User talk:Peter/Archive4

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

Arbitration

Because you provided a third opinion on the content dispute between me and User:Eagleamn, I thought you might like to know that I have turned the issue over to the Arbitration Committee in light of recent actions made by User:Eagleamn. You can find the arbitration request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Eagleamn. — Zerida 18:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'm sorry to see this reach Arbitration (though I'm not totally sure whether or not the arbitrators will accept the case), as I hoped to see this resolved on the category talk page, possibly with a request for comment to bring in outside views. I don't have that much more to say except this, related to some of the other messages you've had above- I strongly recommend (yes recommend not order) that you keep pretty well everything that is posted on your talk page. My experience is that clearing comments off talk pages rather than archiving them either creates, or increases conflict. Whilst it is not policy that all messages are kept (though warnings should be) I suggest it. If you believe comments to be 'bad faith' feel free to add your own comment below, and let others decide- as always if you build up a strong record of positive editing that will speak for itself. Petros471 19:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK; thanks for the suggestion — Zerida 21:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The arbitration case was rejected. Petros471 11:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help, please

I'm asking you whether you're prepared to help me, because you seem to be the main admin who patrols the "requests for investigation" page, where a user has named me as being a vandal. Could you have a look at the page or point me to someone else who can help me?

I am hoping that someone with admin. powers can quickly see what is going on here. The person concerned claims that a layer of good faith edits I made over two months ago were vandalism (the edits were made before I'd got the hang of the "no original research" rule, but they were far from being vandalism), and speculates that I might be about to (!) rewrite the article in some unacceptable way. He or she has made this formal request without first discussing any of my recent edits with me (despite the fact that I've been actively editing the article on and off for some considerable time, with some amicable discussion with another user, but no further conflict). He or she did not notify me of any intention to make the request for investigation; I found the request more or less accidentally.

Unfortunately, I did lose my cool with the user concerned at one point, two months ago, after he/she publicly speculated in a potentially damaging way about my personal life, but otherwise I think I've handled the situation reasonably calmly and well to this point. This latest step — i.e. the request for investigation — seems to be in total breach of the guidelines, so I'm slightly surprised that the request has not yet been summarily deleted by an admin. I would hope that the record I've built up here (demonstrable, for example, if you trawled through my contributions page, or looked at the article and talk pages for "Transhumanism" or "Goth", or if you did an analysis with Interiot's tool) speaks for itself. I am certainly not a vandal, and I hope this user's request won't keep hanging over my head or harm my good reputation here.

Some other users, including an admin called Longhair, also seem to have had grief from this person, but I don't know the details [edit: except that I've just found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Longhair&oldid=37137067] and I have not approached anyone else for help at this point.

Thanks for your consideration. Metamagician3000 11:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'm not actually an admin- I've just done some work on that page because it does seem to be remarkable avoided by most admins. I was actually tempted to remove that request off the page, however I wanted to just check for completeness sake that you hadn't done anything awful to the article (not that is an RFI'-able offence, but hey most aren't really to the letter). However I wasn't at home at the time and I didn't really fancy setting off the internet filters with the page title (the filters seem to only scan the URL). I'll take a look at it asap and see what to suggest (if anything). Petros471 11:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Sorry for the assumption that you were an admin. :) Metamagician3000 11:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick scan through the page history doesn't seem to show anything dreadful, so I've removed the RFI as a content dispute. Quick suggestion (unrelated to the RFI), if possible you try and use the preview button a bit more to save a series of small edits filling up the edit history. That way you can put one good edit summary in, and easy to tell what you have done to the article. No big deal. Feel free to get back to me if you need any more help. Petros471 11:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

And thanks again for your help, and also for your advice. Yeah, I know I should use the preview function more than I do. :) This incident will encourage me to be less lazy about it, and to leave an easier record for for others to follow, even though I'm a multiple drafts style of writer. All the best, Metamagician3000 12:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My (HereToHelp’s) RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I’m proud to inform you that it passed with 75 support to 1 oppose to 2 neutral. I promise to make some great edits in the future (with edit summaries!) and use these powers to do all that I can to help. After all, that’s what I’m here for! (You didn’t think I could send a thank you note without a bad joke, could I?) --Here T oHelp 12:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sovvy

