Jump to content

User talk:Dominic/Archive18

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

Portuguese wordlist to Wikitonary

Hello. Future Perfect at Sunrise suggested I contact you regarding a wordlist that I created yesterday. It can be found at List of Portuguese words of Arabic origin. He has suggested that it be moved to the Wikitonary. As much as I appreciate the feedback, I am quite stumped as to why the Portuguese wordlist should be moved and the Spanish, English and French lists are to remain as articles. Would it be helpful for me to mark these lists as well for transfer to Wikitonary? Wachowich 21:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wiktionary is indeed the better place for it. Please read WP:NOT#DICT and WP:WINAD for our policies on this. As for the reasoning, Wiktionary houses lists like these in the Appendix namespace, e.g. wikt:Appendix:Scots irregular verbs, wikt:Appendix:Australian English vocabulary, etc. They are much more useful there because Wiktionry's mission is to define all of the terms there, so an interested reader can follow the links to a helpful entry. On Wikipedia, however, where dictionary definitions are prohibited, the article will basically be a dead end, and be unmaintained. Coincidentally, I had List_of_English_words_of_Portuguese_origin transwikied earlier today, so yes, blease do tag all similar articles with {{copy to wiktionary}} (a bot will move them in day or so) and feel free to continue to editing them on Wiktionary. Dmcdevit·t 21:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osli73

Dmcdevit, in the Kosovo arbitration case, you voted to put Osli73 on revert parole. I wish to bring to your attention that he has been violating his parole with impunity for some time now. On February 24, this behavior was brought to the attention of the arb enforcement board (see link below), but there has not been any action or comment since. Meanwhile, edit warring is heating up again at the Srebrenica article. If those who have been put on parole can violate the limits put upon them with little or no consequence, it puts us at risk of the article falling back into a free-for-all. Could you either respond to this or contact the appropriate administrator? Thank you. Fairview360 01:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#.5B.5BUser:Osli73.5D.5D[reply]

Look like Jay has dealt with it before I got there. Dmcdevit·t 03:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dcmdevit,

I just posted this message on Jay's talk page.

Since Osli's block ended March 14, he has resumed reverting the same sentence in the intro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Edit_this_section_for_new_requests

Fairview360 18:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vampire watermellon.jpg

Hi! I see you deleted File:Vampire watermellon.jpg because it was on Commons. But the image didn't fulfil all the criteria for deletion (see Wikipedia:CSD#Images.2FMedia, #8). Specifically: All information on the image description page is present on the Commons image description page. That includes the complete upload history with links to the uploader's local user pages. So, the image was in danger of getting deleted on Commons and on en, creating general mess. So, in future, please look this up before deleting :) Nikola 09:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've linked to the wrong image, there is no log of a deletion of File:Vampire watermellon.jpg on Wikipedia or Commons. In any case, if there was a mishap, it was most likely the person that tagged the image. When we were clearing the backlog of several thousand images in that category, we decided it was a waste for the administrator to repeat the work of th person who tagged it, and any tagged image was deleted automatically. This is much less of a problem now that we have image undeletion. Dmcdevit·t 16:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Vampire watermelon.jpg it is :) Thanks for explanation. Nikola 09:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

savafid dynasty page

Hi, I see that you have been involved in resolving certain dispute related to page Savafid dynasty. I am professional historian - there is a lot of controversy around issues related to this page. It is sometimes too hard to sort out various theories. Certain users propose their version as only truth. You have blocked Atabek and Tajik. Please be more discrete - I believe there were other people who were involved and who continue to freely edit. Instead of blocking users it is better to mediate the dispute and have appropriate wording. That's my opinion - might differ from others. But in dispute like this mediation and arbitration is a much better tool. It is from my experience and colloboration with various admins --Dacy69 16:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hi Dmc. You've got mail. Please reply as soon as you can. Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't receive an email from you. Resend it? Dmcdevit·t 23:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Bjbear71

It does seem unfair to punish User:Bjbear71 for vandals operating under the IP address that she uses, when she logs into her account to contribute to Wikipedia. She has much to contribute to Wikipedia, as her vast website [1] will attest to. I know that you are aware of the extreme caution to be exercised when blocking users who use this IP address, and I also apologise if I am a bit blunt, as my knowledge of the community portal and wikietiquette is slight. Yours, Gareth E Kegg 14:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP in question is a T-Mobile hotspot, not a regular internet connection. All the user has to do is return to her regular IP address. Hotspots are problematic because they can be used by anyone, including blocked users, who wants to switch their IP anonymously. Dmcdevit·t 21:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the T-Mobile hotspot blocked against logged-in users? Does blocking an IP address against logged-in users serve a useful purpose in general, or in specific cases? I know at least one person whose primary internet access is a coffeeshop. He does not have an internet connection, or even a phone line, in his apartment. He's not, afaik, on Wikipedia, but I'd be surprised if there aren't others like him on Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such hotspots aren't blocked as a policy, but this particular one has been subject to enormous amounts of abuse by a certain banned user. I mention that it's a hotspot because it would be a different problem if it were a shared hime IP, but as an anonymizing IP that is not generally anyone's regular internet connection, blocking it is less of a problem. If someone has a special situation, I'll certainly try to work around it, but no one has raised any such issues so far. Most users who request to be unblocked are just passing through the IP, will make one or two edits, and then go home; meanwhile, now that the IP is unblocked for those few edits, a banned user is free to use them for rapid sleeper account creation and vandalism, and he watches the block logs, too. In fact though, it could probably be solved by using a different hotspot (coffee shop) next time. Dmcdevit·t 22:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure I understand. Obviously, we want to block vandals, and block them from creating sleeper accounts. But, as I understand it, it's possible to block an IP address such that anonymous accounts can't edit, and accounts can't be created, but logged-in users can still edit normally. I've seen this sort of thing happen with school sites when vandalism from the school becomes a problem. Do I misunderstand what's possible in a block, or am I missing another avenue of attack? Argyriou (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're understanding blocks correctly. But check this blck log: [2]. Anon-only blocks haven't worked, as you can see, because this isn't vandal's home IP either; he can create accounts on other IPs to edit on an anon-only blocked hotspot. Dmcdevit·t 22:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes some sense, and following some links from that history makes it make a little more sense. I'm not sure it's the best solution, due to the possibility of collateral damage, but I understand it now. If I had a better solution to offer, I would, but right now I don't. Argyriou (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Waialeale

