User talk:Selket/Archive/3

Your bot is putting obsenity into my schools page "pechersk school international"

No bot I operate has edited that page. --Selket ^Talk 15:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

RobotG and categories

I'm not entirely sure what, but it seemed to involve trying to handle category redlinks in some way. Discussion is here and here, and there seems to be a followup discussion with another user here. Hope that helps. Alai 17:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Selket/Archive, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0.
Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

SVG and logos

Many logos are not copyrighted, since they consist only of text and a few geometrical forms. (It is questionable whether any logo at all is copyrighted, as they are utility articles without any parts that are separate and independent from their intrinsic utilitarian function.) Hence they may be converted to SVG. Trademark law itself places no restrictions on the use of a logo except on carrying it; it must not be confused with copyright. Hence, trademark law itself places no restriction on the resolution. --Rtc 22:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what specifically this is in reference to. Is this about the conversation at {{SVG}} or one of the images from which I removed it? Nonetheless, I will attempt to address your comment in general.

• Logos are copyrighted. Any artwork is copyrightable (at least in the U.S., I can't speak to elsewhere) even if it is as simple as a few words and some geometric forms such as Image:Wong logo.png.
• Most logos -- even those that appear simple -- are the product of a considerable amount of creative effort. Consider the "smiling 'e'" in the Heineken logo. If go to their corporate documents, the angle of the "e" and how it is [[Kerning|kerned] is very precisely defined to get a particular look.
• For something to be given copyright protection (again, under U.S. law) it only needs to meet three requirements (See: 17 U.S.C. § 102):
  1. Fixation -- printed, drawn up, put into permanent form somehow. Any logo will clearly meet this.
  2. Originality -- Again, any logo will clearly meet this.
  3. Creativity -- This requirement is fairly minimal and virtually any logo will meet it.
• You state: "It is questionable whether any logo at all is copyrighted, as they are utility articles without any parts that are separate and independent from their intrinsic utilitarian function." I have no idea what this means. I am not aware of any exception to copyright law for "utility articles". If there is one, I would love to see a citation for it.
• You are right that there is nothing in trademark law restricting resolution, but the same is not true for copyright law. These logos are copyrighted and resolution affects "substantiality", see: 17 U.S.C. § 107.

Perhaps you are right that the guideline should be against uploading any copyrighted image in SVG. Logos are simply the most likely instances of this.

--Selket ^Talk 00:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Typefaces as such are not copyrighted, see WP:PD#Fonts. Any use of them isn't, either, so "a few words" are not copyrighted, since they are such use of typefaces. As pure typeface design, the "smiling e" of Image:Heinekenlogo.png and the design of Image:Wong_logo.png are hence not copyrighted in any case. It is incorrect that "Any artwork is copyrightable". By far not. That might be true for the "sweat of the brow" countries such as UK, but not the US. "Most logos -- even those that appear simple -- are the product of a considerable amount of" skill and labour (or "creative effort", as you call it), which in contrast to objective creativity and originality of the result are not a sufficient criterion for copyrightability: The efforts to produce that result are not to be taken into account for determining the copyright status. "Similarly, it is not possible to copyright common geometric figures or shapes such as the hexagon or the ellipse, a standard symbol such as an arrow or a five-pointed star. Likewise, mere coloration cannot support a copyright even though it may enhance the aesthetic appeal or commercial value of a work. For example, it is not possible to copyright a new version of a textile design merely because the colors of red and blue appearing in the design have been replaced by green and yellow, respectively. The same is true of a simple combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations."[1] most logos are just that.

Concerning utility articles, see

The second part of the amendment states that “the design of a useful article * * * shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independ­ently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.” A “useful article” is defined as “an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information.” This part of the amendment is an adaptation of language added to the Copyright Office Regulations in the mid-1950’s in an effort to implement the Supreme Court’s decision in the Mazer case.