I've given Sovvy another warning. If he continues to vandalise give another warning or two (see WP:TT and then report to WP:AIV. For future reference, if you added the report to the top of the section I'd have probably got to it quicker :) Petros471 15:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks for the help. I'm still getting used to the dozen pages for reporting, got about half of 'em down. As I said in my description the user's not a threat or a big deal, just needs watchin' by a mop. Future pointers always welcome! T K E 17:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, there are quite a lot of vandalism-related pages! I'd be interested to know what your thoughts are on WP:CUV- how can it be improved to make it a quick and easy vandalism portal for someone like you, who doesn't know every single page inside-out? Petros471 18:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to provide input. First off, the focus is pretty much just a seminar on warning. Make a brief and then link to the outline. Second, put in a portal on how to delete an article; Speedy, PROD, RfD. Third, where to report vandalism. A clearer "how to" guide rather than the individual specifics on individual pages. Some notice pages like AIV want a post on the bottom, VIP wants one on top. Those take practice with structure so I don't expect anyone who's been seriously digging into the function of wikipedia for a couple months to have the hang of it (such as myself, though I pay close attention. I'm a slacker for "show preview."). So yeah, three main points on the left: Revert and warnings; How to Delete; and reporting. My 2¢, thanks for asking :) Oh, and I'll be removing my self imposed and horribly ripped-off block tonight so my page will be back to normal. T K E 19:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castanea_dentata report on WP:RFI

I agree with Stifle above that mediation or request for comment might be more appropriate here, as there is no obvious case of vandalism. See dispute resolution for details. Despide CD's comment, if you can show vandalism (as defined by policy) or 3RR violations (reported to WP:AN3), they will get enforced. The problem with content disputes is that it's never easy to see who is 'right', hence the suggestion to follow DR. Petros471 14:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you not wanting to get involved with a content dispute, the problem is Cast isn't disputing anything. In fact he hasn't directly addressed anything I've put forth. Despite my comprehensive outline of the dispute he persistently removes the {{Totally disputed}} tag from the article without basis; I'd link the page history of the article Jehovah in the New Testament but someone recently renamed it. His behavior is not a content dispute, it is unrelenting bad faith edit waring without direct violation of 3RR. Duffer 19:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the totally disputed tag is there at the moment. I'll try and have a go at looking at the content issue later (no promises though). The page was renamed/moved incorrectly (meaning the history is split over the two articles) so I've tagged it for an admin to fix. Petros471 20:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mais oui! and Owain

Hi Petros. I've been watching the Owain/Mais oui! edit war from a distance for some time now, trying to stay out of it. Neither user is helping their own cause with their vitriolic edit summaries (like the ones you pointed out), but Mais oui! doesn't appear to have assimilated your warning here with this edit summary, while Owain also seems to be immune to voices of reason/neutrality (e.g. today's discussion at Talk:Association of British Counties#UKIP policy), or at least doesn't like people disagreeing with him.

Furthermore, they've now taken their edit warring to new, yet pointless, heights, like here.

I'm getting sick of watching this, but don't feel qualified to do anything about it. Your assistance would be appreciated! --RFBailey 23:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're at it again: see here for today's episode. --RFBailey 22:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that neither seem to be 'in the right' when it comes to this. You say you don't feel qualified to do anything, well you're no more or less qualified than I am. If the two of them are not willing to just 'sit down' (on their talk pages, in mediation or something) and really come to some compromise on this whole issue there isn't much I can do except for warn any incivility/3RR etc. I'll have another go on their talk pages... Petros471 17:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out with this one - I've been trying to help sort this one out for nigh on three months, and pretty much run out of ideas (other than the occasional complete rewrite of pov-mangled sections). I suggested mediation and a cool-off in March, but most of the fighting still goes on in the articles themselves. Thanks again, and good luck! A q uilina 22:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi Petros471. Just a quick note to thank you for your support in my RfA, which recently passed 62/13/6. I will do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please let me know if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers TigerShark 03:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeshore catholic highschool

