User talk:Scarian/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Scarian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Room Temperature Superconductivity

The claims made on the website superconductors.org are highly spurious and do not appear in any peer-reviewed journal. They should therefore be removed until these claims have been independently verified. I am a scientist working on the synthesis of superconductors at an English university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.42.51 (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Pat for allowing me the edit!! We will wait and see if these materials are verified by other scientists, but until then, the claims must be regarded as dubious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.42.51 (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

KP Brehmer deleted article

sorry to bother you with this. I hope I am at wright place to discuss this. You did not accept my article about KP Brehmer. There is an article about him on the german Wikipedia page. His wonrks are in the collection of Museum of Modern Art New York, Hamburger Kunsthalle, Berlinische Galerie, Davis Museum Boston a.m.. His is internationally established as a famous POP Art and political Art Artist from germany. As you can read he partizipates in important overview exhebitions all over the world. Please revise your decision.84.188.240.34 (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If you could point me to what your article was called I will gladly have another look at his notability. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The article was called KP Brehmer (artist) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Search?ns0=1&search=KP+Brehmer&fulltext=Suche Thank you for your Efforts. 87.160.194.124 (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.218.107 (talk)

Reverted

Quote: The recent edit you made to Induction heating constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. ScarianCall me Pat! 02:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC).

I think the picture I deleted out of this article is promotional content. Promotional content is not allowed.

Thank you.

I shall take a look again, friend. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 02:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: reverted.

On that picture you can see big red letters saying "Plus Therm". This is most definitely promotional. Infact on Wikimedia Common "File:Plustherm induction heater.jpg" is a link that directly takes you to the commercial website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plustherm_induction_heater.jpg

No offense. I try to help.

Okay, that's great. Well spotted. But that's not such a big deal on Wikipedia. The link on Commons just tells us where it came from (for copyright purposes etc.). There are many more pictures like that one on Wikipedia. It'd be incredibly difficult to find a picture for a heater that didn't have a logo on it. Another point is that it's been around since 2005, which is a long time, don't you think someone else would've removed it by then? :-) See WP:IMAGE for further info. Don't hesitate to message me again if you need any help; I'll leave a welcome template below for you, it contains all sorts of helpful info for you. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 02:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

Signature

Thanks a bunch... --Candy156sweet (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Quid Pro Quo

Help me out with this problem, and I'll gladly expand on my Oppose on E-man's RFA. I believe I am dealing with a sock-puppeteer on the Anderson Cooper talk page. The debate is over Cooper's sexuality, and how things are phrased in the article. If there weren't BLP issues at stake, I wouldn't care, but I believe a user is using a sock to tilt the consensus on what to add/delete to the article. The original user is TVC15, and the alleged sock is Elphie13, who has zero contributions outside of the Anderson Cooper talk page. It's my understanding that only an Admin can initiate this sort of investigation. The tone, wording, and stance of the users are very similar. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My question

Here was a serious one, and I don't appreciate your assumption of bad faith. Enigmaman has indicated that the "best [he] can do is promise and assure you that [he] will not edit from IPs again in the future", (which is not necessarily a problem, it's using the IP to be deceptive or make inappropriate edits that is the problem) but has not indicated why or why not the edits and editing when he is "not himself" are "wrong". My question sought to clarify what he considered his "mistake"; his answer to my previous question specifically indicated that he considered the mistake to be a lapse in judgment. If you considered the question inappropriate, the correct response would have been to talk to me about it, rather that removing it with a hypocritically condescending edit summary. I have rephrased the question so that it doesn't (understandably) read as an insult. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies Seresin. You're right, I did interpret it to be an insult, and I apologise for not assuming good faith. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 03:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Chuggington deleted article

Hi,

You recently deleted an article about the Children's TV programme Chuggington on grounds of non-notability (web content). This programme is a regular in the schedules of the BBC Cbeebies channel, and therefore meets the notability requirements as a TV programme, not as a website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/chuggington/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/whatson/?Tuesday

Please could you revert this deletion, therefore, so that the article can be edited to bring it in line with other articles related to BBC Children's TB programmes.

