User talk:PeterSymonds/Archive 15

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love stars

Just wanted to ensure you got my revised page

Dear Peter ...

When I came back today to see if you had replied yet, our conversation had disappeared. I don't know what happened. So, let me repeat. I have revised the article so that it complies. I want to change the line about the Who's Who but I cannot see the edit button to revise it. Please reinstate the article and I will correct that line too.

Thank you for your scrutiny to keep Wikipedia pure.

  Raymond Aaron  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondaaron (talk • contribs) 19:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still checking some stuff out. I haven't forgotten. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You earned this

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For dealing with a particularly large number of requests for page protection today as well as the great job you usually do in this area. I am glad you are back :-) Regards So Why 10:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Grin* Thank you much! :) Half way through I thought I'd finished, but turns out they were just drive-by protections, leaving the other half still to do! XD But it's an area I enjoy seeing to often. Thanks again! PeterSymonds (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting Ricardo Quaresma

Thanks for protecting the Ricardo Quaresma article and responding so quickly, much appreciated keep up the great work! Tango22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You're welcome, and thank you. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for granting me rollback!! :D astatine-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} 23:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome. :) Remember to be cautious with your reverts if you decide to use huggle. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am having difficulty creating a new article

Dear Peter ...

I am on the Board of The Transformational Leadership Council. We have decided to have a separate article on Wikipedia, instead of having reference to it under Jack Canfield, the founder.

Every time I tried to create a TLC article, I kept getting directed to Canfield's article.

So, I deleted all reference to TLC from Canfield's article and still I keep getting directed to Canfield.

Once I mis=typed "Transformation Leadership Council" and now I cannot delete it.

This is quite frustrating.

Would you please ...

1. Delete "Transformation Leadership Council" or else tell me how I can do it. 2. Would you please tell me how to create a "Transformational Leadership Council" article.

I greatly appreciate your help.

  Raymond  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondaaron (talk • contribs) 02:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETION !?!!?!?!?!?

WH YDOES EVERYONE KEEP DELETING MY ARTICLES! YES - - I KNOW THEY LOOK LIKE TEST PAGES, GIVE ME TIME TO MAKE THEM INTO ARTICLES FIRST!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Planeteer12 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you come up with a subject to write about, go ahead and write it bearing in mind WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V. Use the article wizard for more helpful guidance. But creating a page informing us that you're going to create a page is rather contrary to the purpose. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Raymond Aaron Article is complete

Dear Peter ...

As of an hour ago, I have obeyed every single rule and I have accepted every suggestion on my article. Would you now please consider reinstating it?

Raymond Aaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondaaron (talk • contribs) 20:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Now at Raymond Aaron. Still needs a bit of work, but you've made many improvements. Good work. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YEA!! Thankyou so much for reinstating Raymond Aaron

I am so glad you were patient.

   Raymondaaron (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron[reply]

Transformational Leadership Council ... difficulties

Dear Peter ...

I have been authorized by The Transformational Leadership Council to post an article. But, every time I attempt to do so, I get shown Jack Canfield's article. He was the founder of TLC. But, I have deleted all reference to TLC in his article so that I can post a whole new article for TLC. Yet, even though all references have been deleted, I still get sent to his page when I attempt to create a new article.

This is frustrating.

How can I create a new article for Transformational Leadership Council?

   Raymondaaron (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Raymondaaron[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/John F. Kennedy Inauguration Address Video

One of the opposes was indented, so posting a query to make certain you're aware you promoted a nomination as consensus support while it actually had 3 supports and 2 opposes. Durova^Charge! 03:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, silly me, I hadn't noticed. I'll contact X! now and see if we can resolve the issue about whether it qualifies as a picture or sound. There seemed to be dispute about it, but the supporters argued that the venue was correct because it was being judged for its sound qualities rather than its photographic qualities. Instead of instantly reverting myself, I'll see if I can get some further opinions and take it from there. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen kumar gorakavi

Um - are you sure?? I was just looking at this one when it went ..... I was just thinking AFD... Pedro : Chat 09:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(checked th edeleted history BTW!) Pedro : Chat 09:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, the one time I don't check the history... Sorry. I didn't see any assertion, however, but AfD is fine. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Er. Hrm. Damn, I see. :/ PeterSymonds (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RECALL THE BIT :)! Pedro : Chat 09:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. My rights log is going to look very repetitive if I keep this up... :) PeterSymonds (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not going to even AFD this - looking at the refs he's clearly notable. The article is a shock of horrors but just needs a rewrite. Just preparing my nom for RFA 3.... "Peter is a fairly accurate admin who lost the bit the second time......" :) Pedro : Chat 09:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know, silly me. I was looking at this rather questionable revision. I find it highly amusing that the one time I don't check the history, there's a good version to revert back to. Very appropriate slap in the face from the ol' deletion policy there. :) While you're at it, might as well watchlist RfAs 4 and 5, eh? :). PeterSymonds (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JF-17 article unsourced edits/vandalism

Hi, after you locked the JF-17 article a few days ago the vandalism stopped, but the article is now unlocked and is being edited again with incorrect information. The user with IP address 24.87.45.232 keeps changing the specifications section with information from an unreliable source that is different to what all other sources say. The user has never used the discussion section at all to discuss changes, he/she just keeps making edits. Is there any chance that you can lock the article again, or perhaps take action against this user? Hj108 (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll look into it. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turn blocked "nuke the fridge" article into redirect.

Hi,

You deleted the article Nuke the fridge and prevented recreation. However a new article Nuking the fridge has been created, to which Nuke the fridge is an obvious redirect. Therefore, would it be possible for you to recreate the page as a redirect, and then lock it?