The simplest thing to do in this case (or future similar ones) would be just to link to a particular version of the page from the AfD page as a comment. Saves filling a request for page protection where the 'correct' version is not always chosen (that's not what page protection if for). Hope that helps, and thanks for trying to make the AfD fair! Petros471 20:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... good call. I never even thought of that. Thanks for the idea.--Isotope23 20:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Petros471 20:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Sir

My only request of Wikipedia is that they refrain from the deletion of the pages that I have contributed. Your staff claims that the page that I have continuously reposted has no relevance, but countless times, I have visited the subject's website and heard otherwise. I have posted a page for a recording artist called N'vyus (an American hip hop arist), but Wikipedia makes it a point to delete all information regarding this artist. You yourself can visit the artist's website and even Google him, but the result are no less evident. He is a real artist and he does have fame amongst the hip hop culture. To not allow his page to be uploaded his discrimination against the hip hop culture and only acknowledging those prominent in "pop culture". —This unsigned comment was added by QdoggE14 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 5 April 2006.

That page was deleted because consensus was reached that it failed the WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. I was not involved in this specific case, however the relevant pages to look at include the deletion log and Articles for deletion/N'vyus. Also please note that Wikipedia has very few staff. It is run by editors (like me and many, many others) operating using Consensus. It is true that consensus has been reached to exclude certain things from Wikipedia (see what Wikipedia is not). Petros471 18:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:WP:RFI

Ok if I leave you to sort out in whatever way you think is appropriate (remove, archive etc) the reports you've commented on? I assume you aren't an admin (as you could have blocked or otherwise for 3RR)? Anyway great to have more people helping out over their. Petros471 19:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Don't think I'm trying to 'own' that page, it's just that not many admins seem to pay a huge amount of attention to that page! Petros471 19:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct: I am not an admin. I'm active on other pages similar to WP:RFI, for instance WP:AIAV and WP:OP, and enjoy helping out in cases such as these. It would be nice to find an admin to actively browse that page and carry out the suggestions we make. :-) --Zsinj^Talk 17:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Thanks for your help. Petros471 11:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #2

Barnstar Brigade
The Barnstar Brigade is a new program aimed at giving more very deserving yet unappreciated users barnstars. It will officially start on 2006-04-09, but signing up is encouraged before this date: "Here in Wikipedia, there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go un-appreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go un-noticed. Sadly, these editors often leave the project. As Esperanzians, we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. A project the size of Wikipedia has thousands of editors, so there are plenty of people out there who deserve recognition, one just has to find them. The object of this program is not to flood editors with Barnstars, but to seek out people who deserve them, and make them feel appreciated."
Stress Alerts
The Stress alerts program aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them.
Information
Welcome to the second issue of the new format Esperanza Newsletter - we hope you still like it! This week, it was delivered diligently by our new dogsbody. MiszaBot (run by Misza13): any execution complaints should go to him. Content comments should be directed at the Esperanza talkpage. Thanks!

The last AC meeting (full log)
The next elections: Approval voting as before and, also as before, an previous leadership member can run. Please submit your name for voting in the relevant section of this page. Voting starts on 2006-04-23 and ends on 2006-04-30. There will be three places up for grabs as KnowledgeOfSelf is leaving Wikipedia. Please see the previously linked page for full details. The Code of Conduct is now ready for extensive discussion! Specific comments should go to the Code of Conduct talk page, discussion of having one at all should be directed to the main Esperanza talk page. The current process for accepting proposals for new programs has been deemed fine. All Advisory Council members and the Admin Gen are to endevour to be bold when viewing discussion. If they feel that consensus has been reached, they will act accordingly.
A plea from the editor...
The propsed programs page is terribly underused! Please leave any comments, good or bad, on the page, to help us determine the membership's thoughts on the ideas there.
Signed...
Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, KnowledgeOfSelf and FireFox 19:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Owain using a sockpuppet?