In adopting this amendatory language, the Committee is seeking to draw as clear a line as possible between copyrightable works of applied art and non-copy­righted works of industrial design. A two-dimensional painting, drawing, or graphic work is still capable of being identified as such when it is printed on or applied to utilitarian articles such as textile fabrics, wallpaper, containers, and the like. The same is true when a statue or carving is used to embellish an industrial product or, as in the Mazer case, is incorporated into a product without losing its ability to exist independently as a work of art. On the other hand, although the shape of an industrial product may be aesthetically satisfying and valuable, the Committee’s intention is not to offer it copyright protection under the bill. Unless the shape of an automobile, airplane, ladies’ dress, food processor, television set, or any other industrial product contains some element that, physically or conceptually, can be identified as separable from the utilitarian aspects of that article, the design would not be copyrighted under the bill. The test of separability and independence from “the utilitarian aspects of the article” does not depend upon the nature of the design—that is, even if the appearance of an article is determined by aesthetic (as opposed to functional) considerations, only elements, if any, which can be identified separately from the useful article as such are copyrightable. And, even if the three-dimensional design contains some such element (for example, a carving on the back of a chair or a floral relief design on silver flatware), copyright protection would extend only to that element, and would not cover the over-all configuration of the utilitarian article as such. ([2])

The emphasis is by me.--rtc 01:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That refers to industrial design (I've added some more emphasis to your quote above). It's saying that you can't copyright the flip-phone because the flip is utilitarian. A logo is a graphical work (17 USC 102(a)(5)) and is copyrightable as such. You are right that the circle is not copyrightable, and any given color is not, but five circles of particular colors arranged just so are. I would also like to argue, in the alternative that even if the logo is not copyrighted the reproduction of the trademark must still be minimal to comply with nominative use. --Selket ^Talk 01:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

A logo is industrial design. It is an utility article just as jewelry or paperweight. These are excluded from copyright because you can register them as design patents. The Flag of the Olympic Movement is not copyrighted. Rather, the International Olympic Committee has made it a requirement for host countries to pass laws specially for the restriction of this very symbol (however, it's rather trademark like). So it enjoys a completely unique status and you cannot make a conclusion from it to other logos. --rtc 01:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right, the IOC logo was a bad example. My point was simply that while geometic shapes are not copyrightable, their assembly into a graphical design is. By analogy, the musical notes are not copyrightable, but their creative assembly to a piece of music is. Logos are not subject to protection under a design patent since they don't satisfy usefulness. I think there is some confusion in our past postings because I was talking about works protected under chapter 1 and you seem to be talking about works protected under chapter 13. At any rate the definition of "useful article" from your source is "an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information." (emphasis added) The usefulness of a logo is precisely it's ability "to convey information". Do you have any source suggesting that a logo is a utilitarian article under chapter 1 or 13 of title 17? Again, I would like to argue in the alternative, that even if the logo is not copyrighted the reproduction of the trademark must still be minimal under trademark law. --Selket ^Talk 02:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that a logo has an intrinsic utilitarian function. It does not merely portray the appearance of the article (such as a statue or a painting) and it also doesn't merely convey information (such as a text, or a drawing). It is hard to tell you the utiltarian function because I do not know whether there's a word for it. Perhaps you can call it "signalling function". The appearance of a logo (aesthetic shapes) and the information it conveys (mostly only a company or product name) is really secondary compared to that function. I only have one German court case that deemed logos as utility articles (BVerfG, January, 26, 2005, Az. 1 BvR 1571/02, see also GRUR 2005, 410 – „Laufendes Auge“), but I think the argument applies vis a vis to US law. I did not find any US case about logos and copyright. Concerning "assembly into a graphical design", please note the last sentence of the quotation above, "The same is true of a simple combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations". That already covers a very wide range of logos; most of the logos on which you reverted the SVG tag. --rtc 02:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In the chapter Congress is talking about the shape of ship hulls and such. As for the combination of shapes argument, would you say that the works of Piet Mondrian? Do you not consider them copyrightable because they are just a few shapes and colors? Consider this one. You still haven't addressed my minimal use for nominal use argument under trade mark law. --Selket ^Talk 06:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The works you cite have no intrinsic utilitarian function. Hence, they are not relevant to this discussion. They are fine art, and for fine art, even something like Image:Black square.jpg can enjoy a (weak) copyright. Nominal use makes restrictions concerning the context, frequency etc. of the use:

First, the product or service in question must be one not readily identifiable without use of the trademark; second, only so much of the mark or marks may be used as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service; and third, the user must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder. (New Kids, cited at [3])

