Jump to content

User talk:Peter/Archive16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, you are welcome to bring it up on my active talk page.

Full archive index

Delete this revision please

[edit]

Hello Peter. Can you delete this revision of my userpage please? Thank you. WJetChao (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Peter 09:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Peter. You have new messages at Codedon's talk page.
Message added 22:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Codedon (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Peter. You have new messages at Mono's talk page.
Message added 02:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Vandal alert

[edit]

I don't know if you can block ranges, but can you block the 114.59.0.0/16 range? It is used by a long term IP-hopping Indonesia vandal who delibrately inserts misinformation by ridiculously connecting CBS, Digimon, and Resident Evil articles without any source to back up his claims. The range was blocked before, but after the block expired, the vandal began doing his modus operandi again by using the following addresses in just the past two days:

He also used the following addresses, leading to the previous blocks.

I hope that you take action ASAP before he strikes again using another address from within the range. Thank you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever done a rangeblock before (certainly not in the last couple of years!), so I will have to read up a little about them before doing so. Feel free to try someone/where else in the meantime. Peter 10:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Well hopefully I did it ok, now blocked. Peter 10:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Any admins coming here in response to me causing too much collatoral or similar, feel free to unblock without asking me. Just let me know, and say if I need to do anything differently last time. Cheers, Peter 10:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you should've blocked the range longer, preferably about 6 months to a year or so. Like I mentioned earlier, the guy has done his vandalism long-term. Because of that, the last block the range had before yours lasted 6 months. I'm sure that by the time it expires 31 hours from now, he would strike again from this range. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last block before mine was 6 hours, not months. Range blocks have a high danger of collatoral damage (I was blocking something like 64,000 IPs then. For longer I'd want to check with another admin more experienced in this area first. Peter 10:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, didn't look; I thought it was months because he also used other ranges that were effectively blocked for months because of him. But anyway, considering that, I hope that'll do for now. I'm sure he'll come back. And when he does in another address and I find out sooner or later, you will be among the first ones to whom I would inform. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll probably take it to WP:AN/I if a longer block was needed, so you might as well take it there yourself next time (as I might not be online etc.) Also have you thought about page protection as well? Peter 11:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I've already done that on several articles, but there are some articles wherein there aren't much to justify protection. So it's won't be fool proof. But the Digimon articles would. Might do that in a later time (but that would be questionable since some of the Digimon articles were also being edited by helpful anonymous editors). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Peter. You have new messages at GSK's talk page.
Message added 10:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

 GSK (talk ● evidence) 10:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comics Creators Guild deletion

[edit]

Please allow me to continue to work on this page. I only started working on it when I noticed a red link in an article about the comic book artist Neal Adams. I do believe that this group does have some historical significance. I believe this was the first attempt by people in the comic book industry to form a union such as the Screenwriters' Guild of America, and it is referenced numerous times in Wikipedia articles. I am a "newbie" here, but I will strive to follow the guidelines, use the sandbox, and try harder to follow the Wizard.

Daedjo (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've restored it to User:Daedjo/Comics Creators Guild, merging the history with what you had there already. I didn't leave it in the main article space as I believe it would only be deleted again if I did so. However, I'm happy to allow you to carry on working on it in your userspace until it is ready to be moved back to the mainspace. Thanks for helping improve Wikipedia :) Let me know if you have any more questions. Peter 18:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Peter. You have new messages at Marcus Aurelius Antoninus's talk page.
Message added 20:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: Kweku Hanson

[edit]

Please allow me to continue work on this page. As it stands, it already indicates (with references) that Mr Hanson was involved in a major lawsuit involving apartheid victims in South Africa, which has attracted input from such luminaries as Bishop Tutu, Kader Asmal, and others, and has also had comment from the South African Government.