MarkSG (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I replied to your note on my regular talk page

Thanks for your thoughts. when your not busy... the falsifier. 156.34.215.249 (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

David Morgan (art historian)

Dear Scarian, My name is Larissa and i am a Visual Culture researcher. As you already noticed, i have been trying to create a page David Morgan (art historian). I have followed all your instruction and the page was deleted anyway. David Morgan is already quoted in the page Visual Culture.He is one of the most important scholar in Visual Culture in activity. I tried to add (at least) one of his book,and this information was deleted too... i tried to post a external link to some interview, and it was deleted as well. Well, i wasn´t the one who quoted David Morgan in this page and i just have been trying to help this colaborative environment. It seems that everything i post is being deleted without any previous checking. As i am his friend (David Morgan), i asked him for his help. And the situation was absolutelly weird! You don´t believe in the author itself! So, i still would like to improve the Visual Culture page. Do you can help me? My best regards Larissa Grau (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Larissa Grau

Unless you can show us real permission from the copyright owner, we cannot allow you to post copyrighted material on Wikipedia. If you want to have an article on the man, you'll have to write it without plagiarizing. See Wikipedia:Your first article, for assistance. Enigma^msg 21:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you had read the last version, you would have realized that it was completelly different... and even before, i had poste the reference...

But what about the book reference and the link at the Visual Culture? Is it forbidden as well? Larissa Grau (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Larissa Grau (my name, not a avatar)

Unblocking

Just a note - unblocking procedure is that an unblocking admin should discuss with the blocking admin before unblocking. I know this is a unique situation, but could you please show that you are willing to discuss the matter with Bishonen so that this does not escalate via potential wheel problems? If you are doing so already, please ignore this. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got this image of you trying to post to the noticeboard thread, and getting edit conflicted all over the place! - you should probably make sure to chat with Bish, and post at the noticeboard too :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I know the deal, Ottava and I had many EC's :-) - Thanks. And cheers PM. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 21:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Heyo

BBHS? The Real Libs-speak politely 18:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The likely IP of the above user The Real Libs-speak politely 18:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Claims to be Chilean but has a very "BBHS-ish" modus operandi. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that too (creating music articles etc. and editing discogs). Got it CU'd and came back negative. But then he goes and edits my talk under an IP... then, for some reason, his editing abilities disappeared under that IP for 24 hours... strange, huh? :-D Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 17:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

someone playin' proxy or messaging a meaty international friend and telling them what to do. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but did you just say BBHS had a friend?! :-D Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about RfC

Thank you for your comment and apology, which as far as I am concerned closes the matter as between the two of us. Since your investigation cleared me of Tool2Die4's false accusation, there was no harm done and thus ultimately no foul. However, even though I did try to avoid Tool2Die4, (s)he started revert warring (WP:EW) on Anderson Cooper in addition to distractions (attempted bullying) on the Talk page without substantive discussion. I placed a WP:3RR / WP:EW warning on Tool2Die4's Talk page, which Tool2Die4 then reverted also. Based on Tool2Die4's history of bullying, including pretending to have the authority to block users (e.g. here [1]), the current episode continues a pattern. Tool2Die4 still has not apologized for falsely accusing me of sock puppetry, and continues even after the CU cleared me. At this point, I think an RfC about Tool2Die4 is appropriate. However, I have never done that before, and am unsure how to do it (even after reading the instructions). I would appreciate any advice you might offer.TVC 15 (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for answering - I replied on my Talk page, and will follow your advice.TVC 15 (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI - Tool2Die4

It turns out that Tool2Die4 had been indefinitely banned under another account name.[2] If you read this edit summary [3] written under that name, it might shed some light on Tool2Die4's Quid Pro Quo offer above (which had the eventual effect of removing you from the RfA that Tool2Die4 opposed).TVC 15 (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL. These get better and better. I'm still waiting on that promised RfC. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And FTR, you've got a former ArbCom member taking note of the baby games. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, you.

Hi Pat! I was wondering if you could call me when you get this. Jag älskar dig, min själsfrande. --Sulisaaa 14:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

wadaya think?

Useless, non-notable self advertising???... I think so. The 99.X IP that's been busy on it also spent the morning adding stub templates to a few dozen large and very non-stub articles. At first I thought trolling or vandalism but I think now the editor is just stub-stupid. This IP also edits under the name 'BuzzSherman' when he needs to upload anything or do anything else an IP can't do. That user name is actually naughty since the IP edits the Moxy (band article a lot and Buzz Sherman was the name of that band's vocalist. Lots of issues for one lowly IP. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Just let the PROD run out on that first one and then the IP/Buzz one is easy enough to revert and prot. If he keeps it up I'll block for COI or give a stern warning depending on my mood that day :-D - How's tricks, L? Everything smooth? Getting on MSN soon? Take care, man! Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 18:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My MSN still keeps flippin' in n out. BTW. Gave a triple R to this warrior. It was ignored. He is 10RR on the nu metal pagey. The Real Libs-speak politely 03:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

New IP, same modus operandi Article needs a semi-P. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ed got it a minute before I got your message... that was a race I sorely wanted to win :-D Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 18:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to taunt now!