Alternatively, you may decide that the Nuking the fridge article is an attempt to circumvent the deletion of the Nuke the fridge article. (I would probably agree with this.) However, even if is the case, there is an obvious contradiction between an article existing under one name, and it being blocked under another name.

Regards,

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 17:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Redirected and locked. I'm not one to judge whether this is an attempt to circumvent, but AFD is always the place if it is (note the "Nuke the fridge" AFD resulted in a consensus to delete). Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please...

protect Total Drama Action again. I am sorry for asking again after it's last protection just expired, but since then there have been around 75 edits, probably half of them vandalism or deletion of pages, plus unofficial rumors being put up every 5 minutes. Greatly, greatly appreciated- TDI19 (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done sigh, what a total drama island. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!!!- TDI19 (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

editor assisstance

Hi there :) I saw your offer for help on the editor assisstance page. I wondered if you could possibley help me with the discussions on the leeds page. I feel the page is in breach of core policies, and I would like an experienced editor in this field to see if they feel this is true, and if so to advice on what steps to take. I have brought up the core policy issues, as have numerous admins and editors involved in the discussion, and such assertions are never refuted, yet the article remains in status quote, and any changes that address the core policy issues is reverted. Hope you can offer your experience, thankyou --Razorlax (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. :) I will look, but not right now. I'll get back to you tomorrow evening and make my comments. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thats brilliant. Thanks Peter. Before messaging you, I posted this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Leeds.2C_UK but realised it may be easier to just speak one to one with an experienced editor, that being you lol :D --Razorlax (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) Looking into it now. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks peter, hope it isnt eating into to much of your weekend, the talk page is quite lengthy lol.--Razorlax (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, any progress report from ya? @:D --Razorlax (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was away most of today touring a town as part of a university assignment. I've spent the last few hours writing it all up. I've not forgotten, and will make my comments soon. Once again, sorry for the delay. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peter, good luck with the essay. To assisst you I've just spent some time summarising the Leeds problem and summarising the points from the Leeds talk page and put the arguments into tables. Its all on my sandbox and should save you some time. BTW a pro-change involved-administrator did expand the article to adhere to core policies 16:24 1 Feb 2009, but it was reverted by another involved editor :-( Razorlax (talk)

Okay, I'll leave my comments on the sandbox talk then. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok thankyou :-) --Razorlax (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Peter :) was just wondering how it was coming along. Thankyou --Razorlax (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I'm still struggling through it. Sorry, there's one or two things I've had to check out, and still a couple of things I don't quite understand. Hoping you'll forgive the delay, I should be done by tomorrow night, once I'm sure about it all, but I'll comment sooner if it's urgent. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes tomorrow night would be great if possible as I'm quite engaged in the discussion and I dont want to be proceeding in the specific direction i am if my interpretations and understandings of the core policies etc are wrong and I am going about things the wrong way. That said, please dont over-prioritise, Im just very grateful that some outside assisstance from an uninvolved editor will be given. --Razorlax (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Peter, any further progress today? Hows it coming along, anything you're not sure about just ask. Tell me of if im stalking you now btw lol! --Razorlax (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's fine. :) Done at last. Sorry for the delay but I needed to look into the back story. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect Ada High School (disambiguation)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ada High School (disambiguation), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ada High School (disambiguation) is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ada High School (disambiguation), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, a bot warning, I haven't had one of those for ages. Speedy was declined by Kusma (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and categorised correctly. Not that you'd realise, I suppose. :( PeterSymonds (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac Shakur Page

can you please protect Tupac Amaru Shakur's article on a higher level some how. there has been a lot of vandalism, probably due to the film "notorious" coming out in the cinema's about the notorious B.I.G (one of tupac's main rival) and i think fans have been vandalizing the page as a sort of relaliation for notorious big's side. i would be very thankful if you protected it even more as i have had to edit the page many times and the vandals carry on vandalizing the article. thanks 04dejand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 04dejand (talk • contribs) 20:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by myself on February 2. Autoconfirmed vandals can be easily blocked, so protection isn't necessary right now. I'll keep an eye on things though. :) Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a while ago you deleted and then userfied Raymond Aaron

I was wondering if you were monitoring the recreated article and the promotional activities of the eponymous editor? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am keeping an eye, but thanks for pointing this out. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I see attempts to use WP as personal web space. But my opinion is just one person's. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, you're not alone at this point. :) I've been trying to assist with questions from the user. We'll see how it goes. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am cynical of "major motivational speakers" and tend to see Emperor's New Clothes, especially when they insist on COI edits. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←I fired a large warning shot on hos talk page and ripped a lot of spam and POV stuff out of the article and some of the other articles. I have seen evidence of restraint, though I think it and the related articles are very advert-like. I think we still need to keep an eye. Especially the links, which appear to go directly to "buy buy buy" pages. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am RAYMOND AARON. I am doing my best to be a good Wikipedia contributor. I listened carefully to Peter's comments and obeyed them. I have done my best to delete all opinions and all "blatant advertising". I am proud to have a Wikipedia article and I do intend to obey all rules. You have requested CITATIONS for my athletic achievements. Some of them occurred before computers and really there is no online record. This pertains to my marathons and my ultramarathon and my caving and alpine club. I do have a photograph of riding my 5-foot-tall "giraffe" unicycle and I have posted that as proof that I can ride it. However, I will never be able to provide CITATIONS for achievements that occurred before computers began recording information online. I would really appreciate your removing the CITATION REQUESTS for those athletic achievements for which there is no independent verification. Raymondaaron (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron[reply]

I have replied to Raymondaaron on his talk page Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosy.jpeg

I believe this image was deleted on an incorrect basis. The request by Madeofstars was per Wikipedia:CSD#G7: "Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith". As I understand it, this criterion is a discretionary one, not mandatory. The image was in use in three articles and as it is a historic image (i.e. from 2003) it is not replacable. The user put it in article space, when it was first uploaded on 6 December 2008.[1] Furthermore, on 17 December 2008, he reinstated it after a deletion of the image was reversed.[2]

Two months later, he decides he wants it deleted, but has not given any reason why this should happen. The file upload page[3] under step 2 "free license" says in bold, "This release is not revocable." The norm is that we do not allow material, once released under a free licence, to be removed. This is especially the case when it is incorporated into articles.