I strongly suspect that MonMan (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Owain (talk · contribs). The pattern of behaviour, and mutual backing-up on Talk pages, and incidental details like residence in Newport is very, very telling. If MonMan is not a sockpuppet of Owain then he is stalking him. Either way, this requires Admin investigation. Note also the extreme infrequency of MonMan's edits: only used when required to back-up Owain.--Mais oui! 22:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example: [1]. --Mais oui! 23:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mais oui! - self-appointed Sockpuppetfinder General?

Mais oui has been going around today adding numbers of 'suspected sockpuppet' notices to several users' pages and to several talk pages, and, amongst other things, accusing me of being several other users without a shred of evidence. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] I don't think this is justified use of a semi-official template, and it certainly isn't in good faith. I'm loathed to the prospect of having to keep reverting talk-pages whenever Mais oui feels like dragging me into his altercations with Owain - Mais oui has attempted to get an request for investigation into Owain and User:MonMan, but there is no mention of me or anyone else there and I resent having my username bandied about in Mais oui's free-flowing allegations of sockpuppetry. Do you have an opinion on this behaviour? Does it break any rules and is there anything I can do about it? Thanks, Stringops 04:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An investigation is now underway:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Owain_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.2C_MonMan_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.

If it transpires that Account Stringops is not a sockpuppet of Owain then an apology will be forthcoming. But please be aware that if you are not a sockpuppet, then behaviour on your account is certainly highly suspicious of meatpuppetry. --Mais oui! 09:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has transpired that there is no IP evidence to suggest that I and Owain have any connection. Does this satisfy you? You have still yet to provide a shred of real evidence implicating me and I'm starting to find your accusations getting rather tiresome. Stringops 12:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"... it has transpired that there is no IP evidence to suggest that I and Owain have any connection." That is not strictly true. MonMan has been found to be a sockpuppet, and other investigations are ongoing. Please note these remarks regarding account User:Stringops:

"... they are all coming from ISPs in the same general area; this does not mean it is or is not unrelated. It may be a sockpuppet, it may be a meatpuppet; if it smells like a sock/meatpuppet, it probably is."

... and suspicions of sockpuppetry, and definitely meatpuppetry, remains outstanding. Please await conclusion of the investigation. --Mais oui! 12:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no sign of Stringops on the IPs used by Owain/MonMan, but they are all coming from ISPs in the same general area; this does not mean it is or is not unrelated." is not evidence that suggests I am anyone's sockpuppet. "if it smells like a sock/meatpuppet, it probably is" is merely leaving the question to subjective analysis; in your case, this analysis is not, I would argue, in any way neutral!

Personally, I am very secure in the knowledge that I am not Owain/MonMan/other users I haven't even heard of, but I am still curious as what other 'investigating' can be done. CheckUser has confirmed that there is no IP connection - what other 'proof' can be found that isn't pure conjecture?

Regarding Owain and MonMan, I haven't seen the IP 'evidence', but the fact that CheckUser couldn't determine whether the two are 'sockpuppets' (the same user) or so-called 'meatpuppets' (i.e. different people with similar opinions) lends credance to Owain's explanation as being at the very least plausible and his situation not being damning. Nevertheless, I have no idea what this has got to do with me, and I urge contributors, including you, not to waste their time looking for non-existent connections and rather concentrate on doing something worthwhile and productive such as creating an encyclopaedia! But if, on the other hand, you want to drag this out for as long as possible, it will be your own time that you'll be wasting, not mine. Stringops 15:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reply

I have no intention of dragging this out for as long as possible, nor wasting anyone's time. I'm rather inclined to assume good faith and take comments like "...I happen to know MonMan personally, I can contest that he and I are different people, we just happen to share the same interests.... Owain (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC) at face value."[reply]

Please people, try and sort out the content issue without making acusations against editors. Do a RFC on the article issue, get that sorted without involving personalities.