Hi Dmcdevit. I was going to review the unblock request of Waialeale (talk · contribs) and noticed you had blocked with the reason Kimberly Ashton [3]. Could you clarify whether you believe the editor is a sock of Kimberly Ashton (talk · contribs) - and if so why - or if you are blocking per the same reasoning as Ashton's block (cf. here). Thanks. Rockpocket 08:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I came across that account in an IP check using m:CheckUser; it is a sock of Kimberly Ashton. I should have been more specific in the reason. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks for your prompt reply. Rockpocket 08:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dmcdevit. I would like to inquire why you are proposing to move the List of most popular given names article to Wiktionary. Whilst the etymologies and meanings for the individual given names would belong to Wiktionary, I believe that the compiled list itself does not. The article serves a valid encyclopedic function by giving light to the naming diversity across different national and cultural contexts. Kindly also refer to the earlier vote for deletion for the same article. CounterFX 11:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't given much thought to whether or not that particular article should be deleted or not; you may be right. I just tagged all the articles in the lists of names category. Please not that m:transwiki, as you can see from the name of the category, Category:Copy to Wiktionary, only consists of duplicating the article on Wiktionary for that project to use as well, and the act of duplicating it has no bearing on what happens to it afterward. See the explanation on Template:TWCleanup, which replaces the transwiki tag and the instructions at Category:Transwiki cleanup. Dmcdevit·t 20:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk tagging with {{move word list}}

I see you have tagged dozens of "List of XXX names" with this template. I know it's good to be bold, but before modifying so many articles with this proposal did you discuss it anywhere? Since these lists are not definitions but indexes into Wikipedia, not Wiktionary articles, I'm not sure transwikiing them would be ideal. Several of these articles have already survived AfDs so I would suggest you tread lightly and seek input before making major changes. —Dgiest c 21:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is duplicating lists of names on Wiktionary a major change? If I were to mass-nominate them for AfD you'd be free to weigh in, but I just tagged them for transwiki. Dmcdevit·t 21:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted that tag as meaning "Move to Wiktionary and delete the original" If that is not your intent sorry to bother you. —Dgiest c 21:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the instructions at Category:Transwiki cleanup, the category that articles go into after the bot transwikis an article. They are only deleted after a human makes the decision to nominate them. Dmcdevit·t 21:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit unclear on one of these moves vis-a-vis the wiktionary name policy. names of actual people seems to indicate that while the first names mentioned in List of Roman female names are fine, a list of full names is not appropriate. Of course, maybe the rules for transwiki'd lists are different? -- Akb4 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP block on 216.39.128.0/18

We got an unblock-en-l complaint from a user in this netspace who appears to be a school teacher. The block is listed as a checkuser block; can you tell us what this was referring to and whether it's safe to work with this guy to get him an account set up?

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 22:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block was based on the fact that there was a very small number of regular editors, and no anonymous edits at all, besides the banned user, so it seemed safe to implement an anon-only block, to let the established editors continue with a minimum of collateral. However, the range has the potential to be used by many different people, so I would certainly let someone who contacted us register an account to edit. Isn't there some way an account with a temporary password can be sent to them so the block doesn't need to be modified? Dmcdevit·t 22:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was working on finding a cafe or something to sign up for an account, once I explained to him. He seemed to be ok with that. Thanks for the response. Georgewilliamherbert 20:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD comment

You just commented: [4]

  • Keep Aviation, aerospace and aeronautical articles include highly technical jargon, not all of which can be explained in a simple dictionary definition. This article is of great use to a person learning about aviation, aerospace and aeronautical subjects. NetOracle 21:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask you to reconsider. It appears you are making two arguments here. 1) It's useful and shouldn't be deleted, and 2) it is technical jargon, not "simple dictionary definition". As for 1, please read WP:USEFUL: this argument is a fallacy because topics that are not encyclopedic, like dictionary definitions, are often useful. Also, the article is no less useful at its current home in Wiktionary. To reply to your second point, defining jargon is still a dictionary definition. Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the first sentence of which reads "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a jargon or usage guide." Also it appears, considering these two points, that you haven't offered an actual argument as to why the article is encyclopedic, since it isn't. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 22:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I voted keep was because some of the terms have corresponding articles which contain far more depth than is possible in a standard dictionary definition. Keeping the list/glossary around serves to centralize all articles related to aviation, aerospace, and aeronautical terms. NetOracle 03:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Waialeale

Hi, you blocked this user for supposedly being a sockpuppet of User:Kimberly Ashton. He emailed me to emphatically state that he is not. CheckUser might have confirmed it's the same IP address, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything -- for example, they might go to the same school and all the computers in a lab have the same external-facing IP address. Anyway, I am here just to attest that User:Waialeale to my knowledge (and as confirmed in his contributions list) has never engaged in any vandalism or any other inappropriate editing. I would unblock him myself but I prefer not to engage in any wheel warring, so I respectfully request an unblocking by you. Thanks, howcheng {chat} 17:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My observations suggest just the opposite. Waialeale's contributions look very much like Kimberly Ashton's, especially editing almost exclusively his user page, which includes no less that 5 different userboxes indicating his alleged young age, and one with his birthday. His email to me was even more confirming, telling me his full name, home town, and middle school. These are all good indicators of another reincarnation f the Kimberly Ashton troll. This is in addition to the fact that the IP is a very good match (and yes I do know how IPs work, and it isn't a shared school IP address). Dmcdevit·t 08:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would give the benefit of the doubt. Extensive user page editing is nothing new, among the younger set. I seem to recall an RFA for someone (a high-school student) with a high edit count, but it turned out it was inflated because of extensive user page editing (and general lack of use of the preview button). In article space, Waialeale has done nothing wrong; a pre-emptive block seems to me to be unwarranted. howcheng {chat} 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a "pre-emptive" block. The account matched a banned user's IP, and, upon review, the account matched the banned user's behavior. Several such sockpuppets on the IP were all blocked at the same time, and it's interesting to note that 4 months after the indefinite block, Kimberly Ashton made edits to its talk page on February 5, coinciding with the emergence of all these socks. Note that the problem with this user is not that it's a misguided young child (deserving of slack), but that this is a troll who uses the guise of a child to try to get too friendly to established editors; it has been, in its many reincarnations, different ages, genders, ethnicities, locations, and has trolled here, as well as on Meta and Simple. In the past I had to be made an emergency CheckUser on the Simple Wikipedia to track down all the socks. It isn't innocent. Dmcdevit·t 23:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okey dokey. Thanks for the explanation. howcheng {chat} 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be truthful and help

This user is using multiply accounts, believe me he has been warned he's previous sock was banned and he continues, he causes edit wars and trouble please help. Nareklm 04:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Theres more proof both of them want Albanian-udi to stay, batabak comes out of no where and starts discussions with atabek right after each other.
  • I have asked help before but no admins help me, but this is a new case lets solve it while its new, if not i should use sock puppets since i see no one doing anything.