I am not asking for the image to be undeleted, as it is already on Commons, so would need to be deleted for that reason anyway. The user does not seem to have realised this, as the new name for the image had not been put in the article to replace the old one (I have now done this). However, I request that you inform the uploader Madeofstars that this was the only legitimate reason for its deletion, and that he has given a licence that the upload page clearly states "is not revocable", so he should not normally expect such deletion requests to be met.

Ty 03:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm aware of the irrevocable licenses (I've dealt with several at Commons), but the G7 could've been for any reason. Most G7 images I've seen are for uploading under different names, so I generally fulfil them. However, it might be better to ask the intent of deletion before deleting next time, so I'll do that in future. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is now more on this at User talk:Tyrenius#Stella Vine and Rosy Wilde photos, Commons:User_talk:Geni#Madeofstars and User_talk:Madeofstars#Photos_of_stella_vine_and_her_gallery. Ty 06:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the Fact page

Hi Peter, I reverted the page because of a long list of what appeared to be trivia added. It wasn't sourced, and I wasn't going to track down the individual items. This was the version I reverted, and it looks like it may be a well meaning very new user who is editing, so I didn't create his talk page or anything. When you have a moment, could you look at it and advise me on any different measures I should have taken. Thanks — Ched (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slight change - I did leave him a welcome template — Ched (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did absolutely fine, Ched. Most new users aren't quite aware of the project scope, so will add long lists of trivial facts, unsourced information, etc. The best thing to do is do exactly what you did: revert and explain. I know when I was a new user, I created articles with "redirects" to external sites, but I gradually learned I shouldn't do that sort of thing. :) That said, I don't think it's necessary to give long and detailed lists of policies, because it often means little. Learning by experience is the best thing for new users, in my opinion. Keep up the good work! :) PeterSymonds (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter

20:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by J Milburn, on behalf of the judges. 20:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

IP user (80.47.184.89)

Can you block editing talk page? Versus22_talk 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for doing that. :-) Versus22_talk 21:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome. Sorry I didn't spot it sooner. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I posted somebody for vandalism. You noticed that there weren't any warnings. The reason is because I'm not interested in giving out warnings. I just brought that user to the attention of administrators. Should I have done that on another page? Anyway, if you want to take care of it, there's Special:Contributions/92.12.36.59 also, apart from the Special:Contributions/4.88.20.100 I mentioned there. Debresser (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally administrators like to see two or three warnings for an IP, unless it's a known vandal. You did right to report it, and I'll keep an eye on it, but I can't block it if it hasn't received warnings. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TOTALLY CLEANED "RAYMOND AARON"

Dear Peter ...

I read your communication with Fiddle Faddle and I am doing my best to comply.

I have just revised the article again deleting every single objection you could possibly have. I have deleted ALL my athletic accomplishments (except Polar Race since you did not object to that as it has a citation).

I even deleted reference to my own website www.Aaron.com even though you did not object to that.

There is nothing left to do. It seems to me it is totally clean.

Would you PLEASE remove the objectionable notice at the top of my page about COI? Please.

Raymondaaron (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron[reply]

Excellent work. I'll go and read it now. By the way, on talk pages, you can click the "edit" button on the section you originally started, and indent your post using :. Saves more space that way. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Talent Support

Dear Peter,

ITS is an organization and one of the most renowned platform for young creativity, we have a large press coverage from international press, see our press page http://www.itsweb.org/jsp/en/presstype/type_1_edition_5.jsp and I think it can be an informative page for who is looking for opportunities for young talents and anyway we are not taking space from others or creating fake or just adv pages.

If you think it can work I will try to write the text with a more encyclopedic style. Thanks pablo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobbaccio (talk • contribs) 11:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Raymond Aaron

An article that you have been involved in editing, Raymond Aaron, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Aaron. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

Hi, thanks again for protecting Total Drama Action. I was wondering if you could protect Dancing with the Stars (U.S. Season 8) please. People keep unofficially pairing professionals with celebrities. Thanks- TDI19 (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Seems like very few people are watching the page, and it's getting a lot of traffic, so I've semi'd it for a month. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much!!!- TDI19 (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing with the stars U.S. season 8 protection.....

Umm, I'm actually kind of glad you semi-protected the dwts season 8 page, but I'm confused. It says in the wiki policy that semi-protected pages can only be edited by users who have autoconfirmed their accounts. Well, uhh, I autoconfirmed my account, and I still can't edit the page when logged in. Explanation? Help? Thanks

Mallory, onesmallnote —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onesmallnote (talk • contribs) 01:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit* I think you could actually remove the protection now that the pairs have come out officially. That was the only vandalism happening, so it will probably stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onesmallnote (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. See Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed users for more information. Autoconfirmed is an automatic user group attained after 4 days of registration and 10 edits. As for the protection, I'll keep an eye, look at it again, and possibly unprotect it this evening. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My main concern is that now the real list of pairs is out, and the wrong information is up, and obviously I can't fix it. That was all. Thanks for your time :) 17:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onesmallnote (talk • contribs)

