I don't edit Wikipedia very often, and I was given a warning from you for editing a page on Robbie Savage, but I certainly did not vandalise it, and I edited it with intentions to try and improve it. I apologise for any misunderstandings, but I really edited it with the best intentions, and since I don't edit Wikipedia articles very often, I'm not entirely clear on the rules of editing a page. 213.40.140.11820:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about your message to Jimbo: I posted a message to his talk page less than two weeks ago regarding a reporter; Mr. Wales settled my situation easily, and even posted a message to my talk page (a message which can be viewed on my userpage too). Acalamari23:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your question about opening an RfC, it looks like more than one person has asked him about it, so feel free to go ahead. ShadowHalo21:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I can see why they were blocked, but the use of .com in itself is not explicitly forbidden in WP:USERNAME. It is only forbidden if it promotes a company or a website, and I don't think that's the case here. It could be an idea to bring it up neutrally at WP:RFC/NAME for review. AecisBrievenbus23:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your good work, especially with this stuff involving betacommand, the RFC and WP:RFCN. This has been a fairly intense situation and i think you did what you felt was the proper course of action! YOu had only wikipdia and the fellow editors in mind and i understand that! Dont let the pressure get to you, you are doing a great job. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)00:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, this username thing with Betacommand has been going on for months. It has been raised with him before but he just continues on his merry way. [1]. I share your hope that he learns, but I'm not convinced that this time is going to be any different. Sarah06:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I was unaware it had been going on for so long. However, with the RfC being filed (even though it was subsequently removed) I think betacommand understands the seriousness of the issue. There will be plenty of people looking out for it now though, so if the problem persists further, it can be sorted RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter07:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A mop, hmm? I use my vacuum cleaner for a coat rack already. God knows what non-standard purpose I might find for a mop. Alphachimp has also recommended I accept a nomination for admin. I'm interested, but I need to read more about it. I also need another few weeks (or months) to practice (apply) these new skills. I've been working on them for the last few weeks, and I've really noticed a difference. To wit: "bugger off you silly twit" has now been replaced with "See also WP:V and WP:RS for more information about appropriate sources." Yesterday I found myself correcting an AfD comment I'd added so that it conformed to WP:AGF. This only required I change one or two words, but I could really see the difference in tone. The point is, Wikipedia doesn't need another rouge admin, and it's going to take me a bit more time to sort out all the acronyms. I'm actively working on it, though. And thanks for the vote of confidence. I really appreciate it. Rklawton02:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional parameter in the "usernameblock" ("unb") template
What isn't documented at {{usernameblock}}, and should be (but I can't edit it to do so, it's protected) is that the template takes an optional parameter. {{usernameblock|reason for block}}, or even {{unb|reason for block}}, will replace the rest of the sentence following "blocked indefinitely because", up to the parenthetical "(see our blocking and username policies for more information)", with your own specific reason for the block.
That is, the boilerplate text -- ..."it may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, or is otherwise inappropriate"... -- goes away and is replaced by your own text.
If you enter: {{unb|"Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales"}} you get:
Your username has been blocked indefinitely because "Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales" (see our blocking and username policies for more information).
(and the rest of the template stays the same)
Please pass the word. For blocking admins to consistently use that feature would certainly cut down on our head-scratching at WP:RFCN over "Why was this name blocked?" -- Ben05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as a checkuser clerk, I should be careful to avoid commenting directly on the merit or lack thereof in a particular case (doubly so when I haven't checked to see if I've clerked on the case in question, just yet), but you're certainly as welcome as anyone to submit a request and see if the checkusers will run a check on it. – Luna Santin (talk)06:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I might ask, any idea why Estuary put up an {{indefblockeduser}} template on my pages? I ask because you removed it. Was this just vandalism or something? Adam Cuerdentalk22:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As his only contribs were to add {{indefblockeduser}} to other users, I'm guessing he must be either an IP user who has created an account or a sockpuppet of another user that you have reverted or warned in the past! I gave him a warning and he vandalised my page! RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness you were not targeted by an impostor :P. Unblocking the account is ok I guess since you verified it is yours. However, Wikipedia has a doppelganger policy that you might want to read through first before making any contributions under that account. Next time I recommend that you try making a doppelganger without spoofing your name. Usually you have less issues when editing with it due to it not resembling any editor and would less likely be mistaken for a false imposter.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk)02:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The recent edits by 68.127.37.6 on Interstate 630 have been rather disruptive and, as I see it, vandalism. I wouldn't have thought much of it the first time (detailed below) as I assumed a good-faith edit gone bad, but as of this second time, and after reading his talk page, I'm concerned and feel that action should be taken. Your thoughts? For all intensive purposes, I've copied this to User:Rschen7754.