I am also still going to add sections on Mr Hanson's initiation and prosecution of a class action suit against a major financial institution in the US, ans well as (bizarrely) his arrest an conviction on charges of statutory rape and possession and manufacture of child pornography. All properly referenced. pietopper (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as you've claimed importance and said you'd work on it further. The style isn't really what we're looking for on Wikipedia though. Maybe you could take a look at pages like Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Writing better articles. I think it's phrases like "This is understandable, based on..." which isn't very neutral. Peter 22:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Right. I just came across that in the court records and thought it amusing for the time being. I never intended it to be part of the final article. pietopper (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good. Hope it turns out good :) Peter 22:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

World Peace One <wildcard>

[edit]

Sorry for undoing the addition of CSD tags out from under you. I figured if the main article was declined then the subarticles, which I had tagged under the same criteria, would be declined too, so I raced around removing them before I was accused of having an itchy trigger finger :) But you deleted them anyway, so no harm done! Thanks Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. I didn't even notice as I'd loaded all the pages as separate tabs anyway and didn't refresh before deleting. The main article I thought was a bit borderline (I wouldn't be at all surprised or disappointed if it got deleted at the afd, but I thought it was worth that extra level of checking), but the sub-articles had no real content or significance, so I had no problem deleting those. Peter 14:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Death & Taxes

[edit]

You removed the template for WP:CSD#A9 from the article Death & Taxes, which has neither sources let alone any coverage that would suggest this topic is important in any way, let alone notable. Please advise me why the template was removed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:CSD#A9 says "An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist" (emphasis changed). The artist's article does exist, hence this article is not elegible for speedy deletion, and my removal of the template. However, you are welcome to nominated the article for deletion at WP:AFD. Peter 16:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, my mistake, apologies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Death & Taxes

[edit]

(Template:PRODWarning) Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's the other way of dealing with it of course :) I guess I didn't think PROD would be worthwhile as they usually get removed, but in this case there's been little editing activity so it will probably work. Peter 17:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me get the formatting right on Astro Ranch. I don't know how to add new sections. I believe I should only need 1 more section, a place to explain game mechanics

[edit]

Maybe 2 sections,

game mechanics and reviews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcmorr6 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 12 April 2010

First off, I'm sorry but I had to delete the article because it is not suitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not allow articles to be adverts. I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Five pillars to see what we're about. As for how to edit, here is a useful tutorial, which covers section headings and more. Peter 18:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Atmospheres of gas giants, brown dwarfs and low-mass stars

[edit]

Thanks for taking care of it. Qurq hadn't edited the article since creating it, 3½ hours before I deleted; it's not as if I'd deleted it 3½ minutes after his/her last edit. Nyttend (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. This way at least we know there is interest in continued work on the article. Peter 19:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Fortiva

[edit]

Please allow me to continue to work on this page - I believe it meets the requirements/definition required for posting as a wikipedia article. I will add a number of media references today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corktown11 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 13 April 2010

Restored to User:Corktown11/Fortiva to allow you to continue working on the article without it being deleted. When you think it is ready, you can move it back to Fortiva, but it could still be deleted if it doesn't meet out guidelines. Peter 13:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - apologies for my lack of understanding of the rules...working to get a better grasp of the guidelines. (Corktown11 (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

That's ok, I know there are a lot of them! Peter 17:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

CurrentSAFE

[edit]

Hi, I see that you deleted a page that I created yesterday because it is a business and I was apparently advertising, which was not my intent at all.

Can you tell me how to word the information to make it more of an encyclopedia entry?

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.166.188.34 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 13 April 2010

[Note: Article created by Csafe (talk · contribs)]

I've taken another look at this article, and it certainly counts as advertising. You can find out more at our 5 pillars, about conflict of interest and notability. If you have more questions after reading those then you can get back to me. Peter 13:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

whyyyy.

[edit]

why did you delete the queen thing? it was a national treasure between me and my friend. thanks for ruining my life. why would you do that. why me. MEE. i am innnocent. and only 7 and 3 months. and all i wanted was some love in this world. i will never be acceptedf in this cruel cruel world for who i am thanks to you peter. please reply, my only wikapedia friend,

WHY WOULD YOU DIO THAT PETER THANKS FOR RUINING MY LIFE i SPENT 7 years and 3 months on that and im only 8. give me a break. you cruel cruel person in this cruel cruel world. i will never be accepted now. ...i have itchy eyes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.36.179 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 April 2010

For reference: friend prob. = Jamiedodgeroo (talk · contribs). Queen thing = The Former Queen, Elizabeth II Peter 15:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Hypnotoad

[edit]

You deleted it because you think it's a "blatant hoax"? How do you know? Have you ever been to Alvin, TX? I used to live there, and that's a real town legend. Jrl005 (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)jrl005[reply]

I stand by that deletion, and believe it would be upheld at any deletion review. Peter 15:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible deletion of image Tom Warder large jpg.