Hey Pat, could you redact yourself here: [4]. There's no need to taunt him. I understand he's a PITA of the first degree, but there is no need to leave these kind of messages on his talk pages. It will only serve to encourage him and exascerbate the problem. The idea behind WP:RBI is that by doing the "I" we don't give people like him the satisfaction. Toodles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. Happy Monday! The Real Libs-speak politely 14:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

no problem about deleting my page. you guys are fast!

I guess i don't understand why we can't write about social networking web sites when Facebook has an article entry on Wikipedia.org.

Is there a threshold of registered users that a site has to reach before its allowed into the wikipedia library? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thru my lens (talk • contribs) 15:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

whew - you guys are fast!

Sorry - still trying to figure this out.

I'm a little fuzzy as to why some social networking sites like facebook are allowed into the encyclopedia...but others are not.

What is the threshold for when a group of people, united around a site - are allowed into wikipedia? Thru my lens (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Rumors

That's great, but lest you forget this is an American band. So many American readers might interpret British spellings such as "rumour" as a typo. Yes, the Foo Fighters do have an album titled Colour and the Shape, but they also have an album titled In Your Honor. Note the differences in spelling, one British and one American. My intention is to provide clairty, not to piss any blokes off. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call on removing the speculation The thought did cross my mind that the spec should be removed, though I didn't think of it until just before you originally wrote me. No worries on my part though. :-) Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Genres

I don't change genres to absurd things like some other people do. I've never gotten that accusation. If by "suiting my POV" you mean that I recently changed the Social D article to say "punk rock" and the Motorhead article to say "heavy metal", then I guess yeah I'm totally exploiting Wikipedia to suite my wild fringy genre-POV. --BlackMath77 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you...

Semi-P Duran Duran when you have a min. Persistent IP genre trolling. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So...

I don't think he heard you. How's this for an edit summary. The Real Libs-speak politely 11:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User has an identity crisis too. The Real Libs-speak politely 11:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it appears personal attacks are allowed, as witnessed above. Not sure what "identity crisis" you're referring to--my new screen-name? I am NOT making genre POV changes that are not backed up by Allmusic; if I have then show me because I haven't. Even if I source a statement, you just insist on removing them anyway. When you say "final warning" you sound like you're on a power trip since no changes I've made haven't been backed by Allmusic. --BlackMath77 (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough

Well then can you give me examples of reliable sources for music articles so I can play by the rules. All I try to do on Wikipedia is fix things when I see an error and contribute... P.S. I wasn't sockpuppetting with the new account; I moved the old user & talk pages into my new ones. Sorry if it appeared otherwise. --BlackMath77 (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I add/change genres generally when they're missing (i.e. the Social D albums had no genre listed), when they're written with incorrect capitalization (i.e. lists like "punk-rock, Hardcore Punk, experimental Rock") or when inaccurate claims are made (like when some wrote that Tom Petty's genre is "punk", or Rites of Spring were considered "mathcore", and so on). I generally try to fix genre speculation by trying to go by what general opinion is, instead of my POV. To me, calling Motorhead a 'hard rock band' seemed odd, since almost everyone calls 'em "heavy metal", so I changed it. But, hey, it doesn't really matter enough to 'edit war' over. Glad we came to a truce instead of arguing. --BlackMath77 (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Today's "So wadaya think"

This edit by that red-link user account to re-list-cruft that power ballad article is very sockpuppet-ish. Can't exactly see which version it is rolled back to.. looks like a September/October-ish version??? Which puts it back into Angry Sh*tlicker's time/space continuum. Or it could be an alternate sock for some other 10 year old??? But me-thinks it is someone who used to have an account that is now blocked. That type of "way-back-machine" rollback screams "ownership" from a user familiar with the page and passionate about their pov listcrufting faves. Some Wikipedia users can be so dishonest and devious that they dwell down into the lower realms of devious where only the "Obama's" dare to tread. This user is one of them. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The term "Wikiparanoid" should be added to Websters. :-). I guess I am a Wikinoid :D. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Whois?