First occuranceSecond occurance
Cheers, --MPDT / C04:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
about 2-3 weeks ago there was a cordnated vandal attack. most had qwerty in the username, those accounts were sleeper cells that were created over several months. this is about the time when autoblocks and AC would have worn off, That is why I blocked. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, and thanks for the reminder. Every couple of months I get an urge to do new username patrol (so to speak); that's not frequent enough, unfortunately, to have ingrained that I should also notify the user involved when I find a possible problem. I'll try to do better next time. -- John Broughton(♫♫)15:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, Chrislk02, award you this barnstar of dilligence for your hard work at WP:RFCN. You always make sure that the editor in question has been notified, remain involved in the discussion, and add considerable value to the process. Your hard work is much appreciated and does not go unnoticed! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)17:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm - nothing seems obviously wrong with this username. If not obvious need to give a good reason when speedy closing the discussion? Cheers Lethaniol21:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh of course - thanks for the explanation. Suggestion in future that even if it is a speedy delete an explanation is given in the edit summary so people who are not in the know, know. Cheers Lethaniol21:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know when my next contrib will be, and I don't need any help, but thank you for asking. Please sign my signature book, and if your impressed with how much I know about pi, click here, take the test, and tell me your score there. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz23:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user may earn a vandalism block, but that doesn't mean the name is bad. Bonnie Kim could come here with the same name (without the numbers) and make good edits, yet if this guy got a username block then likely she'd get blocked as well. Let's not stretch to find every conceivable bad meaning to names. That's too easy, and not really fair. -- Ben21:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to find the disputed name that you trialled on RFCN. Which one was it? To jog your memory, the conversation where the name was mentioned is below. Thanks :) --SeansPotato Business19:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed users who you have posted on AIV for there userames, as one hasn't eve edited yet, and the other not for 3 years. The general cosensus is to not report to AIV unless they are editing, you really don't need to go through listuser and dig out every name RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter19:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply! I was just doing some research before voting for Jesse's RfA and have been trying to get an idea of their understanding of policy. Seems a little shaky but they tend to respond well enough after a little discussion. I'm unconvinced re: the whole username issue. On the one hand, you seem like you at least ought to know what you're talking about (I can't be bothered to research into histories of people that interact with the people I'm researching!!) but on the other hand some people did vote for block despite not being used logins. I'm gonna lean toward 'support' I think, in spite of his recent removal of red links.
Thanks again! It's actually the first time I've bothered with RfA for a long time (the actual first being when I was asked by someone). I figure that if it's gonna work, people need to look into it properly or otherwise better not bother. In the end, I wound up on neutral. Pretty pointless! The disadvantage of my thorough checking is, after trouble of voting for that one candidate I don't feel like going through it again for another - not for now anyway.
I prefer to contribute to the Mainspace and the only reason I'm looking under the hood (I should say bonnet I suppose but I'm being subverted by all the American media) of late, is 'cause of my concern regarding vandalism. I figure I could stand a better chance of making a difference if I understood how the politics worked.
I do wonder how someone can do a degree and be so heavily involved in WikiWhatNot! My idea is that if I concentrate on my area of study (not a student until September but can't hurt esp. since I havn't been interviewed for my preferred uni. yet) then I'm helping Wikipedia and I'm helping me, all at the same time. Maybe editing pharmacology articles would satisfy some of your WikiUrges? --SeansPotato Business23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd like to see these names banned by WP:U, I really wish we could get our proposal in to limit usernames to a certain number of characters - it would by far decrease the ambiguity and there would still be the fall back of apparently random letters. It would be easily to police as well - names would be banned upon creation if they were above a certain length. I'm taking this name to be islamic, and most muslims would simply call themselves User:Abu al-Makhiri so I don't understand the need for usernames to be this long. Whats your opinion on these names? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter00:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on the policy talk page...that I feel we need to come to agreement on what "extremely" means. I really don't care how long, personally. It could be 50 characters, for all I care. We just need to not be randomly subjective. --Kukinihablame aqui00:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the article, I remember the DRV, but I only found out that it was you when I found my message in your archives :) I'm glad you didn't decide to leave Wikipedia altogether, because you've learnt a lot about Wikipedia in the few months since. I hate to be modest, but I really don't see how my messages contributed to your decision to stay here. But I don't mind if they have :) AecisBrievenbus00:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was getting a lot of flack because I wanted to post an article that I was "sure" was notable enough for inclusion, and when it was deleted, I thought "sod it", why should I carry on, but when you posted on my talk page explaining things, I realised that there must be policies involved in what is notable for inclusion and hence I investigated! I'm still here now, and truly loving being on wikipedia, and thanks to you, I also welcome a lot of newbies, even when giving warnings, so that they might decide to stay and contribute appropriatly. However - If I fail my degree because of wikipedia I will be holding you personally responsable` ;-) RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the opener/closer of this, do you have any objections to it being re-opened? Since the same issue has come up again, it seems appropriate to me. Friday(talk)00:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since it's the same issue, to me it seems better to keep it on one page. I'll take a stab at re-opening it, please help out however you see fit. Thanks! Friday(talk)01:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey -- thanks for the heads up. I can't endorse your summary, though, because I actually didn't semiprotect the page, I took my request to WP:RFP like a normal editor, and it was granted. :) But thanks for the support. Mangojuicetalk21:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your welcome message (no problem,if automatic or not:). I try to contribute more in Turkish Wikipedia; but I obtained username for English wiki, for sometimes adding some edits, photos etc. Take care of yourself... Ryesiloglu17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another one in Jap, claiming "this is not trolling", but in two different languages, it's hard to make one point (that he supposedly abused rights on jpwiki - why Chinese then?)