[edit]

PLEASE DON'T DELETE IT! As I have repetedly written, the whole undertaking will seem to have been worthless without it, and upon finally seeing it - at last! - when checking out the article this morning, I was so excited that I actually wept!


Venturian 16:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I won't be deleting it. It's up for discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 April 13. You can have your say there. Peter 16:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Head First (Selena Gomez & the Scene song)

[edit]

You've tagged this for speedy deletion as a hoax, but it does not seem to be an obvious one to me. Could you please clarify why this is a hoax or under which criteria you think this article should be deleted? Peter 16:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I can take it through AFD if you think it necessary. First, it claims to be the lead single off an album that was itself deemed to be only a rumor. The background section is just a cut-and-paste from Falling Down (Selena Gomez & the Scene song). The refs all refer to things happening last year, being used to support things that are supposed to happen next year. Basically, somebody created Iloveselenagomez142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and then faked a credible looking article by using an old article as a template. That's the downfall of the "obvious hoax" language: what's obvious to one person isn't obvious to another. I spend a lot of time watching over the Disney articles, and, to me, this is obviously a hoax. If it isn't obvious to you, I'll take it through AFD.—Kww(talk) 16:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've deleted it now. If anyone complains it can be restored by any admin (i.e. I'm giving permission to any reading this to do so) and taken to AFD. Peter 16:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hypergeometric series / Hypergeometric function

[edit]
You've probably got them on your watchlist, but anyway you'll probably be interested in this edit summary. If you can convince me here as well that's fine- it looks like you know what you're doing, I just don't want a situation where one editor thinks it should be one way, then the next one to come along thinks the other etc. Peter 16:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the page; I don't anticipate such a problem as you describe. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just having someone else reviewing it (like you) was all that I was looking for. I wish R.e.b. was a bit more polite about it, but hey can't have it all :) Peter 16:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an error

[edit]

Was the block of Mahlulu22 (talk · contribs) an error? Toddst1 (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of. Vandalism only account. I suppose with only one edit, I was being rather harsh (yeah, I guess they'd usually have several quickly in a row) but I'd find it hard to believe it would suddenly become productive with an edit like it made. I'd be happy for an unblock request to be fulfilled (as long as the reason was sensible). Peter 20:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Open Source for America

[edit]

Open Source for America. This organization consists of major open source foundations, and companies. It is a notable initiative. I don't see why this is not important. You did not even give a chance for me to respond. I can point to 100 other articles of less importance than this one. This is so arbitary. --Natkeeran (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On looking at this again I see that I was wrong in deleting this. There clearly are claims of importance. It doesn't yet meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) as you need to put in other sources, but now I've restored the article so you can do that. As for a chance to respond, well you could as you did contact the admin involed, and there is also deletion review if the admin involved either isn't around or disagrees. Peter 09:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I said the page was still being edited and you deleted ???? It was deleted the previous day and I relooked at it and tried to work on it, and you just come and delete ? Whats wrong with you ? 80.80.109.172 (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As your message clearly doesn't apply to Open Source for America, please read the blue box at the top of this page first, and then if you have any further questions feel free to get back to me. Peter 09:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


Thank you. I will add additional sources this afternoon. The above comments at ip 80.80.109.172 was not me. --Natkeeran (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Peter. You have new messages at McDoobAU93's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks Peter

[edit]

I am just "newly-Wikipedian", so I got some mistakes in the article.

I will update it based on real and fact clues, not promotional, and also I do take a active part in Wikipedia.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idol0825 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great :) Peter 11:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geetha_Narayanan

[edit]

The wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geetha_Narayanan was reinstated by Prof. David Eppstein yesterday after a request and based on his request i had tagged it "hangon" as well immediately to clarify the copyright issues you raised.

The issue raised is that the one paragraph description in the specified wikipedia page was taken from http://certad.srishti.ac.in/edu/people ,

Now let me clarify. the domain CERTAD comes under SRISHTI, as obvious from the URL and SRISHTI website is under CREATIVE COMMONS attribution.

http://srishti.ac.in/content/centers http://certad.srishti.ac.in/edu/people

More over Geetha Narayanan is the director of SRISHTI(of which CERTAD is a part) and in no way will there be any copyright issue on this and this is assured.

Every bit of the other content ( quotes) is attributed to its original source.