Best regards. Nareklm 04:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth to study Nareklm activity as well. Long list of violations, groundless accusations, removal of references, edit war, etc. --Dacy69 04:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See what i mean? these guys pop out of nowhere i have proof, he supports his self because there sock puppets! Nareklm 04:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also dacy revert wars see, [6] and Monte Melkonian and Urartu the list goes on, Nagorno-Karabakh War, Udi people, Nareklm 04:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh what is this? he is edit warring here, Armenian Revolutionary Federation Nareklm 07:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nareklm, please make CheckUser requests at WP:RFCU. Thanks. Can I ask both of you to refrain from edit warring and take whatever conflict you have to WP:MEDCAB? It would be solved this way. Dmcdevit·t 08:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me why you can't do it you do not have the Check user ability? look at this he created a new sock, User:Gazanfar, mcdevit if you guys want to play this game i will to, im not stupid i know how to find these things out, and i promise you its not going to be nice rv wars will start, im not threatening but alot of us are becoming inpatient. Nareklm 02:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Bacon's_Rebellion.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Bacon's_Rebellion.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is absolutely unacceptable

Please look at user User:Fadix and his language. It is not first report about him [7] He is cursing and threatening with war of edits. I have never heard such language. this is because he and like-minded users went unpunished previously--Dacy69 19:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mcdevit, first see dacys edits he violated the 3RR 5 times on that article. Nareklm 19:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People can count - let's count my edits. And you, actually, is one who is like-minded people with Fadix.--Dacy69 20:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC) It is worth to look at this as well [8] Look at his contribution - he is continously reverting many pages - that is it.--Dacy69 20:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC) another example of activity - this [9] isn'it canvassing[reply]

That wasn't even a freaking rv. Nareklm 02:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

urartu

please protect page Urartu in the current version. TigranTheGreat constantly removes well-referenced text. Plus he broke 3RR.Despite the fact the topic in question was discussed numerous times, with third party assistance as well. (See Talk Page)--Dacy69 03:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Nareklm continues his destructive activity as well. He just reverted again and removed refrenced info.[reply]

Your ArbCom resignation

I just saw the note on your usepage. Thank you for the time you spent serving on the committee. I didn't always agree with your proposals, which comes with the territory, but I agreed far more often than I disagreed, and I appreciate the time and attention you gave to the cases. I hope to keep seeing you elsewhere around the project. Newyorkbrad 18:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And, er, that was frighteningly fast. ;-) Dmcdevit·t 18:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same. And yes, it was. :) Prodego talk 18:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank you for your work on the arbcom as well. Even if NYB beat me to it and made it look like a copycat. In particular your talking me round when I was really down after my block was very much appreciated. --Spartaz 18:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Will you be retaining checkuser and oversight rights now you have resigned from the arbcom, and will you still have access to the arbcom mailing list - and if so, will you still be giving advice to the arbcom? Giano 20:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I will retain CheckUser and oversight; almost every use of them is not related to arbitration in any way. I will remain subscribed to arbcom-l and can still comment, just like any other former arbitrator. Dmcdevit·t 22:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I resigned mostly so I can commit my time elsewhere, since I can no longer devote enough time to arbitration, and because I was never comfortable with the long term I was assigned. Dmcdevit·t 23:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does your resignation imply that you are leaving the cabal for good? We want answers, I am calling the press agents! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that you did a great job of a difficult job, if that makes sense - which is not to say I agreed with every single call you made (you wouldn't expect this), but you guys are there to make the hard calls and I don't think anyone could have expected more from you. You'll be missed on the arbcom, but I hope that you enjoy returning to more actual editing of the mainspace. I can already think of several areas where your good sense could be of benefit. All best wishes, Metamagician3000 05:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Your biggest flaw is that you fail to admit your mistakes -- I'm surprised with your explanation of your previous decision here, you have clearly overstepped your "jurisdiction" and are abusing your arbitrator role and not trying to hear all sides of the dispute and trying to understand what everyone's motivations and goals really are before making a decision. If you actually tried to look into the reality of what's happening, you will maybe see that you are alienating and discouraging editors who are trying very hard to uphold the principles of Wikipedia, but instead you focus on some bullshit, and are hurting Wikipedia in the long run. You can learn a lot from very simple and straight forward WP:IAR. Thank goodness you resigned, it's for the good of Wikipedia, hopefully whoever replaces you will try to look at the bigger picture for what we are really trying to do here with our Encyclopedia. // Laughing Man 05:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Frankyboy5

Looks like you checkuserblock'd the IP -- any chance you could advise/review? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:I c u trippin on the same IP address [10]. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reduced to anon-only, though if the persistent vandal comes back, that might have to change. Hmph. Dmcdevit·t 03:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmph, indeed! :p Thanks for taking a look. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

admin's power

I have students of your age and I know what a good felling for them to have and use power. Power vested to admins is for the resoution of disputes amd making Wiki better. And now about my blocking. Cooling down is sometimes good remedy. I don't argue about that. But I have nothing to do with Nareklm. It is he who is following me and reverting pages. My initial appeal to you was because of Fadix insults. I hope you've seen this [11] Now some other admin took care of this incident. May I advise you to study a case and then to adopt a desicion. You can see that usually I have participated extensively on pages which I edited. And my opponents just removes referenced information.--Dacy69 19:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Fadix has already been warned for that. I suggest you try mediation for the content dispute; administrators don't have the authority to make decisions on content any more than every other editor. Dmcdevit·t 03:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insults and threats are continued [12] Fadix threatens with edit revenge ("Anyway, you've got interested me in contributing on Heider Aliev article. Which I will be doing as soon as possible. Fad (ix) 05:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)") Another user Fedayee also embarked on assaults - his language is also self-explanatory. They accuse me of lack of knowledge ("Read the history Fadix showed you and stop playing dumb") (before they called me stupid, now it seems they refined the language). Fadix was reported several times by other users - no action taken against him. How I can discuss anything with such users and resort to mediation. --Dacy69 22:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dmcdevit, here is the situation, Fedayee, who was long contributing on Armenian revolutionary related articles because of his specific knowledge of that, and who requested criticism by neutral editors in the past and made relevant changes in connection of those worthy criticism. He was an examplary contributor who had before recently never been blocked nor warned of anything. Dacy69 comes in and start pasting highly POV and unsubstanciated materials. The number of Azeri nationalist users who have been engaging with Armenian related articles has about doubled in a period of about two weeks. They are not good faith edits, check the talk page in connection and make your judgement. Fad (ix) 18:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cardreader

I think its highly unlikely he's a sock of Primetime. Is there an RFCU I can look at? Cardreader speaks fairly proficient Hindi and only edited india related pages. JzG referred me to you after I asked him.Bakaman 00:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adil

This user is still going, [13] Nareklm 03:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Hi. I’m really concerned that no action was taken against Nareklm, who was proven to use sockpuppets (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Nareklm) and who is edit warring again. Just now he reverted all of my edits to the articles about Caucasian Albania and History of Nagorno-Karabakh without giving any reasons back to the versions of the banned sock User:Tutmoses8 and banned anon sock. I suspect that this disruptive activity is coordinated outside of Wikipedia, because a few users, including Nareklm follow my edits and undo them without any explanation. Anon IPs and socks are also used for this purpose. Those users are not known as contributors to the pages they are reverting and most probably are not even well familiar with the topics of the articles they revert. I would appreciate if you looked again into this issue. Grandmaster 21:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love this, he comes to you first right? doesn't bear to ask me instead he wants me out of this place, also i only reverted once, per article he knows what he does. Nareklm 21:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please seek dispute resolution, ask for mediation or file a WP:RFC, but my talk page is none of those. Dmcdevit·t 22:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee!

Clerk note: Although I was unsure whether ABCO > ACOAC or vise-versa, you unfortunately drew the short straw, so here is your post-Essjay-getting-his cup of coffee :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 06:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snle?