I'd like to remind you that I'm not an administrator, so I'm not quite sure what you'd want me to do with sockpuppet accounts (if you want them banned report to WP:AN/I, however in this case there is not enough evidence for that). Petros471 16:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wasn't accusing you of trying to waste anyone's time; sorry if I gave that impression. I think you've behaved very fairly and even-handedly, which is why I posted the message to you in the first place. I was merely defending myself from allegations of sockpuppetry for which there is as 'evidence' merely hypothesis on Mais oui's part. I don't think this sort of vague speculation is productive, not least because I know I'm not a sockpuppet(!), and I feel that Mais oui is deliberately trying to 'make a meal' of it. I do think this is basically a content dispute, and that miscellanious allegations shouldn't be used to obfuscate this. I am very happy to discuss at length content issues with Mais oui, but I strongly resent being dragged into irrelevant, inapplicable sockpuppet allegations on the basis of imaginary perceived sympathies with any other editor's opinions. Stringops 17:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I never thought you were accusing me of that :-) Petros471 17:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

As you asked for an update, I've archived it. As you've already noticed the checkuser request found you clear (though that was pretty obvious anyway, and I archived before seeing it). Happy NPO V'ing! Petros471 20:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for archiving the RFI. JASpencer 20:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the support

Hi Petros- thanks a lot for your support on my recent, (barely) successful rfa. Please feel free to leave me any comments or criticisms on my talk page! --He:ah? 22:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Kramer link spamming issue

This is in reference to your help here: Talk:Martin_Kramer#Is_Martin_Kramer_link_spamming_Wikipedia.3F

A user, User:Pecher (contribs), is reverting the link spam removals that I do, which you approved of, and has accused me of vandalism (see [User_talk:70.48.241.41].) I am unsure what to do here. It may be that we need mediation here? --70.48.241.41 22:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another user, User:SlimVirgin has accused me of vandalism and has reverted the changes. --70.48.241.41 00:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin just said the following to me -- I am about to be banned I believe: "The discussion is not deteriorating, and I'm not about to enter mediation with an anon IP who's mass deleting perfectly relevant links. Please sign up for an account, or use your own if you have one already, and read our policies before editing any further. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Please see Talk:Martin Kramer for my follow up comment. Apologies for confusing you, I certainly don't think you can be blamed for following the advice I gave (however now that advice has changed, please do not continue removing the links). Petros471 10:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Welcome to VandalProof== Thanks for your interest in VandalProof! You've been added to the list of authorized users, and feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page if you have any questions. AmiDaniel (Talk) 22:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Download Is Now Available

I just wanted to let you know that a download of VandalProof has recently been made available. AmiDaniel (Talk) 09:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on my talk page

Thank you very much for your note--it was much appreciated. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins and article edits

Starting off with a disclaimer: Whilst I'm obviously responding to your vote on my RfA, I'm not trying in to get you to change that. What I am asking is much more general and applies to any RfA of a similar nature, past, current, or future. If you think it is more appropriate to wait till my RfA is over before answering that is fine.

I've questioned this before on other people's RfA, but never really got an answer- why exactly does article creation/editing affect how suitable someone is for being an administrator? Your reason of "Administrators should actually have a handle on what article editing and creation is about" is the closest I've found to an answer, so I'm grateful for that and I was just wondering if you could expand on that reason; to help get it clear in my head why some people oppose RfA's on the basis of low article counts.

I've argued before that Wikipedia needs to have editors and admins that do different things, and it is fine to have some who are pure writers, some who basically edit but fix other things as they come across them, others who do vandal fighting/maintenance, help resolve disputes etc. I am asking: are you opposing because you feel users like me, who do not greatly contribute to articles will not do a good job as an admin because they might misunderstand editing issues? Or some other reason?

Referring back to my specific case, are you worried that I might in some way do a bad job as an admin? If this is the case I would like to know why (so I can see if it can be fixed!)