When w page was reinstated just yesterday and was tagged "hangon" by the creator, some one deleting it within 24 hours is not quite understandable.

One tagged for deletion - and tagged "hangon" WIkipedia allows 7 days to fine-tune the page was my understanding, please correct me if i am wring here.

When all the suggestions given by Prof. Eppstein was taken in the right spirit and and i had just begun to work on it, it is really surprising that "Peter" just went ahead and deleted the page.

So, what is the future of this specific wikipedia page in context.

....and once again there was absolutely no intimation before this surprise deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilgrimhawk (talk • contribs) 07:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page was deleted under our speedy deletions policy. The 'hangon' tag is no guarentee that the article won't be deleted. Copyright violations are treated very seriously, as they are a legal issue. I see two problems with your assertions that it is ok to copy those pages. Firstly [1] says "All information on this site is copyright CERTAD". It does not say anything about being CC licensed. While [2] is licensed under "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 India License." it does not say that this applies to the other page, only the pages that line apears on. Secondly, this license is not valid for Wikipedia, as we require commercial use to be permitted.
What I suggest is that you re-create the page new, without using any copyrighted material (you can cite sources, just not copy them). You should also be aware of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) to avoid any future article being deleted under those grounds.
Finally, while I realise the deletion was done quickly, you were notified on your talk page before it happened, with further useful information here. Peter 11:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Fast Report article

[edit]

I have noted that Fast report article was deleted, why did you delete it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.109.172 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 15 April 2010

Because that is what was decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FastReport. It also met this criteria for speedy deletion. Peter 12:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

never deleted

[edit]

i have not deleted any fast report...all that i did was to add "hangon" tag as suggested by another administrator Dr.David Eppstein's advice...it was to get time to clear the copyright issues you raised which i clarified in my last note to you. may i know what is the copyright issue that persists now for keeping that article off wikipedia. i repeat all that i did was to add the "hangon" tag and nothing else. i hope i am understood aright. i got this mail from Dr.David Eppstein just yesterday and it was a holiday in India and due to heavy rains my internet connection at home snapped off, so could not do anything much yesterday, i had to discuss it with my seniors at work as well today, hence the delay in clarification.

well, i just told all this- truth as it is to let you know the human factors involved- explaining ourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilgrimhawk (talk • contribs) 14:54, 15 April 2010

I never said you deleted fast report. What makes you think that? As for the rest of your message, I assume your are refering to Geetha Narayanan. I don't think I have any more to add to what I said above. Even if the copyright problems are resolved (btw, emails should be direct to permissions-enwikimedia.org as described on your talk page, please refer to details placed there), there are still issues of notability to be dealt with. If you can resolve these problems with the article you can re-create it. Peter 15:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thank you very much Peter. will work on it. getting to learn a lot any way.--pilgrimhawk 07:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilgrimhawk (talk • contribs)

Blocked user

[edit]

Well, Hooon got blocked permanently. Partly for the disruption, but also for a user-name violation, as Hoon is a derogatory slang term in Australia and New Zealand. So it looks like we have some work to do to clean up his work. You up for helping out on this one? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I saw that (I was actually waiting for another admin to do the block, basically to allow another person to review if they thought it was justified - can save a lot of bother later on). What sort of cleanup were you thinking of? If you want me to just revert all his edits that's easy, but then I see you have the tools to do that as well. So if you want me to try and check them all and work out what to keep that's more tricky... What are your suggestions? I wondered about sampling a few edits in more detail and if those are ok then might just leave them all, if they are not then rollback the lot? Peter 15:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that's what we're gonna have to do, is just look at everything, see what was done, and make judgments on a case-by-case basis. I don't think wholesale reverting is called for, because it would also take away a number of potential constructive edits by said user (and I believe in giving credit where credit is due) or reverting to "last good version" could take out constructive edits by other editors who just happened to be within the blocked user's work. I just know there were lots of changes he made that were never explained. Some of them can be figured out, while others that can't probably should be just reverted/undone. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I suspected as much. How do you want to split up the work so we know what's reviewed or not? Peter 15:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, my knowledge bias is more towards Walt Disney World, followed by Disneyland, Tokyo Disneyland, Disneyland Paris and HK Disneyland, in that order. Many of the articles he edited were included in all the parks. I'll go through myself and see what articles he frequented and compile a list to go over. I don't think there was anything that was overall damaging to the articles, but considering the number of edits he made, it will take some time. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Dancing Robot Music