Julian Caballero (talk · contribs) Khoikhoi 22:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Transwiki to Wiktionary

Grandmaster

Dear Dmcdevit.

When you enforce the rules selectively, you inadvertantly encourage edit warring by some users. User:Grandmaster, who was blocked by you for edit warring before, has been engaging in precisely the kind of edit warring that you have accusing me of. Please take a look on his hostile behavior in these articles: Caucasian_Albania, History_of_Nagorno-Karabakh, Nakhichevan, and Utik. He has been on a reverting rampage on these articles, restoring his prior preferred versions, clearly encouraged by your selective blocks.--TigranTheGreat 02:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that I was not allowed to edit articles on Wikipedia. I provided references for all of my edits, but despite that some users try delete them. I was reverting vandalism by banned users and socks of Nareklm, helping admins to clean up the mess they created. Grandmaster 06:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop it with your accusations i haven't used any socks since the last time i was warned and the case is closed Dominic even warned you not to bring disputes here. Nareklm 06:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Yes this time i did not revert what so ever, but i monitored the situation. Nareklm 05:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renominate

I have renominated the article on Chinese surnames for deletion, I think that the arguments in favor of keeping the article are specious to say the least. I also think we should resist the tendency to create special policies for China-related articles.--Niohe 22:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you open a new AfD for that article. Dmcdevit·t 00:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just did it.--Niohe 00:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now people are arguing that the article should be kept as per WP:LIST, since it helps us create new articles on surnames. I just had a look at some of these surname pages, and they read like a combination of dictionary articles and disambiguation articles. These editors have even formed a Wikipedia:WikiProject Chinese surnames! In othere words, their argument for "keep" is completely circular and I believe that we need to push for the deletion of most of these surname articles.--Niohe 12:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel

Apparently you're on the list of people to ask, and you are active at the moment =). Anyway, are normal users (I am not a sysop at the moment) allowed to access the channel? (In other words, I'm discreetly asking for access ;). Yuser31415 04:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that admin are most definitely "normal" users, yes, I am generally liberal about iving acces to non-admins. Even so, it's hard for me to do anything when I (unfortunately) don't know much about you. Why don't you send someone, with channel access already, who knows you my way so we can chat? :-) Dmcdevit·t 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I'll see if I can find anyone. Deskana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an admin I've had a lot to do with, but I'm not sure he has channel access. Yuser31415 03:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent him an email. Yuser31415 04:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I heartly endorse this event or product! (ie Yuser is a fine user that can be trusted with access to the channel, if you are willing to grant non-sysop access) --Deskana (request backup) 04:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resigned?

Hey, I didn't know you resigned! :( =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wish you well Geo. Talk to me 06:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) Dmcdevit·t 06:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to see you go from the bench — you always were my favorite arbitrator... :( All the best! Kyle Barbour 23:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

Thank you for the prompt response. Newyorkbrad 04:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Valentine's Day

I trust Jimbo will choose as level-headed an Arbitrator to replace you; and I hope that this means no worse news than that you have burnt out as Arbitrator. Congratulations on being free of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm sticking around. It's not really burnout, just a combination of time constraints and personal philosophy. Dmcdevit·t 06:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Hi, i gave my perspective in Tigranes page, i will discuss further but Adil does not like to listen he always reverts but i will do my best. Artaxiad 21:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh ya, please check the talk pages these have been discussed every day yet they add them again, its a non-stop edit war but i will stop my reverting, and please I've been discussing with Adil i know what he is i know what he does, please go do some research on him he is Anti-Armenian and Iranian its all over the internet if you do a search on him, but im going to far, but i will cease my edits. I will assume good faith since its a Wikipedia thing to do, you saw what happen when you unblocked him its non-stop, but im done here, and yes my edits. Artaxiad 21:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like i said i know what he does Dominic, but i will assume good faith what do you want me to do? im assume good faith be happy, and I'm discussing this with you im not openly saying inappropriate things like the other users do, but yes we're talking about me so you don't have to point it out sadly i don't support abusive of behavior like i said i will try thats the best i can do, yeah. Regarding that comment i made its been stated by numerous wiki users because they know what he does, he's job they know what he does, i also took time to research on it, so i don't randomly openly say it. But I'm done here it seems. Artaxiad 22:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See what i mean this pisses me off they still bring up bs accusations, [14] Artaxiad 22:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page

  1. Update it -- you are no longer an arbitrator (or so you say).
  2. I really love the bit on your user page where philosopher quotes are correlated to Wikipedia philosophy. Mind if I steal it? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can only have it if you add one to the list. ;-) Something on WP:V or WP:CON would be nice. (No, you don't really have to; it's a wiki, have at it. But it would be nice...) Dmcdevit·t 07:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Block on Sarvagnya/Gnanapiti accounts

Hello,

I am contacting you in regards to a situation with Sarvagnya. On October 17, 2006 a usercheck was requested on users Sarvagnya, Gnanapiti, and two others by Bakasuprman here. The final verdict was made by you here confirming that both Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti are the same person. On November 12, 2006, Gnanapiti was unblocked here on the condition that he/she would not edit the same articles as Sarvagnya. You then assumed good faith and told the user to stay out of trouble. Blnguyen, on November 2, 2006, stated that two different users (if they are) using the same computer could count as meat puppetry here. Blnguyen further stated that Gnanapiti was subsequently unblocked and free to edit - under the condition that they did not double vote or use 6RR on linguistic topics here.

Both Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti user accounts have failed to abide to what you have told them. On February 9, 2007, both Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti were involved in a vote fraud here on a motion to ban Sarvabhaum which had an effect on the vote outcome resulting in Sarvabhaum being blocked. Both of these accounts have been found editing the same topics here. Apart from all this going on Sarvagnya has been engaging in bad conduct, trolling, and incivility towards myself and other users. I recall his rude statement towards you here in regards to your confirmation of him and Gnanapiti being the same person.