Vandal

I've just reverted several vandal edits for contribs 195.194.86.166 (a school). I don't know the procedures, so I'm hoping you will deal with it appropriately. Thanks. --Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done schoolblocked for one year. After the recent activity, it's clear the vandalism has quickly returned. For reference, the venue is Wikipedia:AIV. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advise

Hi Peter. I have a bit of a problem. this edit concerns me. I admit that I have the Larry Sanger page in my watch list, and I have contributed greatly to the talk page. I came across the whole thing back in mid-January through an RfC, and attempted to make changes around the 15th of January, but I'm getting bogged down in my own thoughts here. Anyway - the issue that I have a problem with is that QuackGuru insists that the following be included as such (even though another editor attempted to include the information in a more rational manner)

(from article) While Citizendium is wiki-based, several aspects set it apart from Wikipedia:

Prospective contributors are required to apply for membership under their real names.[92][93] Wikipedia consists largely of anonymous editing.[94][95][96]
Experts in their field of expertise have a role in the Citizendium community to produce "approved" work.[80] Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth.[97][98]
Citizendium has a very low tolerance for vandals, trolls, or disruption.[92][99] Wikipedia has been prone to disruption and sometimes misinformation.[100][101][102]

Primarily the statement that "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth" is placed in a comparison that makes it appear to be a fact, rather than what some OP-ED columnist wrote (my thoughts are WP:SYN). (end paste)

The whole issue has been through 3O, RfC, and WP:WQA recently, and nothing has been accomplished. I admit, I'm relatively new (mid-Nov.), so I am open to suggestions. The editor (QuackGuru) has been around for quite some time, and due to his block log, I would imagine he/she is familiar to many editors. I honestly believe that his/her edits to the article are degrading the quality of the article. Since this is not only a BLP, but a BLP of a founding member (exact definition isn't an issue with me) of Wikipedia - I would think that the article would be important.

Peter, I respect your opinion here - and if you feel it's best for me to just walk away from the whole thing I will. I think the article is important, and my first instinct was to revert and tag QuackGuru with a vandal notice, but I doubt that would accomplish anything. I would greatly appreciate any advise you could offer on this. — Ched (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into it now; will comment soon. At first glance I agree with you. The edits don't appear to have much relevance to the article anyway, aside from the unencyclopedic style of prose. The edit was undone by the time I returned, which suggests the issue could be resolved, but there appears to be a slow edit-war developing on that article...If I recall correctly, I protected it [edit:sysop] once before, but I might be mistaken. I'll keep a close eye on it, but from what I can see, your method would've been correct (though a personalised note rather than a template might serve better. Possibly not, but you never know). Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Peter, I appreciate you taking the time. Hopefully it will all work out in the wash. ;) — Ched (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind coming back to the R Aaron party?

I have been trying to advise him and finding that there is a disconnect between my advice, which he says he is grateful for, and his actions. He is currently ojn a roll editing references into the article in what looks like a flurry of desperation, but without checking the end product, and seems not to be aware of the issues. I am taking a pace back form this because it is actually heart rending. You were kind enough to advise him before me, and I hope you can bring fresh eyes!

At the end we may well have a salvageable article, and a lot of that will be down to him, but... HELP! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. PeterSymonds (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian vibist

Hello Peter,

Can you help me? I would like to appear here as a hungarian vibist. Why did you delete my page, copyrights, syntactic errors ... ?

Thanks in advance,

Richard Szaniszlo, vibist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.66.156.52 (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation error

I was going through Let It Be... Naked and I saw that at the end it says "Cite error: ref tags exist, but no references/ tag was found." I have limited citation experience, but I tried a few things to fix it (without saving my changes). I don't understand how to fix this. I've seen it before, and I'd like to know how to handle it. Thank you. Belasted (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm just a fellow Wiki user, and I just had this same problem a few days ago. All you have to do is put < references/> (without the space) at the very bottom of the entire page. :) Onesmallnote (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, please use {{reflist}} in the place of <references/>! :) It looks so much neater. But Onesmallnote is right; the citations can only be pulled when the software recognises a place to list them. Don't worry, it took me a good year to figure that out myself. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Peter, I was just trying to help. From now on, I'll just let you take care of everything! Onesmallnote (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was only joking. :) Stems from my personal distaste for < references/>, because the formatting looks ugly and outdated. I find reflist a lot more manageable, as you can split it ({{reflist|2}}, for example, splits the references into two columns, especially useful for articles with many citations). Smaller text gives more distinction between the text and the references, too, in my personal opinion. I know you were helping, and I wasn't discouraging; I was merely pointing out that reflist is, on the whole, a lot more successful. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, that's really interesting. I'm learning a lot about working on Wiki, so I really should just leave it up to professionals like you. :) Hey, now Belasted has two choices of how to fix it! Haha. Onesmallnote (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It already had the reflist template. So I added < references/ > (without the spaces) after it and it still had the cite error. Belasted (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Moved slightly further down so it captures the rest. The reflist has to be below all the references, or they won't be captured. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the help. I also just used your mention of reflist|2 to split the reflist int he Ben Folds article. Thanks again. Belasted (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User page vandalism

Thanks for the fixes. --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re NPOV/FAQ

Peter - I don't want to get in a squabble over this on the talk page, but it probably would have been better to add the 'under discussion' tag and leave the 'policy' tag off. there's just too much aggravation over this page for it to pretend to the kind of consensus that policy is supposed to have. just my two cents, and my apologies if I dropped you into the middle of a quagmire. --Ludwigs2 02:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that the policy tag was to stay if the under discussion tag was attached. At least, that's what I've seen in past precedent. Further, no, it's not your fault; I was just looking at things with an uninvolved eye, so I only looked at consensus on that page. I'll keep watching the discussion though. Hope there's a satisfactory conclusion. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is only now in its second day, and no real attempts have been made to get broad input. It seems premature. The editors attached it to a thread that had last been commented on a few months ago, which gives the impression of a lengthy debate, but this particular discussion is very recently started. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I'm beginning to see this is being discussed in other places, too, and the whole thing isn't as simple as I originally thought it was. I'll stay out of it from now on, but will follow the discussion with interest. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Hi Peter, thanks for the ACC, and I'll make sure I read through everything before I actually do anything. ;). By the way, don't you ever sleep? .. lol. .. I see that admin Moni3 has been working with an editor I had questions about recently. That's great! I tried, I really did, and I think the talk page does reflect that, but the important thing is the article seems to have settled down for now (thank goodness).