"only so much" refers to quantity, not quality, of the trademark use. (It wouldn't make much sense, anyway, since trademark law talks about trademarks as such, not about its artistic design and technical realisation) --rtc 16:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been really enjoying this discussion, and I think we still disagree over the legal question, but I think the disagreement over the Wikipedia relevant questions can be resolved. See my most recent post at Template talk:ShouldBeSVG. Bassicaly, I said that if we can put logos in a seperate category, I won't remove the {{SVG}} tag. There is still a guideline against SVG logos so other people might try pick up where I left off. I do think this is an interesting debate -- and still think I'm right much like you, I'm sure still think you are. For example, what happens if Bank of America buys the copyright to a Picasso and uses that as it's logo? After giving you the last word here, I would be happy to continue the discussion with you should we run into each other on IRC or something. At this point it should probably be taken off-wiki. --Selket ^Talk 15:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Du battant des lames au sommet des montagnes

On 22 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Du battant des lames au sommet des montagnes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 05:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I just nominated it. But it's cool nonetheless. --Selket ^Talk 07:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Adminship?

I told you that I would keep an eye on you on your Editor Review, so I'm wondering if you would like to be an administrator. I will create the page if you approve of the idea. Thank you. bibliomaniac15 00:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be honored to accept your nomination. --Selket ^Talk 15:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You may answer the questions (or choose not to answer them) whenever you're ready. When you are ready, place it on WP:RFA. If you see something in the intro that you'd like to change, feel free to tell me and I'll change it. Good luck! bibliomaniac15 22:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. --Selket ^Talk 22:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed the gender of the pronouns. ;) --Selket ^Talk 04:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Thanks for teaching me a lesson: "Wikipedians named after Egyptian goddesses are not necessarily female." bibliomaniac15 04:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I never meant to mislead anyone. I added a "how I came to use the name Selket" section to my user page. --Selket ^Talk 04:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, I should be more civil. I'm not frustrated with you specifically, I'm frustrated that I see this issue popping up every once in a while from a wide range of people, and it just seems so obvious to me that it's wrong but I don't know how to explain it. Thanks for your comments about the edit counter. --Interiot 14:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I have posted what I think is a resolution, at least in your disagreement with me over this, at Template talk:ShouldBeSVG --Selket ^Talk 14:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Userpage typo

G'day Selket. I just thought you might want to know that there's a typo in "gramatical [sic] mistakes" on your userpage. I'd fix it myself, but didn't want the edit to be misconstrued. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, thanks. --Selket ^Talk 21:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Image tags

While I was thumbing through your contributions for your RFA, I found Image:Flexor-carpi-radialis.png. {{PD-self}} only applies on material you have created yourself, not material you copied from PD sources. The Gray's Anatomy tag suffices. Please fix this and keep it in mind for the future. Side note: I've left you some extra questions on your RFA page. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that everything except the purple area is PD due to copyright expiration. My additions to the derivative work are not. Whether the changes are sufficient to merit copyright protection on their own is doubtful, but in that case the self-created changes are public domain and, I believe, tagged correctly. If we had a tag for Uncopyrightable-self, I probably would have used that. In any case, since we are trying to create compilations of media that can be freely reused, and companies are (justifiably) even more copyright paranoid than editors on Wikipedia are, I thought it better to over-release the image than to under-release it. --Selket ^Talk 14:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

ISO 639 redirects

very nice to have the redirects better placed in the category page. :-) Thank you. If possible it would be even better to have the sortkeys all lowercase. see Wikipedia:Bot_requests#ISO_639_redirects Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

will you fix the error or not? Pls tell, if you can. If not I would file a seperate BOTREQ. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

School tags

Remember to "subst" school tags when posting them. Rklawton 21:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, there is a consensus against substing school tags. This enables us to change all school tags at once if we decide to update the format of the template. Please see the instructions at Template:SharedIP and Template:SharedIPEDU and the discussion here. Selket ^Talk 22:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Rklawton 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Awesome pictures by the way. --Selket ^Talk 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot

I just saw SelketBot in action... nice work on that.--Isotope23 15:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! ;) --Selket ^Talk 15:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too! I left a comment on a IP address talk page, and the bot perked up and left info! Thanks!--Larrybob 23:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Pikachu

Hey, Selket, since you're pretty knowledgeable about images, can you take a look at the dispute being discussed in the talk page right now? They're having a debate on whether the PNG or SVG format should be used for the infobox image of Pikachu. bibliomaniac15 03:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for the heads up. I'll take a look at it. --Selket ^Talk 23:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Join our project

