etc. Best of luck, Rudget. 13:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

STS-400

Hi, I noticed that you deleted this article, but did not perform the histmerge that was requested. Could you please move User:GW Simulations/STS-400 to STS-400 and then restore the page histories per WP:CPM, as was requested as part of the CSD-G6 nomination. Thanks. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 12:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that right? First one you see. Forgive me for any wrongdoing. Rudget. 12:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• • That's fine. Thank-you very much. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 12:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Great minds?

I heard great minds think alike but this is ridiculous! Mind the time stamp. -- Cat ^chi? 16:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. What are you trying to get across? Rudget. 16:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You and I made the same edit nearly the same second? That is rare. And I randomly noticed it too, I mean the vandalism. -- Cat ^chi? 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yeah. :) Rudget. 16:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Article dispute

Since you protected Romanians, you may (or may not) want to take a look at the ANI thread. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin defyed by user Dahn. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Rudget. 18:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Boricuaeddie bots

Hm, you're right. I keep a whole stack of RfAs on my watchlist, which I check obsessively (As in, I'll be going out for 5 minutes, coming back, and the first thing I do is check my watchlist,) so I noticed the edits. I guess that means we just keep an eye out on Sundays at 1800 UTC? :P Congrats on your adminship, you'll do well with the tools. :) Best, Keilana^talk 18:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And yeah, I've got the binoculars ready. :) Rudget. 18:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

a previous blockage heads-up

Over the weekend, you had blocked user Mike41691. His block has expired, and they are back doing the same types of edits they did before (you can see by their talk page that others are also having issues with this person's edits. In one case, one RV description is pointed to talk to the discussion page, so instead of participating in the discussion Mike41691 merely deleted what had already been written on that topic. So I thought I'd let you know instead of getting into a rv war. ThxSpikeJones (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thx for looking at the Epcot/Hollywood Studios situation. It appears to have been cleared up (for now) with discussions on the article's talk pages by other interested parties as well. If the revert war comes back up, I'll let you know. Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you for cleaning my talk page, even though my talk page (nor the other user's talk page) wasn't what I was originally talking about. (The user had deleted the article's talk page item addressing his reverts; reading back through this commentary, I can see where you may have been confused by my lack of being clear and specific in my original post to you. Ah well). SpikeJones (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which I withdrew with 5 support, 14 oppose, and 9 neutral. Thank you for your comments! Whether it was a support, oppose, or neutral, I likely got some good feedback from you. I will probably do another RfA in the future, but not until I work out the issues brought up.

Soxπed Ninety Three | tcdb 17:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Las Vegas (TV series)

I noticed you asked KellyAna to help regarding the Las Vegas issue, her talk page is on my watch list. Regarding what the blocked user calls content dispute, that is not true. It is not content dispute, he is removing verifiable information. We've gone round and round on this and originally I did not understand that all stars should be there, but then did due diligence and discovered that addition of all names is correct. The blocked user is not seeing that and, according to the email I got, was reverting and re-reverting, and spinning around and around. His removal of verifiable information, to my understanding, is vandalism and I had been here, I would have reverted what he did also. In addition, his hidden comments are incorrect and smack of yelling and incivility. His logic of "no longer running shows" doesn't hold water in that there are several shows that have entire casts and just because some don't doesn't mean those are right and Las Vegas is wrong. But that's just the editing side, I'll let KellyAna address you further when she is on. She is only on evenings and weekends as her job blocks Wikipedia. If I can help, please feel free to contact me. IrishLass (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing a GA review at the moment. So, I'll be with as soon as I can. Thank you for contacting me by the way, this has helped. Best regards, Rudget. 16:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Reviews

Congrats again on the RfA. Just a friendly reminder that you had said you were going to do the GA Reviews for The Last Temptation of Krust and Lisa's Sax. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

Yep, I've got 4 under my name. All will be done by tonight. Rudget. 16:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I was just about to ask you about the 4 ga reviews you have up. Get though waht you can asap, since it's discouraged to keep those review templates up much longer than a week. Wizardman 19:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

DJS24

I reduced this guy's block back to your original 48 hour duration. The unblock request itself makes it clear the person has reasons for doing what they did and is willing to discuss the issue, and made some unwise reverts. I figured you wouldn't mind since you had originally blocked as a 3RR violation in the first place. Mangojuice^talk 16:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just going to get around to that. Although the user says it's a content dispute, I was going to decline per the thread two above. Thanks anyway. Best regards, Rudget. 16:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