While I'm here - I've seen several editors mention "gwarp", but I can't find info on it. What is a gwarp or gwarping? — Ched (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I sleep. :p Most nights I'm up late for university assignments (I'm on a history course, so it's 90% reading and 10% anything else!). While I'm busy I generally poke my watchlist to see if anything interesting comes up. Yes, the situation seemed awkward, but it seems to be relatively resolved. I was going to comment again but I don't think my further input is needed for now.

Grawp (User:Grawp) is a banned user (formerly by the name of User:JarlaxleArtemis) who has some sour grapes about the project. His trademark is page move vandalism to variations of "HAGGER??" (see my move log, for example, linked on my user page). Also attacks on other editors is frequent (example). We know who he is, but we can't stop him, because he uses many open proxies to connect. Sigh. Hopefully he'll get bored one day. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh ... OK ... sounds like that Willie on Wheels thing I read about a while back. gotcha! thx :) — Ched (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection on Computer Virus

Hi. Are you sure this edit was the right thing to do? Looking back at the previous few edits, I noticed that 1nt2 (talk · contribs) replaced the previous {{pp-semi-indef}} template with a {{editprotected}} template, and the page logs suggest the page is still under semi-protection. Astronaut (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The {{editprotected}} template is used on talk pages to flag an administrator to edit a fully-protected page (see Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests). I'll replace the {{pp-semi}} now. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fielding

I have finally finished the prep work for Fielding. Here is a list of things I need you and NuclearWarfare to complete. If there are any questions about individual sections, missing info, etc, just contact me and I will provide the bulk. I basically need help with all the formatting. Right now, I am keeping everything on one page (the individual plays sections right now). Wikilinks, leads, summaries (for the "early plays" page) and formatting are the primary concerns. Any work is a help, and remember, this will be 15 pages (plus one more about the 1733 Actor's Rebellion, which I will put together tomorrow). Thanks and sorry for the delay. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trout slap - Rollback issues

Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example

Whack!

The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.

To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

The IRC cabal has discovered that you have given a user, rollback, when they aren't yet autocomfirmed. Please accept this slap as way of thanks. ;) Thankyou, Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 04:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC) with CWii's approval CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it doesn't happen that often, but it's been known. The only thing I really look for is experience with vandal-fighting and a reasonable number of edits, as that's only what rollback is really for. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter

23:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Reggaeton

Hi, I was curious about your putting only semiprotection on Reggaeton, given that one of the edit warriors is a registered user. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missed that one. Upped to full. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

Hi again. I would like to thank you so much with all your help with the Total Drama articles, but it is annoying me that established users are now vandalizing it and using it for personal predictions, and I do not know what we should do about it. I was also wondering if I could be a rollback. I am really responsible, and want to keep Wikipedia clean and informative, and I think I will do a great job as one. Thanks again for everything!!!- TDI19 (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bachelor (Season 13) vandalism

Hey Peter,

The Bachelor Season 13 is getting closer and closer to the season finale and people keep vandalizing the page. Is there any way you could semi-protect it? I'd really appreciate it. It's getting tiring to keep deleting the same vandalism over and over again. Onesmallnote (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block on Koskidzrules1

Hey. As I noticed you were the blocking administrator in this recent sockpuppet case, I have to come to you. This is kind of embarassing since I'm the one who filed both the SPI and a few different ANI threads...

The Checkuser came back saying that LGOutcast =/= Lizard1000. However, Lizard1000 was blocked as a sock of LGOutcast per the duck test [4]. Now he's been cleared by CheckUser. Lizard1000 and Koskidzrules1 were the same person, but if Lizard1000's block was wrong, what does that mean for the guy?

I'm not at all sure where to proceed from here, but I wanted to bring all this to your attention. McJeff (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Yeah I could see where the duck test was coming from, but as Lizard1000 turned out to be a sock puppet anyway, I'm not too worried about his block. What I will do is re-block the user with a note about the checkuser findings. I think that's the only thing to do at this stage. Don't feel embarrassed; you did the right thing. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Talent Support

Dear Peter I posted a comment on your ban on International Talent Support and I would like to know if it would be possible to create the International Talent Support voice again in a more informative way. If you think it is worth I can submit the content to you first to check if it can be interesting for wikipedia users. Any suggestion is welcome thanks pablo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobbaccio (talk • contribs) 11:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 61 support, 3 oppose, and 1 neutral

Cheers! Nja²⁴⁷ 19:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Airport

Hi - can you protect the Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport article again? You had done so previously, and now that the prttection's expired, the IP user is up to the same tricks again. Thanks! Jasepl (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request modification of {{val}}

Hey Peter,

You've protected {{val}}, which I created and still continue to develop. I have a change that's needed to fix an alignment issue (see Template_talk:Val#Uncertainties_alignment_.28in_the_.2B_x_-_y_case.29. for details). Is it possible to grant me write-access to this template? If not, can you make the modification as specified on the talk page for me?