Mercosur

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Mercosur articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining the Mercosur WikiProject? It's a group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Mercosur articles.
Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 18:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. I'm not sure which of my recent contributions you were referring to, but to be honest, I had not heard of Mercosur until just now. I don't think I can make any special contribution to Mercosur articles. While I am grateful for your invitation, I must humbly decline. --Selket ^Talk 23:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Clopidogrel

Hi Selket. I just noticed a glitch in your SVG of clopidogrel—please check CID 60606 from PubChem for the correct structure. Best (and good luck with your RfA), Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are indeed right. I had a brain spasm of some kind when I saw the COOCH3 (methylate?) group. I'll upload a new one. --Selket ^Talk 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on your RFA!

Congrats! Real96 07:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed congratulations, I've given you access to your new tools, so have fun using them to keep the project improving. Spend time on the administrator's reading list and be conservative with the tools, but at the same time, dig in and help clear out the backlogs as you get comfortable. Of course, don't hesitate to ask for help if you're unsure. Again, congrats - Taxman ^Talk 12:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

May the Force be with you....Congrats on your RfA..--Cometstyles 12:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And mine. Congratulations, Selket. Wield the mighty buttons with care... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm sure you'll do a fantastic job :) All the best, – Riana_ऋ 18:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) I was glad to support you. Acalamari 18:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I was happy to support you. You have my full confidence. Cheers (and congrats), Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations for becoming admin today, as Riana said above, I think you will do great jobs as being an admin. Daniel 5127 04:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Well done you. bibliomaniac15 22:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Still looking for an additional mediator on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10 Castelseprio? If so I will see if I can help... - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 00:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look. My understanding is that one of the parties gave up but was never quite satisfied. --Selket ^Talk 00:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

THOSE "09..." pages

... well done on the deletions! One point - don't forget to change the deletion rationale or else the codes will appear in the deletion logs!! Seeya :) - Alison ☺ 05:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What codes? I thought they were just nonsense. Does this have something to do with the DVD-HD labeled users all over the place? --Selket ^Talk 05:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right?? :) LOL!!! Look at the last 500 deletes here and tell me what you see? Then read this and this. Crazy, hm? - Alison ☺ 06:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, and just when I stopped reading slashdot because I thought it was getting boring. Do they really think they can erase a number from the universe? Not that I want Wikimedia to be exposed to any liability unecesarrily. --Selket ^Talk 06:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's going to get through in the end. Nothing we can do only make best effort. Re. slashdot - yeah, I haven't posted in two years now :) - Alison ☺ 07:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, and I was like WTF? (sorry for butting in...see my talk page). Real96 07:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh - yeah. It's all-out war :) I had to fully-prot Lenin!! - Alison ☺ 07:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How to determine if an IP address is shared and by whom

see Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_IP_addresses#How_to_determine_if_an_IP_address_is_shared_and_by_whom:

I would like to link a good description of How to determine if an IP address is shared and by whom from Template_talk:SharedIP#See_also. I feel such a section would do well in this article. I have used network-tools.com for trace and whois, but often end up with unclear results, ( 63.3.11.2 = uu.net = verizon ; but what to put with {{SharedIP}} ) Comments?

I'd love it if a similar description was at least linked from User:SelketBot, as that was one of the first places I looked for an answer. Thanks for your excellent bot! ∴ here…♠ 21:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your request. Can you formulate a set of instructions like what you want added to SelketBot's page? --Selket ^Talk 14:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about how to determine if an IP address is shared... and by whom, and can't find it in the wikipedia documentation for {{SharedIP}} or related subjects. I'm was hoping to find some tricks and techniques to determine who owns IP addresses, and if they are shared. You seemed like a good individual to ask. When I was initially trying to figure this out, I looked at the bot page hoping to find some instructions on how it figures out who owns the IP addresses. I've amended my request at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_IP_addresses#How_to_determine_if_an_IP_address_is_shared_and_by_whom for clarity. Thanks for any tips, info, or pointers to existing instructions. I know how to use a traceroute, but not what to do with the resolved computer name. ∴ here…♠ 19:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Map_of_Logan_County_townships.PNG