[edit]

I would like to know why this article has been deleted as it does not resemble any promotional or advertising material, it is purely there to inform the public of our notability http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dancing_Robot_Music&action=edit&redlink=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernart87 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"purely there to inform the public of our". I think that says it all really - if it's really notable, then others will write about it. Peter 10:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


User/Sock Puppetry

[edit]

Peter, it would seem as if the user who posted the message from 112.118.146.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), had posted a very similar message using the IP 206.125.65.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). If you look at both messages, the content and the style, it is extremely unlikely that these are two different individuals. It would appear to be someone using a sockpuppet. I have warned this person on both talk pages. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you!(24.62.126.170 (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me, and your warnings to them, they were quite appropriate. I'm not sure that they are the same- one IP is in the US, other Hong Kong. As they have both stopped editing I'll not block, but if they do then it would be good to report again. I've also added James Haven to my watchlist to keep an eye on it. Peter 21:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


Should I report it directly to to you? Could the same user utilize a proxy service? Thanks again for your help, I really appreciate it (24.62.126.170 (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If the vandalism is repeated after a final warning (see WP:WARN for some(!) templates you can use) then report again to WP:AIV as a lot of admins watch that page. Again, only if the vandalism continues and you think it's by the same person then WP:SPI is the place to report to. You can let me know as well, but those are the official places to report to, and I might be away from Wikipedia at the time. I don't know much about proxies, but I don't think it's likely in this case. Peter 22:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

86.178.61.105 (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC) 86.178.61.105[reply]

Liberal Democrats

[edit]

I have repeatedly attempted to add the following factually correct and publicly verifiable statements to the article on "Liberal Democrats", but some other intransigent and illiberal person has repeatedly undone my edits.

"Despite the party's environmentalist rhetoric, their local councillors have often opposed or defeated plans to build wind farms, and have supported domestic waste incineration and the expansion of Manchester Airport, in line with their acceptance of increased growth in air traffic. The party also supported the extension of the M74 motorway in Scotland, and proposes to cut the price of petrol, by reducing fuel tax."

I have added an external link to substantiate the claim about wind farms, and could add dozens more on this matter and the others to substantiate the other statements.

I would be grateful if the illiberal editor(s) who keep removing this text could be asked not to. I suspect that they may be LibDem party workers subverting Wikipedia to promote a carefully-crafted party image, in which true but embarassing statements are censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.61.105 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 17 April 2010

The problem people have with this edit is based on several points. One being that despite repeatedly been asked not to, you haven't talked about it on the article's talk/discussion page. Suggest and then discuss this edit on Talk:Liberal Democrats. Just re-adding it to the article after it has been reverted is called edit warring, as is not how you should behave on Wikipedia. Another being that the way it is worded doesn't follow our neutral point of view policy. It's not that it's critisim of the party that's the problem, it's the way it's worded. It should also be properly referenced, and placed in the correct part of the article. I will work on this more later, but in the meantime please stop edit warring. Peter 22:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

[edit]

Hello Peter,

I am a little unsure how this works. I made a request to have a change made to the Martin Luther King Jr wiki page.

I have supplied the text. If any other information is required, please drop me a line and I will be happy to accomodate you.

I would appreciate it if you could confirm that you have received the information I sent.

Regards

perpetualbooks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.163.223 (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. is also edit protected, which is why you couldn't post there (you need to have at least 10 edits and been around a few days first, most of our articles allow anyone to edit, in this case because of frequent vandalism it has some restrictions on editing). So I've posted your message there myself, you can look there for any responses. Also it looks like you got logged out by mistake- it is best that as you have a registered account you edit whilst logged in, and then sign your posts using ~~~~. Let me know if you have any further questions. Peter 22:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Re Martin Luther King Edit

[edit]

Thanks Peter,

That was very kind of you. I apoligise for my ignorance in these matters but I am still unsure as to what happens next. Will the proposed edit be looked into and then placed on the wikki page if it is alright?