— SkyLined {^talk_contribs 19:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the changes have been applied - please re-protect until a more permanent solution has been found. — SkyLined {^talk_contribs 15:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WOW

That didn't take long. :). Dloh cierekim 21:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, I happened to see it pop up. Should we fear his début return? ...I think not. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==Belated hooray

I only just spotted that you got the mop back and am very glad to hear it. Had I seen your RfA I'd have supported, but looks like you had no shortage. Congrats and best wishes, Ka renjc 21:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohai

		The ARCHIVE UR TALK PAGE barnstar
		ARCHIVE UR TALK PAGE. Kthxbai. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh very well. :) I used to be quite diligent at archiving, but my archive system needs an overhaul as it is. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep your archives neat, I suggest you insert the following code to the top of your talk page. This will allow MiszaBot III to archive your talk page as it gets overcrowded with old discussions. Considering you're an admin, I'd assume you'd know. After "maxarchivesize", you can specify how much space the archive should hold and should not exceed. "counter" is a variable that determines the number of the archive to archive to. If counter is 27, then archives will be sent to User:PeterSymonds/Archive 27. For the pharentheses following old, you can specify how old discussions should be before they are archived. In this example, it is 31 days. And of course, the archive parameter tells MiszaBot III which page to archive to. If the maxarchivesize is reached, the counter should go up by 1. Therefore, after Archive 27 is full later archives will go to Archive 28, and so on. Here is an example of the code:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 50K
|counter = 27
|algo = old(31d)
|archive = User:PeterSymonds/Archive %(counter)d
}}

For more info on this template, see User:MiszaBot/config. This is a simple use of the template, but it works for my talk page. Feel free to add the optional parameters and variables available to customize the template for your own use.--Al max 999 03:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I'll give it a try. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AresAndEnyo RFA

Doesn't that fact that I had one support from an independant wikipedia entry make it hard to justify using WP:SNOW. I was answering complaints and they never had a chance to respond. I thought my RFA was legitement and while was a though battle I wouldn't say it had no chance in hell of getting through. Such a decision seemed arbitary. I would encourage you to reconsider if that is at all possible or at least respond to me. --AresAndEnyo (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly entitled to ask me to re-open the request, and I will do so if you insist. However, it would probably not be in your best interests. Nevertheless, I cannot overrule a candidate's wish, but a bureaucrat may withdraw it at any time. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to endorse PeterSymonds' decision. Unfortunately, it was highly unlikely that the request would succeed. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Peter, too. --Kanonkas : Talk 19:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine but I find that my proposal was very similar to that of user pyfan at the moment who is gaining much support. He only had 50 or so more edits than me and I have been a user for a longer time than he has. As I saw it my lack of edits was the main reason for the lack of support. That and misunderstanding of my description. If I started a request for adminship with some a more carefully worded description that better represents the point I was trying to put across would you be opposed to that. Instead of pushing ahead to get my rfa relisted which I probably wouldn't do. I don't exactly understand why people thought I was personally attacking people or any of that. --AresAndEnyo (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to see how different RfAs attract different responses depending on the start. However, I'm pretty sure it'll be withdrawn one way or the other within the next 24 hours. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Rock protection

Peter - Thank you! However, the sock had removed the text moments before your protection - if I revert the page, will that remove the protection? Eagle Rock, Los Angeles, California Or do you need to do the reversion, and then re-protect the page? Thanks in advance. Timmccloud (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! that was quick! Timmccloud (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Fixed, thanks. The protection logs as an edit but can't actually be reverted. So it would be like undoing the top edit. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted by PeterSymonds

[5] Patton^t/c 00:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought you always took on the "tough ones" <*snicker, snicker*> — Ched (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the [redacted by PeterSymonds]? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: the inside scoop. I had researched that one some. Little eager, but seems to have come a long way for a young editor (or am I wrong?). At least now I understand the redacted thing .. LOL. — Ched (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC) (and thank you - I really appreciate being let in on the inside stuff - can be hard to do in such a public forum)[reply]

Heh, no problem. :) Young editor? Myself? Age or experience? I wouldn't call myself "young" in either. :( PeterSymonds (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You? ... no, no, no .. I was talking about the editor in the change line of that diff you linked me to. Not you - it's quite obvious that you're not a "young editor". He'll probably be up for RfA before long, very active and eager. I read his apology too, and thought "he's come a long way". Before my time, he edited under a different name, had already been through a couple RfA attempts and all.

To be perfectly blunt Peter, I have yet to understand the fuss that caused your page either. Everything I ever read seemed to indicate that it was the person who used the tools poorly was the one who needed the admonishment. I've read a lot of your work, and consider you second only to Huntster in the "cream of the crop" when it comes to admins. In fact, I think your RfA may have been the first one that I got brave enough to actually post in. I hadn't actually thought about physical age, but I'm over 50 - and I wouldn't be surprised to hear you were closer to my age than the 20-something group of current admins. If I'm wrong, it's only because your wisdom, and ability to remain objective belies your true age. — Ched (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

forgot my sig. lol — Ched (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very close; I'm 19. Which I suppose is young in the grand scheme of things, but Wikipedia is one of those great places which allows and attracts a large portion of under 18s as well, and many minors interact with adults in a way that could (probably) never be achieved in real life. In fact, some of our fine admins are between 12 and 16, but their attitudes and behaviour show the maturity of someone in their 20s or 30s.