I humbly urge you to look into this matter in confirming that both Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti are sockpuppets and that both accounts be blocked. Thank you. Wiki Raja 06:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, Gnanapiti agreed not to edit any of the same pages as Sarvagnya [15], see his talk page for my not when I unblocked him. Perhaps you should remind him of that and take it to WP:ANI if he continues. Dmcdevit·t 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it was never agreed that we wouldnt edit the same pages as each other. Blnguyen has clarified this on his talk page and also ANI. And yes, btw, Wikiraja has already been with this at the ANI. He came here after ANI. He's gone to ANI, Blng's talk page, your's, dab's, mine. He's invited frivolous RfC's about me and Blnguyen too! The way I see it, he's only admin shopping and wasting everyone's time. I must ask that he be blocked for disruption. Sarvagnya 22:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And oh, btw, [FYI. Sarvagnya 22:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dmcdevit: These two accounts of Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti have broken their promise and I have documented the times these two accounts have edited the same pages and also took part in a vote fraud. You have asked them not to do that, and they did. I leave the rest up to you. And oh, btw FYI] Wiki Raja 04:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dmcdevit, I don't usually want to get into ego clashes. Because once you get entangled into it, it's very hard to come out. This here is the exact case of ego clash,(between WikiRaja and some other editors) but still as it involves me, I think it asks for explaination from my side. Me and Sarvagnya were never told not to edit the same article. I still have all e-mail correspondence I had with you, Aksi_great and Blnguyen at the time of that dispute. I can send those mails to you if you want to have a look. What I was told is to stay away from Belgaum and Belgaum border dispute articles and not to violate combined 6RR in any linguistic disputes and that's it. Please note that I have never edited those two articles(If I remember right, just one time in Belgaum) after that incident and never involved in any combined 3RR(leave alone 6RR) in any article. I have been editing articles of my own interests since past 4-5 months. Now let me tell you why it's not fair (and wrong) to say me and Sarvagnya can't edit the same articles. My interests in Wiki are to edit articles related to Karnataka. I am not at all interested in editing articles about some Uganda or uruguay and I believe I have all rights to edit articles of my interests. Now, it's not my fault that Sarvagnya also have the same interests as I do. I mean I can't really go to history of an article and look for Sarvagnya's edition each time I want to edit an article. Please go through all those silly diff WikiRaja has given.(Only if you don't mind wasting your precious time, that is.) Please point out where me and Sarvagnya have involved in any kind of reverts or POV pushings. All those edits are constructive edits in an effort to make articles better ones. If you say that I shouldn't edit the same articles as Sarvagnya do, that leaves me with articles like Timbuktu and El Calafate which I know exactly zilch about. So I request you to please reconsider the issue and remove any restrictions on me and Sarvagnya. Please go through my contributions and see for yourself. And WikiRaja, NO, I didn't break any promise, because I didn't make any at the first place. Thanks, Gnanapiti 04:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, both Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti sound the same the way each user account types. Anyways, Dmcdevit, here is an ANI report on this situation I have filed here. Gnanapiti, you forgot about the time when both your account and the other account called Sarvagnya were used to vote on getting someone kicked out here. Wiki Raja 05:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please ban this user User:Wiki Raja. He has now adopted vandalism as the last resort of his POV pushing. He was pushing for a template called "Dravidian Topics" in each and very page related to South India and the template got deleted by arbitration by admins. Now he is pushing for another template in all pages according to his whims and fancies. When I opposed that, he resorted to vandalism here and here. Moreover, he deliberately calls me User:Sarvagnya here. Although I don't care about such silly acts, this is very incivil. User:Wiki Raja's only purpose of staying in wiki is to tag articles. Please ban this user.Gnanapiti 21:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dmcdevit, This guy Wikiraja has the audacity to call my names and term as Vandalism in edit summaries when I have never even touched those articles. See here, here and here. Now this is extremely insane and incivil. Don't you think these are enough reasons to block him? Gnanapiti 19:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know I dislike sarvagnya, but gnanpiti has proved to be a user intent on betterment of the pedia. See his help on Gopalakrishna Adiga and other pages.Bakaman 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian-Azerbaijan arbitration

Could I get in on this? I've mediated these guys a lot in the past and would like to make a statement. - Francis Tyers · 10:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can make a statement, yes. You don't have to be a party. Dmcdevit·t 11:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think it is a good move to include Armenian Genocide Denial, it is not a Azer-Armenian issue, it is a Turkish-Armenian issue, and Armenian and Turkish editors have better relations with eachothers than Azeri and Armenians. Fad (ix) 17:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:TonyTheTiger

Hey -- there's an unblock request here: collateral damage of a checkuser block that you apparently did (possibly a rangeblock, doesn't show up in the log). Could you check it out, please? Thanks. Mangojuicetalk 13:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 10:55, 26 December 2006 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "12.2.23.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months ({{checkuserblock}})
    • Er, he's still editing now. The IP is for an Apple store, so I suspect it's not his regular internet connection, and there's no point in unblocking it now. The problem before had been, like a hotspot, a banned user using the IP to switch IPs after their regular internet connection was blocked. Dmcdevit·t 20:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block on 213.42.21.77

I don't understand. Puzzled!!!! --SahirShah 11:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? Open proxies are prohibited, see Wikipedia:No open proxies. Dmcdevit·t 20:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say this is an open proxy ? --SahirShah 06:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning outdated indef

Hi. I'm not involved in this, but I have been watching it over the past several months. This user has been confirmed as not a sockpuppet of This user, but this user remains blocked long after the second checkuser proved the first one false. Is there a reason for this? Should that user be unblocked (not a sockpuppet) now that it has expired? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 20:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That that account was s sockpuppet was never called into question. In fact, the checkuser was not proved false, which is never really possible anyway. The users' were on the same IP, but it was determined that behavior was sufficiently different. Dmcdevit·t 20:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 18:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xionites

Just wanted to notify you that User:E104421 has - once again - violated the 1RR on Xionites. He is not allowed to have more than 1 rv in 24h, yet he has reverted 2x in the past 24h. Besides that, he is ignoring the talk-page. His last edits in general were reverting to old POV, for example in Nasreddin or in Hephthalites. Tājik 20:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • (unintending) Xionites is not in the list of articles. Furthermore, my edit is just a minor one. I removed the sentence claiming "...There seems to be a consensus among modern scholars..." cause the issue is controversial and this is already stated in the article. On the other hand, Who are the modern scholars? or What's the definition of a modern scholar? Is the one supporting Tajik's ideas? If there exists controversy, this means no consensus. I already explained this in the talk page. In addition, i fixed the dublicate reference link. For the Ephthalites article, my last edit was dated 20:35, 16 February 2007, and was not a revert [16]. For the Nasreddin article, i reinserted the deleted paragraph back [17]. Tajik is again misrepresenting the issues. This is nothing but incivility. Kind Regards. E104421 10:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight

Could you oversite some edits on Skyline Chili and Wales? An anon user on a dynamic IP has been saying not-too nice things about me in the edit description windows. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid oversight is only for use on personal information or potential libel, not unsightly vandalism. I wouldn't worry; all established, and especially vandal-fighting, users get such attacks eventually, and it can ust be safely ignored. Keep in mind that edit summaries can't be searched for on search engines, and even more so if your username is not connected to your real name. Dmcdevit·t 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clueing me in. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my alleged sockpuppetry

Hi,I was accussed of sockpuppetry by Rama's Arow for editing from my IP adress and over one comment I had made out of anger.According to user:Bakaman you verified that I'm a puppet master or somebody's sockpuppet.

Can you please confirm if this is true.I'd also like some evidence.Please make a statement here to verify.Thanks alot.--Nadirali نادرالی

Wordlist pages

Hi Dominic, would a List of Portuguese words of Arabic origin be candidate to be moved to Wiktionary? I seem to remember you were active with such things and I've no experience with Wiktionary myself. Could you perhaps give some advice to a newcomer who's been working on that one: User talk:Wachowich. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God.