regards

perpetualbooks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetualbooks (talk • contribs) 22:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the idea. People who watch that talk page should do that, if no-one does within a few days I'll take a closer look myself. Peter 23:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetualbooks (talk • contribs) 21:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, I have noticed a note from OTTO on the dicussion page of Martin Luther King Jr concerning my edit request. He is asking for a third party / neutral source. I am currently in the proccess of getting this information from the Morehouse College in Atlanta.I hope this will be the information needed to enable this very important change to be made to the MLK page. Any advice you may have would be gratefully accepted. perpetualbooks/ Jason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetualbooks (talk • contribs) 19:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already, take a look at WP:RS and WP:V. That should answer any questions you may have about what counts as a good enough source. Basically we don't shouldn't publish original research here on Wikipedia, we use secondary sources where possible. So my suggestion is to see if you can find a reliable (the RS link above) source to verify (V link) what you want inserted, then post that on the article's talk page if you can (you might have enough edits by then) or here if you can't (and then I'll post it there). If you can't do that, then we can't include your proposed edit, but as you can see we have at least considered it. Peter 10:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter thanks for your advice. The Morehouse College in Atlanta are in the process of sending me verification of MLK's comments made in the book previously mentioned. I am presuming here that this would constitute a good source as they are a highly respected American University and MLK based institution. Once I receive it I will do as you have suggested. Once again thanks for your help. perpetualbookszxcv (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Commons people

[edit]

I am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is Petros471. Peter 22:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I did this once too!--mono 00:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying Group G

[edit]

I think you have made a mistake by deleting that article. I saw nothing to suggest that it was a hoax. What gave you that idea? – PeeJay 21:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I deleted it because I was/am busy cleaning up after a prolific sock-using vandal who created a huge bunch of football/sport related hoax articles about things in the future... This article was only touched by him, not created like the rest, and as this was tagged the same as the others I didn't check as closely as I should have. Peter 21:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

(moved message from Perpetualbooks up)

Indeed, thanks. Could you restore the talk page too? – PeeJay 21:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for watching out. Peter 21:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There goes Codedon...

[edit]

Well, that wasn't long...--mono 00:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather disappointed that he ended up as a big troll again. Still wish the CU had turned up something. Gotta love snide comments, eh?  fetchcomms☛ 02:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is rather of a shame that he went back to personal attacks so quickly. I'm sure he could have been a useful contributor, but there's no point gaining one potentially useful editor and loosing many more who are driven off the project by his comments. Peter 09:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Codedon

[edit]

Can you please have a look on User talk:Codedon, and respond to his q, "I'm still not quite sure how I violated the "terms of unblock"" - thanks,  Chzz  ►  03:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Peter 10:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I deliberately expressed no opinion; I have some suspicions, but nothing specific at this stage. Thanks again,  Chzz  ►  22:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention on D-Generation X article

[edit]

Having a problem with a user using only an IP address. It seems that they are using the anonymous address to consistently make one specific change that only they seem to think is correct. The template of the former wrestling stable, D-Generation X, which no longer exists, lists all of the core members of the group through out its various incarnations. User 24.5.153.147 insists on reverting the template to list only the members that were active during the final incarnation, as well as including a character who was never a full fledged true member of the stable. He repeatedly does this without explanation despite others leaving summaries as to why the template should not be altered. Once again, in looking at the user's activity, it seems that this address is used exclusively to enforce the user's point of view on the situation. Thanks in advance for any assistance you can offer. NJZombie (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the first problem I see is that the link you've provided to the IP's talk page is red - i.e. you should contact them before me for something like this. So I suggest that you leave a message on that talk page, directing the IP user towards the article's talk page, where any issues related to the article should be discussed. I'll take a look a bit later, after you've done that, and I'll see if anything further is needed. Peter 23:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, normally, I would leave a warning first. Couldn't find a logical template to use for this specific situation though. Any suggestions?NJZombie (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to use a template for everything :-) How about something like "Please don't keep adding ... (or whatever it is) to D-Generation X. Please see explanation on Talk:D-Generation X, where you can explain why you think your edits should be accepted. Continuing to change information against consensus is considered disruptive editing."? Disclaimer: I wrote that without looking at the situation properly (it's totally wrong time of the night for me to do that ;-) ), so you will need to change it to suit, and any comments about seeking consensus might apply to you as well... Peter 00:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Districts of Sri Lanka

[edit]

Hello Peter. Just as you deleted the above (Template:Districts of Sri Lanka), could you also delete Template:Provinces of Sri Lanka? It is too a duplicate of Template:Provinces and Districts of Sri Lanka, and has reached consensus to delete here, similar to the first template. Regards. Rehman(+) 00:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Peter 09:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Rehman(+) 09:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandal alert.