Well the incident was all very much my fault as well. The non-admin user who used two admin accounts was later banned by the arbitration committee for a period of six months. There were a number of serious issues, including the fact that a admin account was used by a non-admin; the fact that being an administrator is about showing good judgement, and what I did was a severe lapse of judgement; and as someone on the RfA said, the admin tools are granted per-user on a trust basis, a trust which I abused. But that said, I tried by best to work my way back into the trust arena, and was amazed by the trust that was given once again. I think the issue is more-or-less in the past, so it's a matter of preventing a similar incident from happening again. I can't foresee any issue that would be that bad, so I don't have much of a fear.

Thank you also for your kind words. :) I try to be the best admin I can, but we're all human. I haven't blocked myself yet, or moved AN...Give it time! ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Well, all water under the bridge now. ;).. and when I see some kids hangin out at the mall, saggin pants, dopin' it up, and I start to worry for my grandkids future - I can come here, and see what great gifts, hard work, and tremendous thought also comes from the young generation - and I don't worry quite so much anymore. Keep up the good work ;) — Ched (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J.delanoy and Thingg did that? ... LMFAO, (bookmarked! - /* snicker snicker */) — Ched (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and when neuro does go for another RfA - I will vote in support. (and that's a young editor ... lol) — Ched (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tips to aquire rollback rights

After being denied 2 times, could to help me with some tips to acquire rollback rights?--Vinni3 (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on how to gain rollback is a rather difficult question. I suppose my best advice would be to revert correctly and slowly, read Wikipedia:Rollback feature fully, and re-apply a week or two after you originally applied. That should be sufficient. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homeboy99 & David Suzuki vandalism

Hello, I note in the conclusion to the Homeboy99 sockpuppet case you report that all have been blocked. However, it would appear that Homeboy100 (talk · contribs), has somehow been overlooked. The user has continued to vandalize the David Suzuki article [6][7], introducing the very same unreferenced claims as in the past. Thanks for looking into this. Victoriagirl (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to trouble you again about this, but the vandalism by Homeboy100 continues (seven edits in the last 24 hours). Am I not correct in thinking that this user is supposed to be covered by the blocks at the conclusion to the Homeboy99 sockpuppet case? Thanks. Victoriagirl (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry. Done. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppo212 sock puppet

Hi, i'm contacting you concerning this:

[8]

The sock puppet that was blocked today (February 21) has returned yet again, has self-identified as a new incarnation of a blocked ID, and has left some very interesting comments, including a question for Wikipedia administrators. Here are excerpts:

I would like to pose this phenomena to Wiki administrators for an answer. If edits are intelligent and cited and objective where is the issue? [...]

There are many people associated with this company all of whom could be editing at any given time from the same IP address but unknown to one another. I am reluctant to police my offices asking who may be doing what [...]

I will refrain from editing if talk pages are the vote but will edit if entries are disrespectful misrepresentations or cobbled fabrications with a POV agenda.

[9]

This sounds as if the sock puppeteer is a high officer in the company (the Burke Group). After months of interaction with several incarnations of this individual, that would not surprise me at all.

And, the new sock puppet expresses the intent to ignore the block by using the new identity to edit.

I think it may be time for an administrator's intervention beyond blocking for sock puppetry. I'm not sure how that should come about, but this individual seems to consider many other editors to be ideological enemies, so a resolution may require some sort of escalation.

thanks very much, Richard Myers (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter

21:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 21:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rollback access

Peter,

Thanks for your prompt reply for my request for rollback permissions. I will take your advice and work at it for a few more weeks. My main reason for the request is that I am currently using a tool WikiGuard which is for OS X to catch and undo vandalism, wanted to start doing some work from my PC, but the only tool that seams to be worth it is Huggle, but I will keep it up. I have been running a deployment of MediaWiki for a large company for a while now (it is amazing how much vandalism can be caused in a company) It is nice to start "sinking my teeth" in on a much larger base of information, and users.
--Djcam (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revisit my decision tomorrow and perhaps rethink it tomorrow. You've been doing good work so far and rollback is no big deal. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for revisiting this, this does make evetything easer, and I will be sure to be careful.--Djcam (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of a deleted page

Thanks for deleting Charm School Gives Back. It has been recreated in the past few minutes, then blanked, then tagged, then blanked, ... Also, what is the policy for a user keeping a copy of the page as his/her own userpage User: Charm School Gives Back? I thought that this was one of the things a userpage was not supposed to be used for (i.e., instead use a sandbox). Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G4 is applicable to userspace too. I'll look into it. In the meantime, the article has been re-deleted. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests

In the interest of saving time, maybe the unblock request template could have a top-ten excuses checklist for vandals and socks who deny wrongdoing. Some possible entries they could select from:

It wasn't me, I swear; I don't know how this could have happened.
Evil roommate.
Evil relative.
I've found the Lord, and won't ever do it again. And this time, I really mean it.
Multiple-personality disorder - my own evil side took control. (Actually, that' my excuse. >:)
Someone broke into my house and used wikipedia while I was bound and gagged.
You have to prove it to me - Explain to me how checkuser works. [For real, that was an attempted ploy by Tecmobowl]