You said that Cardreader is me??? He later asked to be unblocked but was declined because they said that you check-usered him. Jzg then protected his talk page. This makes me sick. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Primetime#Primetime4: User:Fundelu, User:Balthazarduju, User:Joycedula, User:Mikesamras. Where do you get this crap? I doubt that you even did a check. You should not checkuser.--Primetime 11:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MP8mg

Am I misunderstanding a policy here. I thought people were allowed to make comments on a vote? McKay 18:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is common to move excessive commentary to the talk page when it is interfering with the discussion as a whole. Responding to specific comments is okay, but it becomes unhelpful to the discussion as a whole when we are expecting disinterested deletion discussion participants to join a enormous debate midway, and to actually be able to respond to the arguments there. Dmcdevit·t 18:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Common? Can I get a source on that? Do you think my comments are interfering with the discussion as a whole? Those comments are adding new information to the discussion. I re-read WP:AfD, and I couldn't find anything that mentions things like this. On the contrary, it says that the discussion of reasoining is more important than the votes. McKay 18:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dmcdevit, while I understand that the issue is closed, I'm still very interested in the correct proecure, and what I did so wrong as to deserve an administrator intervention. I don't see what it was that I did wrong, so I'll probably repeat my actions on a later date unless I can be corrected in this manner. McKay 16:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Han Requesting Unblock

Hello Dmcdevit. I wanted to check in with you on something. The user noted above is requesting for an unblock. According to the block log he was blocked for being the Kate McAuliffe vandal. I do not see anything in the contribution history to indicate that so I was wondering if you could tell me what might have caused you to believe that the account is related to the recreation of that article. If its a case of mistaken identity, I may consider unblocking his account. Hope to hear from you soon, thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The identification was based on a CheckUser. Aside from the fact that it is a static IP from which all of the Kate McAuliffe-related vandalism has originated, and nothing else besides Amos Han, which makes it pretty obvious, there are certain easy giveaways. For instance, most of Amos Han's few article edits are to September 11-relates articles: [18], [19], [20], [21]. These are the same articles the vandal targets, one of the McAuliffe vandals was even named September 11 2001, [22], and much of the vandalism was to Osama bin Laden: [23], [24]. Dmcdevit·t 18:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, I just noticed it. Then I might not grant the unblock due to some of the evidence.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've double checked the finding and confirm that Dmcdevit's identification is correct. Essjay (Talk) 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


hi

Is Truehindu (talk · contribs) related to WP:RFCU#Pens_withdrawn ? He has similar editing patterns.Bakaman 23:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is {likely}} just like all the rest in the second group, based on IP evidence. Dmcdevit·t 03:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Can you please tell Adil to stop stalking me? the guy is reading every message on my page, or contributions its really annoying, thanks. Artaxiad 10:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Grandmaster reverted 3 times when he was already warned, for 1RR, users are engaging in edit wars again. Artaxiad 18:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see 3 reverts at any one page, but I gave him the same warning I gave two others I noticed reverting without rationales, which are required. You can report any parole violations at WP:AN/3RR, as long as you link to the parols and note that it's a report of parole violation, not 3RR. Dmcdevit·t 18:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the exact article, he removed my citation tag, my statement and moved the page back, [25] thanks. Artaxiad 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Hello. I was wondering if you could shed some light on this deletion. To be honest, it's a while since I checked the article (I wrote the band's album articles back in August). I was sure it did assert notability (at least with the discography: two albums on a major independent label, per WP:MUSIC) at the time, but I may be wrong. Is there any way you could recreate the article for me to check it, maybe in my sandbox? I would very much appreciate this and thank you in advance. :) Bubba hotep 11:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I should clarify that I wasn't the originator of the article, but I must have contributed to it at some point. Thanks. Bubba hotep 11:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The complete text of the prose section at the time of deletion was :
There was no clear assertion of notability. Assertions f notability should be sourced and prose, in non-list articles, and are usually indicated in the lead sentence, especially for stubs. In fact, clicking over to one of the albums, Slow Motion Riot, I see no assertion of notability either, other than that it was a [[98 Mute] album, but if their assertion is based in part on the album, it becomes circular. It needs to to say why it's notable, and source that. Keep in mind that the WP:MUSIC cluase that an artist "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" is only one of the "criteria that make it very likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given group or individual musician," but the central necessity for an assertion to notability is in fact that "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." If you can't find these (no, not allmusic.com) then it may indeed not be notable. I've moved the article to User:Bubba hotep/98 Mute for now. Dmcdevit·t 16:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that. I will have a look and see what can be improved. I agree with the circular aspect of it. The reason the album articles exist is because the artist/band was deemed notable – which in itself is a subject of hot debate at WP:MUSIC at present. Bubba hotep 16:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuan (surname)

Hi again. As you may remember, when we were discussing the deletion of the list of Chinese surnames, Yuan (surname) was raised as a model article. I have looked at the article and decided to challenge it on the grounds that it is based partially on original research and that the secondary source that it is based on (a book by Yuan Yida) is it not a reliable source. I also suspect that there is an amount of self-promotion involved in the article. My edits keeps getting reverted and the editors that revert my edits refuse to discuss this at the level of established policies and guidelines. I wonder if you can take a look at the discussion at Talk:Yuan (surname)?--Niohe 19:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia-Azerbaijan RfAr

I can't believe I'm telling you this, but please remember to list any blocks under the temporary injunction in the "log of blocks and bans" on the case page. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, hm. Actually, I'm sure you are much more experienced at arbitration enforcement than I am. :-) Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster block

User:Grandmaster has requested an unblock claiming to have explained his reverts and wishing to be able to present his evidence. Please see his talkpage and comment on the request. (I would probably commute to time served, but I'm well-known as a softie.) Newyorkbrad 20:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to his email request (which was the same text). Basically, the the injunction said explicitly "each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page," so his edit summaries aren't relevant. The reasoning here is important: content discussions taking place in edit summaries (each one is necessarily accompanied by a revert) are one of the catalysts for edit wars, where no one calms down to talk to, rather than at, one another, since they're all reverting at the same time. Also, the revert of the move certainly counts, so he was over the revert limit anyway, which is black and white. Dmcdevit·t 22:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the move counts, the injunction says "one content revert per day." I remember thinking when I read it, "content revert" as opposed to what? Anyway, you've taken charge of this editing area until the case is over, so enjoy. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It means, as opposed to vandalism/copyvio. The title of the article was clearly a content issue, and Artaxiad's move was clearly not vandalism, so it is the same as any other edit. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I have also recieved and denied an unblock request. Lot of effort for 24 hours. Thatcher131 04:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: my request of independent review

I left a note yesterday for an independent reveiw [[26]]. My unblock request was to an independent admin. Could you please let me know what is the time limit for my voluntary ban on editing. I specifically did not make any committment to DBachmann [[27]].