The blocked user hiding behind this IP? The Real Libs-speak politely 01:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A soapboxer is born

Be on the lookout for this d**k The Real Libs-speak politely 20:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Quickable questionable

Spammer??? The Real Libs-speak politely 04:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

BBHS

BBHS The Real Libs-speak politely 12:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

+IP The Real Libs-speak politely 12:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I see this is where you've dragged me into this mess! HeadlightMorning (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-P

Need a semi-p on Queen (band). IP sales vandal has been busy over the last few days. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And then sometimes the whole "waiting for approval" thing would be good...

Like here. :-D The Real Libs-speak politely 11:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeesh... and here The Real Libs-speak politely 11:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Lost reply?

Hi again. With reference your deletion, (Dec: Stephen Mowbray McDermott) and my re-write (Sandbox (c)) I've lost your reply - which referred to "Official permission needed etc" can you find this/your reply? I've re-stated this circumstance on my Talk page for this/your reply; under > Personal > about me. Thanks friend: Regards Stephen2nd (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you?...

There is a floating IP misbehaving. Could you semi-p the 3 pages frequented by this addy? The Real Libs-speak politely 20:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked ?

My main account (I didn't realise I'd signed up, so I've been editing without an account) has been blocked. You've also blocked my editing of my userpage, so I can't even dispute it. The reason being: "Abusing multiple accounts: BBHS", well, I can't see how I've abused multiple accounts whatsoever? I don't have multiple accounts - I just have this, and I've only just found out about that. Unless you count editing from different IP's without being logged into an account, as accounts, which I have done in the past (accessing Wikipedia in university, for instance, and found something worth editing), but none whatsoever class as abusing.

A quick search shows that BBHS - stands for Be Black Hole Sun, and that it seems I've been blocked because you think I'm him. Well, no, I'm not him, and would like some evidence to support that I'm him. There's little point in me going the usual routes of being unblocked, which I've just had to read all about, because you've stopped me editing my talk page so I've had to contact you on here.

My original account is: 82.10.246.117, please review your block, or at least explain to me fully why I have been blocked so I can assure you I'm not abusing wikipedia, thanks.HeadlightMorning (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well thank you for the welcome, but I'm still unsure of your position on unblocking my original "account"? HeadlightMorning (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I haven't had time to reply and a welcome message was the best I could do. In regards to your concern, I do apologise but I appear to have blocked the wrong IP address and I do apologise for any inconvenience caused. By now, the block on your IP address has been lifted and it should be good to go. I still think it'll be a good idea for you to use your current account though, as IPs can give away your location and aren't exactly advantageous if you're a bit wary of your privacy/anonymity. Thanks and apologies again. If you have any queries about anything on Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards and take care, Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 12:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, well thanks - I've tried it, and it still appears to be blocked, but hopefully that's just a case of it clearing. No worries, as long as we've got it sorted I'll give you benefit of the doubt; it must be a thankless job getting rid of all the vandals. I'm just glad I was right, and it was a case of mistaken identity, and it's been resolved. Yeah, I'll probably continue to use this account now that I know I have it, I'm mainly just worried about my edits from my I.P all being indiscriminately reverted, as I think wikilibs is doing. HeadlightMorning (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for message; although I'm aware of much of it, some of it was very useful. I feel I should warn you: I'm going to revert your reverts of a few of my articles - I'm sure they were done on the basis that I was BBHS, and thus it was vandalism, but if that's not the case and you do actually take an issue with them, feel free to drop me a message and I'm sure we can sort it out. HeadlightMorning (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - January 2009 Issue

Summary: We lead with the exciting news that we are now recognised as Wikimedia UK by the Wikimedia Foundation. This means that we can shortly open a bank account and approve membership applications. Planning is also underway for a new website and for the upcoming Annual General Meeting. Meanwhile, we continue to support Wikipedia Loves Art, which will launch on 1st February and the bid to hold Wikimania 2010 in Oxford, and bring news of recent and upcoming meet-ups.

In this month's newsletter:

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Link...

...spammer account. Caught that without a single coffee into me. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Revert

Turn this, into this ;-) - If some silly billy is writing things like that, WP:RBI might save you having to expend energy typing in an edit summary. Just a thought though. Keep up the great work! Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 10:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the suggestion; unfortunately though, I'm unable to block vandalism-only accounts as I'm not an administrator. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep an eye on...

This poet. Means well and flakely polite enough. But someone has stolen his 2 clues on the definition of "encyclopedia." Needs a friendly mentor to teach him the ways of cold, boring and referenced. :-) The Real Libs-speak politely 11:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)