Maybe I'll pose this idea on WP:ANI. Or maybe NOT. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, interesting...I'll keep it in mind? :) PeterSymonds (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- My cat walked across the keyboard and stepped on the enter key - I wasn't really gonna post that. (actually, I'm saving that one for one of my future lapses in judgment .. lol) — Ched (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I'll keep an eye out for that one! ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, it could be a useful addition to one's user page. I thought of another one: "My doppelganger from a parallel universe briefly breached the time-space continuum and used my computer for vandalism, while I used his for useful edits in the other universe, and they thought for a fleeting minute that he had reformed." That one might strain credulity. Unlike the other ones. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If that one ever comes up, I'll be sure to give it the consideration it deserves. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STUB! STUB! Best Wikipedia excuses for warned/blocked/banned users to use — Ched (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of issues there. One: The lack of spacing would tell the MediaWiki software to register "blocked" and "banned" as subpages of "Best Wikipedia excuses for warned". Two: Subpages are discouraged in the mainspace. Three: Epic violation of WP:BEANS and WP:CREEP. ;) Who said this wiki isn't a bureaucracy? PeterSymonds (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←LMFAO ??? <*searchin for reply *> I got nothin — Ched (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And just today, here's an indef-blocked user that wants someone to tell him how to evade checkuser in the future: [10] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I see that you are deleting CSD images. I tagged a great many this night, so if you have any questions or issues feel free to leave me a message. Hopefully I wasn't so tired that I did anything stupid... Have a good day! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 11:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. :) They look fine so far. Good work! Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my image from Wikipedia

What exactly do I need to do to put the image from Robert Owen's website on his Wikipedia page. I have permission from him to place it on Wikipedia.

SOURCE: http://owens2008.com/home/about-robert/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Owens —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitacore (talk • contribs) 15:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:OTRS for more information. The owner should contact Wikipedia to indicate they have given the license, because copyright is taken very seriously. We simply cannot rely on your word for it, even though I have no doubts you're being honest. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my image from Wikipedia

What exactly do I need to do to put the image from Robert Owen's website on his Wikipedia page. I have permission from him to place it on Wikipedia.

SOURCE: http://owens2008.com/home/about-robert/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Owens —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitacore (talk • contribs) 15:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:OTRS for more information. The owner should contact Wikipedia to indicate they have given the license, because copyright is taken very seriously. We simply cannot rely on your word for it, even though I have no doubts you're being honest. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I hate to trouble you, but I'm in a bit of a rush. I can't remember where to go to suggest someone be blocked. But this editor has had their last warning, and continues to vandalize: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jigsaw1819 Thank you.

He's already been blocked, but for future reference, see WP:AIV. :) Thanks for the report. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject... Is there a template or something to use to tell editors to stop vandalizing, etc.? Are they restricted to administrators? Sorry, I am a constructive editor, but I have trouble with all the little things, I can't read everything under the sun. Belasted (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do indeed. See WP:UTM for a full list. Alternatively, there's a tool for firefox called Twinkle, which is a slightly easier and more automated way to warn vandals and/or report them to AIV. It has other functionalities listed on that page too. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

article

would you take a look at the graphic on Solar power in Romania. At first I thought it was a prank cause it just looks like a fish - but I don't know. thanks — Ched (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

never mind ... I found this on the Romania page - must be time for me to take a break. ;)— Ched (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering how do you apply to become a rollback. Thanks- TDI19 (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done (for future reference, see WP:PERM). Enjoy! Please remember to use it for vandalism only. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shakira

Thank you for the semi-protection. Her article needed it. :) Acalamari 19:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette Morehouse entry

Hi Peter,

We've noticed your comments in the discussion page on the Lafayette Morehouse wikipedia entry, and wondered if you could give us some advice. We are members of the community that is discussed on that page - we've created Wikipedia user accounts that disclose our status so that our "conflict of interest" is public.

The entry about our community was written by others - largely by Zoticogrillo who identifies himself as not a member of our community. Although the article is overall positive, it contains a very large number of errors both favorable and critical. We would like to revise it in a wholesale fashion to correct those, and to try and do this in a balanced fashion. Not all of the subject matter under discussion has secondary / citable sources, so we are unsure how to document each point, the one scholarly paper published about the community contains many footnotes of the type "conversations with <person name>, on date" - is this allowable as a reference?

Since wikipedia is a community effort, in a certain sense no one is "in charge" so we aren't sure how to proceed.

We've posted two questions in the discussion page - you'll find a comment from MoreOceana and myself (80guy), no one has responded.

We've read some of the many FAQ - the one about biographies of living persons, the one about "article subjects" (ie the subject of the article is us)

You advice in this matter is appreciated.

Thanks 80Guy --80 Guy (George) (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80 guy (talk • contribs) 02:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smratlik

Smratlik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Good block. The Pioneer Courthouse stuff aside, he was quickly proving to be a contentious user and probably would have been nailed in the near future just for that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the more interesting things he did was to play a variation of the game he tried the last time, the "straw man" game. Note this complaint to Poter99, the previous sock: [11] The user who posted it was Yourmanstan. Smratlik then went out of his way to kiss up to Yourmanstan: [12] That's in contrast to the insults he leveled at everyone else, including his usual complaints about me being rude to him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I have to admit I was doubtful when I came across the case yesterday. The behaviour was obviously similar but the technical difference (as explained to me by checkuser Coren) was sufficiently great for the case to be marked inconclusive. However, when that happens, the behaviour must be taken into account, and in this case, they quacked rather loudly. So I decided to go with my gut on this one. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He can always request an unblock, if he cares to. Then he'll have some 'splainin' to do as regards his general behavior. If the case were still open, I would probably add the game-playing about Yourmanstan. Ironically, one of Oregon's symbols is the duck. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, as is typical for socks, they always return to the "scene of the crime" and give themselves away pretty quickly, assuming they even care about whether they get caught or not. But if they do, it becomes more difficult each time, as their pattern becomes better documented. Some alert user caught on to both him and his previous sock editing the marriage license article. Without that factor, it would have been more difficult to pin him down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks so much for tossing me the rollback feature. Not sure how I got nominated, but I greatly appreciate it. Going to give Huggle a shot so hopefully I can be of even more help. Thanks again! Gnowor (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. :) I'd seen your edits and when I looked further, it was clear you had a need for the tool. Good luck and thanks for your work, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]