My second question is that if an admin is not respecting WP:ATT and publishing original research, what options do I have to get it corrected. I have already requested Third party reveiw [[28]] and mediation cabal[[29]] and I have asked other editors to get involved.Sbhushan 18:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user Azerbaijani's disruptions and reverts

I am tired of disruptive actions of User:Azerbaijani on the Atabeg page and elsewhere. I have warned him that will report him if he persists making his weird and unsubstantiated changes. If you look at the history of changes [30], you will see how many times did user Azerbaijani change the quote (yes, a quote!) from the Encyclopedia of World History. The quote states: "Shams al-Din Eldiguz (1137–1175), the Great Atabeg of the Seljuk sultan of Baghdad, established an independent dynastic state in Azerbaijan and northwestern Iran that lasted until 1225" (The Encyclopedia of World History, Sixth edition. Peter N. Stearns, general editor. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001. http://www.bartleby.com/67/302.html). User Azerbaijani for the first several weeks kept on modifying the quote "in Azerbaijan" with "in what is today Azerbaijan". Now, after perhaps realizing he cannot go on with such reverts and misquotation, he inserted "According to Amin Maalouf" to preceed the quote. The weird thing is that this Amin Maalouf has nothing to do with the quote, and in fact, is not even a historian, but some fiction writer. The quote is clearly cited and verifiable. User Azerbaijani is making similar disruptions on other pages too. Indeed, this disruption is tantamount to vandalism. --AdilBaguirov 01:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kade

[31] Thank you! One less Wikipedia troll. – Lantoka (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be indefinite though. <<-armon->> 10:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

The time i got blocked for reverting was when i actually took all the information that had been added recently and added it to the sourced information that had been removed by users deleting (censoring) information due to there own POV. The article in it's current state includes all the previous information along with more sourced information. There are alot of users editing the page with an Irano-centric POV. --- Farzinf 18:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know this user sounds highly like Atabek who hasnt been showing up lately and currently blocked Adil. Artaxiad 03:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:208.54.95.1

Do you think it is long enaugh for 208.54.95.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to be a full block? SatyrTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be caught at Starbucks (see User_talk:SatyrTN#Block_lift (best to look at source as the template is messed up) Agathoclea 20:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what 's up with you?

can you tell me with which wiki law, I can not revert? I read the talk page, and reverted what I thing was wrong and in line with the previous compromise in Talk:Azerbaijan/Archive_2#Consensus_Analysis and I explained it in edit summery. I have a bad feeling that you are taking one side of dispute. take care, --Pejman47 20:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and please read carefully what was written or reverted completely, what I reverted was somehow on behalf of my POV, but I decided putting it off completely and differing the discussion to a different article with that purpose is best way to evade edit-warring, me , Mardavich and Azerbaijani agreed to that compromise in the link i provided above and decided that maybe in this case the rational of the other party is stronger than us. You can also ask the The-Behnam who initiated that compromise. And after I accepted their reasoning, i was the one who helped User :Roazir for asking the "unocking" of the article and quickly after the unlocking of article, I was the one who swiftly deleted our POV. and he and some other users thanked me for that.
And this point was hinted by Ali in the talk page before what you call "my revert" . and also you can find what I meant by "Adil-like" users is the fact that contrary to other parties involved, I never ever see that he has made a proposal for compromise or changing his mind and saying to himself "hey man, maybe I was wrong!", He was one of the main parties of that compromise, we agreed to delete that part from the Azerbaijan article, but in Azerbaijan (Iran), he again didn't fail to push his POV again, as if there were no compromise or lengthy discussion before (I guess maybe just for agitating other users and making them to react), I can not wait the results of ArbCom!--Pejman47 22:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jalaleddin

Can you check if MarkHessen (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Jalaleddin (talk · contribs)? I think his IP is 68.32.126.209 (talk · contribs). Thanks, Khoikhoi 21:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now Վաչագան (talk · contribs). I think this pretty much gives it away that they're all the same person. I just need some confirmation. Khoikhoi 05:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please check Zurbagan (talk · contribs), it is apparently another sock of the same person. Grandmaster 19:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dominic this is a new user, he has golden contributions please do not block him, I doubt he knows what socks are so just give him a warning, and explain the rules if you may. Artaxiad 19:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Golden contributions? Like what? Grandmaster 19:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check his contributions on all his socks, he has great information and he is doing a heck of a job losing someone like him is a waste, and Dominic people are allowed to use socks, he hasn't violated anything yet. Artaxiad 20:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was edit warring using socks on Nagorno-Karabakh and other articles, copy-pasted a whole page from an Armenian webstite to the talk of Caucasian Albania, and created a character assassination article about Ziya Bunyadov, that was completely re-written by other users later. I do not see anything "golden" there. Grandmaster 06:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to waste my time talking with you, all you do is assume bad faith. Artaxiad 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for giving me that heads up nicely. In the future, I will refrain from commenting in ways that could be construed as inappropriate. Geo. Talk to me 08:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding some blocks

If memory serves, you set a number of the Cplot rangeblocks (thank you, by the way), thought you might want to see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Time to release the Cplot blocks?. If you'd prefer off-wiki discussion, no problem by me. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!

:) pschemp (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Persistent personal attacks by User:Tajik

Dear Dmcdevit, I am writing to report persistent personal attacks by User:Tajik at Talk:Safavid Dynasty. Here are the instances with diff links:

  • "What the hell are you talking about?!", "What's wrong with you?!", "Your stubborn attitude is the main reason...", etc. at [32]. I warned the user and said that I will ignore his attack for now [33].
  • After the first warning, User:Tajik again: "this is the information that Wikipedia needs, not your POV and stubborn tries to defend POV" [34] and for the second time, I warned the user kindly [35]
  • Another attack: "do not think that YOU are in ANY respectable position to judge that a world-class scholar like Minorsky was "wrong"" [36]
  • In my response to my reference to precise quote from Friedrich Nietzshe unrelated to the user [37], the response and blackmail warnings from User:Tajik were at [38]:
  • "I ask you for the last time to stop lying",
  • "You also continue your lie",
  • "So please stop to continue your lies and I once again remind you to watch WP:CIVIL",
  • "So please stop your agenda, and please stop lying",
  • "The problem with you is that you are not ballanced at all"
  • "you - based on your own anti-Persian ethnocentrism - purposely cut the text"

Please, help to address the issue. I have exhausted all available means to convince him to stop attacking me. Atabek 20:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are not personal attacks. If I say that you push for POV and that you try to defend POV, then this is NOT a personal attack, even if you feel so. Saying that you are lying in regard of certain thing and then explaining that is also no personal attack. I explained that a few times to you, but you ignored my message and continued to write false claims and lies about me. You yourself accused me and Ali of being "ethnocentrist" quite a few times, and you were warned to watch WP:CIVIL. And now, you are desperately trying to find some help here ... that's really sad, Atabek. I think you are out of valid arguments. Tājik 02:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per his userpage, Dmcdevit is not active on Wikipedia at the moment. I implore both of you to please stop any comments that could even be considered as coming close to the line of incivility and personal attacks. Not only will this improve the editing environment, but it also will be in your own best interest given that you are parties to a pending arbitration case. If you are unable to resolve this yourselves, you can post to WP:ANI and seek the attention of another administrator (I apologize for the fact that I have some other wiki-tasks to attend to and can't address this tonight), but I hope that will prove not to be necessary. Newyorkbrad 02:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LionheartX