[edit]

Remember the Indonesian long term vandal I've reported to you before (the one who used the 114.59.0.0/16 range)? He's back. Same MO. This time, he used the following IP address in the 110.138.32.0/20 range:

He hasn't showed up in an address beyond the above range, but 110.138.32.0/20 is the best shot we have so far until he uses a third address. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I remember. I think though it's time to take this to WP:ANI, as I'm sure it will attract the attention of a greater number of admins there, who will know better what to do. Peter 09:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I did bring this guy's MO several times on WP:AN/I, but it has been so far a mixed bag (sometimes, there is action; other times, it was merely ignored). And of course, he comes back using another IP after two weeks to a month at the most. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that his IP changes so much, and over quite a large range. There are useful contributions coming out of that range as well, so there will be collateral damage, which is why I'd rather this was reviewed by other admins before continuing to routinely rangeblock this guy. I'll block this one for a short period for now, then if needed again I'll think about starting a more general thread on AN about how to deal with this kind of situation. Peter 09:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, I've already started a thread back at WP:AN/I, FYI. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented at ANI. Peter, how does one check whether an address is rangeblocked, and whether a range has been blocked before? JohnCD (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To find past and current rangeblocks on a particular range you can just enter it into block log or current blocks. Eg. history, current (but you can use the block log for that as well). To check one IP address - I thought it showed up in contribs like a usual block, but either I was mistaken or it's changed. It does seem though like Special:Contributions/110.138.32.159 shows 'change block' and 'unblock' links, so that shows it's rangeblocked, even if it doesn't say what the range is... You might also find this range contribs tool useful. Cheers, Peter 10:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Cillyness

[edit]

Wow, looks like we were both swinging our banhammers at about the same time on this user. I was about to give him an additional 12-hour timeout, but I see you gave him a week off. Blueboy96 22:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me--especially since it looks like he was logging out to edit that article from another IP, per Baseball Bugs' latest report. Blueboy96 22:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TB

[edit]
Hello, Peter. You have new messages at ToxicWasteGrounds's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Distirbutor_(Band) Deletion

[edit]

Hi My article about Irish band, Distributor, was deleted on the 16th of April. I am aware of the past reasons for the deletion of the page, but I did remember talking to an admin or editor or something last time and they said that when distributor appeared on rte 1 there would be notability for the article. Since then they have received more reviews of their album "depth of perception" and have also appeared on Ireland's national tv station RTE 1 on a programme called "An Cór". If they still do not meet the standards that is ok, i was just wondering:) Thanks, Stroopy (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines for bands includes the point "Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." as being a criteria for notability. Was the appearance on TV that long? There are other criteria listed on that page as well, but basically the safest way to be counted as notable is to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Can you show that yet? If so, point me in their direction and I'll take a look. Peter 15:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh sorry i didn't realise it had to be longer than a half hour, they're to have about 20 minutes air time on top rock radio tonight as well, but that doesn't meet requirements either i suppose:p

Thanks for your help, Stroopy (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

What did you make of User talk:MickMacNee3? I blocked the account but is it just a random troll or do you think there's a relation to User:MickMacNee? Is it worth opening an SPI? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well MickMacNee3 was obviously a sock of someone, I was working on the assumption that the someone was well and truly blocked already and not worth tracking down, I may be wrong... As for MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Wow, for someone to have a block log that long (I think it may well be longest I've ever seen) and not be indef'ed by now = complicated case that requires more brainpower than I have left until another cycle of sleep :) I'll take a closer look tomorrow. Peter 00:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
On second look, I'm pretty sure MickMacNee is not the same person as MickMacNee3, so not worth an SPI for that. As for who MickMacNee3 is, I think there is a good chance that what I first said is right, in which case I wouldn't worry to much about it. You probably have more chance of working out who it is than I do, as it would probably be somone that you warned and/or blocked because of actions around the ITN kind of pages. But no big deal if you can't, and I wouldn't go to SPI this time. Peter 09:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I know MickMacNee and it's not really his style. I'm not unduly concerned- like you say, whoever's behind it is probably blocked already and I blocked that account as soon as I saw their charming message on my talk page. Thanks for your help, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter/Archive16&oldid=1075725350"