I do realise creating/expanding/improving articles is the most important job there is on Wikipedia. I have never once doubted that, but I've also thought that other things are needed as well- and that's where I can help more.

Hope you understand what I'm trying to get at here; thank you for reading this far and hopefully you can help me in my never ending quest for knowledge and improvement :) Petros471 14:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Petros. My concern is that administrators with little or no experience in the actual editing of articles are always going to be severely limited as an administrator - you'll either have to avoid anything involving content disputes, making judgements on edit wars, 3RR disputes, and so on, or you will get involved (which all administrators end up doing), and have no frame of reference. I'm not sure someone with no experience of article editing would be of much use in mediating content-relating disputes.

I'm sure you'd make a great vandal-whacker, which is what you seem to want to do. I just don't like the thought of those who want to do nothing but vandal-whacking becoming administrators. They all use the godmode or popup rollback tools anyway, and so the only additional tools they'd need to use are blocking and protecting pages. And I'm uncomfortable with people with no editing experience being able to make reasonable judgement calls about when and when not to utilise those tools.

Your RFA will sail through, as you have a number of senior Esperanzans behind you. And I have no doubt that you will be fair, impartial and correct, as an admin should be, and you'll do no harm. I just think a bit more experience of what the main issue to 95% of Wikipedia users is (articles) would help you. Proto||type 14:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Proto for your helpful answer (and you even did my greyness for me!). I'm not really wanting to only do vandal-whacking. I've also done quite a lot of work recently on WP:RFI, which receives a lot more than just vandalism reports. Whatever the outcome of my RfA I will try and do some more article work! Petros471 15:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:User:209.221.115.5 block

Could you please review your block on this IP, as your much shorter block over-rides FireFox's. As its been blocked several times before and is a 'bad' vandal I'm requesting you unblock (;O) and then re-block for longer. Thanks. Btw, how did your Wikibreak go? Was it enforced with power/connection trouble or voluntary? How's things on that front now? Cheers, Petros471 18:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that FireFox redid the block, overriding my shorter block in turn. My break was voluntary, and much needed, although, the power cuts did help a little. :) I'm now back in "almost" full capacity, and refreshed. I see you are on RfA, best of luck! Banez 18:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So he did... I'm not sure why I couldn't see that, especially as it was only a couple of mins after the block. Weird cache or something. Glad you enjoyed your break. And yes I thought you'd noticed that (I wonder how...), thanks. Petros471 19:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whomp/Good Kitty

Hi, Petros471. I was looking through the page history of WP:RFI and I saw that a complaint left by Whomp ended up being misattributed to Good kitty. No big deal, of course, but I thought I would let you know so you could make sure you sent replies to the right person. —Veyklevar 05:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Petros471 08:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I hadn't looked carefully at the history and had simply assumed that the first unsigned report was from the same person as the signed report below it. Thanks for letting me know. --Zsinj^Talk 13:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finalists Chosen

Peter/Archive4, I'm here to let you know that the five finalists for the Esperanza User Page Award have been chosen. Please assign these five finalists 1-10 points in four categories:

Attractiveness: general layout, considering colour scheme and/or use of tables if applicable
Usefulness: links to subpages or editing aids, helpful information
Interesting-ness: quirky, unique, captivating, or funny content
General niceness: at the judges' discretion

Please see the Scores section on this page for additional information on your job as a judge.

Keep in mind that your scores are a secret! Email Rune.welsh with your scores and final picks. Please contact him for information on how to email him. As soon as all the scores have been tallied, a winner will be announced! Thanks. (^'-')^ Covington 14:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Layout and info based on Template:Upajudge.

WQA

Please do not remove LEGITIMATE commplains from WQA, it is hardly \"fair\" to delete actual comaplaints against those in power just because you don\'t like them. The user, if you had read the complaint carefully, was blamed for the actions of another, and the complaint is valid. Thanks. 16:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.210.102.185 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 15 April 2006.

Note: alert was made against Curps by a vandal, multiple people have agreed the alert should be removed. Petros471 17:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]