There is a rather messy situation involving LionheartX (talk · contribs) right now playing out on my talk page. I'd appreciate input on whether if you 1) think it's conclusive that LionheartX (who has admitted as being the same person as RevolverOcelotX (talk · contribs) but claimed that he wasn't sockpuppeting, but only lost his password) is the same person as GuardianTiger (talk · contribs) and 2) whether, if true, the user should be blocked indefinitely. Any insight would be helpful. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question regarding User:Chacor's RfA

In Chacor's first RfA, you stated here that ArbCom placed no restriction on reapplication, but Cactus.Man remarked that his view was different, based on this. Chacor is running for RfA again and I think your input would be helpful. Thanks. - grubber 04:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hoping

Dear Dmc... what has happened that has soured your view? What was it with Essjay? I'm sorry that I couldn't be of more support to both of you recently. You were and are good at administrating and arbitrating disputes. What a shame it is on the WP community that no one was able to turn either of you toward the light, but, maybe its the "Exit" sign that is casting the brighter light these days. I would have told you, "Don't sweat it baby, this thing is less than ephemeral, it's just electrons bouncing around, after all..." Be strong DMC, I know you to be a good egg. Just know that you have a friend here. I'll be around till the bitter end, I'm sure. I'm too mean to die... Best regards, as always Hamster Sandwich 21:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel

Apparently you're on the list of people to ask, and you are active at the moment =). Anyway, are normal users (I am not a sysop at the moment) allowed to access the channel? (In other words, I'm discreetly asking for access ;). Yuser31415 04:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that admin are most definitely "normal" users, yes, I am generally liberal about iving acces to non-admins. Even so, it's hard for me to do anything when I (unfortunately) don't know much about you. Why don't you send someone, with channel access already, who knows you my way so we can chat? :-) Dmcdevit·t 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I'll see if I can find anyone. Deskana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an admin I've had a lot to do with, but I'm not sure he has channel access. Yuser31415 03:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent him an email. Yuser31415 04:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I heartly endorse this event or product! (ie Yuser is a fine user that can be trusted with access to the channel, if you are willing to grant non-sysop access) --Deskana (request backup) 04:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for reviving this thread, but it seemed to have gotten buried :P. What was the result? Yuser31415 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again?

"... Eventually I managed to get most of these biographies reinstated by waiting several months and then trying again, when Louis Blair was not looking. ..." - Sam Sloan (Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:12 pm)

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_frm/thread/7d8fd30b87dcbe95?scoring=d&hl=en

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=68693060#Sam_Sloan

(This is posted here by Louis Blair (March 13, 2007))

List of Korean family names

Dmcdevit, I undeleted List of Korean family names and re-AFDed it. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 05:28Z

I don't understand the logic. Every other list of given names, family names, name derivations, nicknames, and abbreviations was systematically deleted with a series of AfDs that demonstrated strong consensus for the matter. What is the point of undeleting this for a procedural nomination where the policy is clear? And if you are going to do it, why undelete first and choose AfD and not DRV, the proper venue, and make a nomination that gives no rationale for the deletion whatsoever, and doesn't mention the existing consensus or the WP:WINAD policy. With the way this was conducted, and with vocal nationalist editors of the article votestacking ([39] [40] [41] [42] [43]), of course it's destined to be kept, which is frustrating. Dmcdevit·t 07:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikied to where exactly?

I am trying to resolve the several redlinks in articles on Roman naming conventions that were caused by the deletion of List of Roman female names. On 03:42, February 16, 2007 you wrote, as the proposer, "they have been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted"[44] (somewhat confusingly timestamped "07:55, 9 February 2007"). I have thus far not been able to find it there. Could you tell me where on Wiktionary I can find the transwikied version?  --LambiamTalk 11:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.  --LambiamTalk 07:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthroposophy

Is it possible that you could check Talk:Anthroposophy#About anthroposophical sources, please? I'm sorry that I was first unaware what "arbitration" means. Erdanion 14:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted image

You deleted the an image which was being used in the article racquetball.[45] It would be nice to see what this image was and according to your log comment this may be possible. You indicates that there was a duplicate. Can you please tie up the lose end by referencing and directing wikipedians towards this image. Thank you for your cooperation. --CyclePat 23:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one to delete the image most recently (that log summary is old). The image had been on Commons, where it was just deleted for having an unknown copyright status.[46] You'll have to pursue it from there. Dmcdevit·t 21:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. i will bring the subject up with that administrator, however it is my belief, due to his lack of response and communication on his user page that it will lead to absolutelly nothing, as reported by many users on his talk page. Thank you again. --CyclePat 19:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

jimfbleak 09:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvabhaum = Maharashtraexpress

RFCU please. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hey I violated my parole mind blocking me for a few days please? indef is better though. Artaxiad 01:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jimmy Wales in Portland

Thanks for the heads up! -- llywrch 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I can't make it this time because I need to devote some effort to working in the real world. By all means keep me posted about future opportunities. Eclecticology 19:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Man in Black

Hello! Just to let you know, I didn't do anything on the 3RR report as in at least one case it was pretty clear one of the anons was harassing AMIB by following him around and reverting him all over the place. You've certainly done this a lot longer than me, so I'd certainly respect your decision, but if you can tell me where I erred it would be much appreciated. Thanks! Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I fail to see why revert warring across multiple pages means it should be treated differently. AMIB exceeded 3 reverts on many pages [47][48][49], etc., at the same time, and I fail to see why you feel able to make the judgment that one was following the other, or, even so, why that means the warring was acceptable (it looks like he was the first reverter, to me). Edit warring is not to be responded to in kind. Furthermore, he similarly rolled back two other non-anons on that page, so that reasoning itself seems suspect. I see no evidence that this is vandalism. Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do see what you mean, thanks for the clarification. Though, it looks like it may be a moot point now anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria

What's happening with Transnistria? It's been blocked and de-blocked for second time. WJScribe blocked it second time after the edit warring had resumed. Do you co-ordinate your actions? Alaexis 07:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I unprotected it because one of the edit warriors was blocked as a sockpuppet. Dmcdevit·t 07:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question.

I'm new to IRC and would like to get on #wikipedia-en-admins but can't. I'm on #wikipedia now. How to? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Mauco, Pernambuco, Ştefan44

Eh, did you use the checkuser tool to identify them? The edit and behavior patterns are so different... --Illythr 01:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't think their behaviors are vey different at all. Dmcdevit·t 02:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone appears to be posing as Mauco in his absence, making all sorts of nasty things: [50]. --Illythr 12:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Can you unblock me? I'm William Mauco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I am now indefinitely blocked. Because I promise I don't use any socks and I will not be disruptive again? Why am I blocked for indefinitely? --194.160.177.3 10:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser and privacy

please look at this edit of mine, and please read m:CheckUser_policy. please be careful publicly revealing ip's, it is imho not according to this policy. grtz, oscar 10:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yo, thx for your answer. you might want to review the effect of the two lasts edits then? grtz, oscar 22:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dominic/Archive18&oldid=1144130124"