... – Chacor13:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suspected as much, thats why I proposed an indef for all 5 of the accounts that were posting stuff for trolling, harrasment and socks. I asked them for some evidence - basically to put up, or shut up, we havn't heard anything since! You better go and learn Japenese for when they come back! RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter16:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use would be the only way to go. However, it's important to make sure the images meet all the criteria listed under the policy, especially replaceability and decorative use. You could mention to him that releasing under GFDL or CC license don't cause him to lose the copyright on the images, he's just stating how others can use the images. Good luck! --MECU≈talk20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reverting the changes made to Great Neck Village School. The user 209.177.21.6 has been making a bunch of changes to pages they need content deleted. I want to make sure the people in the AFD aren't confused about what the 'correct' version of the article is. I hope that no one is confused during the time the page had most of its content deleted. MrMacMan23:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are never "butting in" to be involved in conversations on my talk page. You are a quality editor and I value your input. Thanks. IrishGuytalk23:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
..."*Disallow As country names go (or province names, depending on your point of view), "Macedonia" is famously controversial.Proabivouac 22:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)" not a new edit? I really don't get why we have to close this controversial issue so fast. Can you please respect five users expressing concern there and wait for the new sober ones to see what they have to say? Thank you. NikoSilver00:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but 2 admins and myself both feel it is a clear cut case and worth closing. Consensus is not simply about vote casting, but value of comments, it seams like you and other editprs that have been against it have personal reason for this, however, this point asside, even if there was no consensus, it would still default to keep, there is no chance that conensus would be to disallow with the comments for allow RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter00:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan is correct. Consensus is not vote casting. It is based on the number and strength of the arguments, especially in the situation based specifically on policy. If you have issue with my decision process on closing this, I will gladly explain why the consensus will not change and show previous situations where, re-opening did nothing but escalate the situation. Ryan, thanks for closing this, it was the correct thing to do., -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said it is votecasting. I still haven't heard a legitimate reason why this username is not "inflammatory", and I have given numerous reasons for that! Again, what's the itch? NikoSilver00:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is consensus, and consensus isn't going to be reached to disallow the username, its not fair to keep a user hanging on as to whether or not their username is going to be blocked or not when the end result is going to be to allow it, I'm sorry that you have reservations about the username, but consensus at WP:RFCN is not going to turn to disallow RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter00:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will you let "consensus" evolve then normally to allow me to see that please? All I see is people blindly reverting a well argued case and I still have no response: "Why is it not inflammatory given my comments?" NikoSilver00:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To remind you:
Name is "Inflammatory": an international dispute that has escalated to the highest possible authority: The United Nations
Name is "Inflammatory": Precedents, all other country names already blocked on account of WP:U.
Discussions: Many admins agreeing to not let any more country-usernames exist.
Misrepresentation: User repeatedly makes userpage as an article. Confusion with article(s) Macedonia. The username is a reason, and WP:U explicitly prohibits that.
Implies authority: Naturally, as a state that it is...
What more do you want? That his every edit is a reason for a block? That his every upload is a reason for a block also? That watching "Macedonia" over and over in watchlists and histories makes you think a whole country edited? A government? Jesus! NikoSilver00:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The concerns that you posted we merely based on the editor in question making POV edits, this is no reason for a username block, if the user makes these edits over a matter of time and post warnings, they can be blocked for that, the name of a country or province isn't offensive, if the username was User:I support the province of Macedonia, this could be seen as inflammatory, however User:Macedonia doesn't, as I said, it simply states a name and no political feeling RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter01:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Tomorrow" will be too late. Please revert yourself and we see until tomorrow what happens, if you let it. If you don't then it won't be able to happen, and I'll seek further action (including rfcs, arbitrations you name it). This is a clear case to me, and another four users agree. It's too early to close it. NikoSilver01:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have warned him that threatening other people to get them to do certain actions is innapropriate. I am sticking by the decision. IF something goes down, I will take the fall for it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, I'm not threatening, I'm merely pointing out that if you don't let it finish, then it will have to continue, and that is additionally lost time for everyone. I apologize if my comment could be misinterpreted as a "threat", but it is actually trying to let you know that it can be settled normally, without us having to re-post all comments. Ryan, you can't seriously suggest that I am in any position to threaten you (or anyone). NikoSilver01:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was a threat, hence, I am leaving this completely, you want this to still be commented on? By all means revert me, its your choice, other editors may decide to close it and I will support their decision, but I personally am not going to revert. I did leave a friendly message on your talk page explaining I was going to bed, this could have simply been sorted tomorrow, RFCN's can be opened at any time RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter02:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed you, but I've been having trouble sending email on here recently, so could you let me know as soon as you receive it? If you ever do... cheers. Majorly(o rly?)00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