May I interject here that this is not content dispute only. His first edit was a revert to KellyAna back to [[6]]. Someone whose first edit is a revert is attempting to circumvent three RR on purpose. Additionally, his claims of innocence seem extremely suspect. IP 74.76.211.179 was warned repeatedly. From time stamps it appears as though KellyAna asked for assistance from another editor after they had reverted, not before, as he again claims. Content dispute is handled on talk pages, he's reverted, and then played merry go round with several reverts going back and forth just to try and have his edit last. He was warned, talked to, explained procedure, yet played round and round with the page. That's vandalism, not content dispute. And is it not suspect that his very first edit is a revert? 48 hour reduction based on his lies is getting off easy, in my opinion. IrishLass (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

He has not acted correctly, I agree. But since he has now been told he must not continually revert and must engage in discussion, we should WP:AGF and hope that he will do so. Honestly, a 48 hour block for a first-offense 3RR violation is actually harsher than normal. If he continues his edit war, he'll just end up blocked again, but then, he may also learn about Wikipedia and become a constructive contributor. BTW, his actions, although apparently against consensus, are not vandalism: he was not expunging verifiable information, just removing it from an infobox; characterizing it as vandalism implies an assumption that his aim was to damage Wikipedia, which I don't see now that he has explained himself. As for the IP having the same edit pattern, it may well be the same user, who decided to register an account. If you suspect actual sockpuppetry that's a different matter, but IP editors are allowed to register usernames, that doesn't make them suspect. Mangojuice^talk 17:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still unsure of the actual intentions of this user, so I'll abstain from further conversation. However, if there is proof of sockpuppetry please come back here and I'll deal with it. Best regards, Rudget. 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, can I try explaining it to him, although I doubt it will work if I'm right and he is the IP that put that screaming hidden comment in in the first place. By his logic while a show is running only the current stars are in the infobox but his logic doesn't take into account shows that are being rebroadcast on other networks or just now launching in other countries. Also by his logic while the show is on you systematically remove actors who have left and then when the show goes off the air, you backtrack and re-add those people to the list again. He's also using the "but other articles do this..." excuse but isn't there some sort of "other stuff exists" guideline? And would that cover this issue. I'd like to attempt to reason with him, but if it's the same person, there really may not be much hope. Now regarding sockpuppetry. If he logs out and tries to edit with just his IP, will it be allowed if it's not one like our friend Grant's where it changes every time he logs in? Just wondering. Thank you for your help. IrishLass (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though this is in the process of being resolved in a civil manner, I won't mess that up. I would like to address the comment of "called in friends" I believe it was. I was watching the page but someone else Otolemur crassicaudatus saw the multiple reverts and reverted one change. When DJS24 reverted again rather than revert myself I did as Otolemur crassicaudatus to revert again, I was bordering 3RR myself and didn't want to violate that rule. That was the only "friends calling" I did but I only asked Otolemur crassicaudatus to help because they had previously. I don't know about it being content dispute but I do know DJS24 did several circular reverts which was definitely appearing to be vandalism. Hope all is solved at this point. KellyAna (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that his block has lifted he's gone off the deep end. Would you mind popping in? Things got ridiculously out of hand when two others with CSI concerns came in and the conversation went 6 different directions; directions that include several personal attacks by DJS24. BTW, his first stop after being unblocked was my page. IrishLass (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your talk page

There seems to be four discussions on your talk page whch do not exist, except in the TOC (contents, not rail service :)). Simply south (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. It's probably that stuff at the top, I'll fix it now. Rudget. 17:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: If...

Thanks heaps Rudget! It's great to know that the work is being noticed around here :D Spellcast (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WETA Learning Media

In reference to this, WETA Learning Media owns the website readingrockets.org, which the user account had spammed into two articles. Stuff like this happens occasionally on UAA, and Google can really be your friend if you are unsure! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you already blocked them? My screen's frozen. :) Rudget. 18:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have. :) Good job! I'll definitely do that next time! Rudget. 18:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dustihowe Rfa

Please check the Rfa again, as I took your advice and added my little two cents. :-) Have an awesome day Dustihowe  Talk  19:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)