Thanks for listing this in IfD. I'd thought this was listed two months ago, but for some reason the person who told me it was obsolete didn't list it as I thought (s)he would. So it has rested since then, forgotten even by its uploader and orphaned, as you've noted. Thanks for giving the image a proper burial. ;-) -- SwissCelt 01:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --Selket ^Talk 14:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Dmcdevit#Selket_is_Selket

Wrong talk page maybe? ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope that was correct. I was speaking to Dmcdevit on IRC and was asked to demonstrate that Selket on IRC was the same as Selket on wikipedia. So I left a note to that effect on Dmcdevit's talk page. --Selket ^Talk 14:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it looked a lot like the IRC cloak message, my bad ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Corcoran

I tried to resolve the matter by keeping his claim and mine but the other guy keeps deleting it even though he was wrong.Also he blanked the talk page and I had to revert it!And he will not answer my emails.He refuses to listen . And there are other users that agree with me about Corcoran.Odran Corcoran 20:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

63.3.20.2 has now been blocked for 24 hours. When that user come back, I suggest that the two of you try to resolve your differences amicably. That user deleting your edits is not a justification for actions like this. The 3RR rule applies even if you don't like the other person's version. You dodged a bullet I think because 63.3.20.2 was more badly behaved than you and got blocked first. --Selket ^Talk 20:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

While 63.3.20.2 is gone, why don't you work on improving the article so that represents all points of view, satisfies WP:NPOV, and has references to reliable sources? --Selket ^Talk 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Blanked the talk page

I f you look at the talk page for Corcoran you will see he blanked the page.In all fairness you cannot compare me to that,that was vandalism.I have never blanked a discussion page.Odran Corcoran 20:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No doubt he/she was more badly behaved than you. But you still violated WP:3RR and WP:NPA. "The other editor started it" is not a justification for either. --Selket ^Talk 20:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Selket : )

Its nice to know that there are good admins who listen.You have my respect.And don't worry I'll keep everything relating to the article until it has been verified which claim is correct.Odran Corcoran 20:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User Talk

It was an accident, I was trying to cite the source but had trouble finding sources. Let it be known that I had no idea about the facebook policy and it won't happen again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.134.168.151 (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Ah, wrong bot. SelketBot tagged your user talk page as being associated with an IP from an educational institution. It was ShadowBot that reverted your facebook link. --Selket ^Talk 00:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Sorry about incorrectly reporting an IP. Thought I was following proper protocol. Thanks for the correction. Pnkrockr 03:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Corcoran

I'm sorry to bother you again but a user has vandalised the article Corcoran AGAIN.My guess is that thus guy is a sock puppet of the guy that got blocked yesterday.He removed my Claims and references etc.And kept the other claim.I have not touched the article so you can take a look at it.Odran Corcoran 16:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest trying to expand the article by combining the two "claims" into a coherent discussion on the controversial nature of the history of the surname. I'm thinking something like "There is disagreement among scholars about where the name originates. Some sources say England^[1][2] while others say Ireland.^[3][4][5]" It might also be useful to split the page off to something like Corcoran (surname) and leave Corcoran as a true disambiguation page. Right now it is half way in between. --Selket ^Talk 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hello, I noticed that an article that I'd created quite some time ago, Raleigh Muns, was recently speedied. To my knowledge, the subject clearly passes WP:BIO, and the article was well-referenced and stable. Was it perhaps the victim of some type of vandalism? In any case, I would appreciate if you could please undelete it, thanks. Elonka 07:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. I don't think it would pass an AfD, but I'm going to err on the side of not speedying. --Selket ^Talk 07:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) --Elonka 07:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Logan High

In the Logan High School (Utah) issue you saw on my talk page, I'm not sure what else to do. I don't see the anonymous user agreeing with me, nor taking the roster off of the page. I'm not sure where to turn, or if to just "leave it alone" and stop. I'm not reverting the article again due to WP:3RR, but I am at a loss. Jmlk17 23:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got to catch a flight so I can't mediate right now. Post the issue along with this diff to AN/I. --Selket ^Talk 00:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, much obliged. Happy travels! Jmlk17 00:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

SelketBot

Just came across this bot, and I realise that all people here about their bots sometimes is that they are malfunctioning. Well, I just wanted to say, I think it is an extremely useful and, hopefully, effective bot. As a user who occasionally edits from school, I know how frustrating it can be to be blocked. Nice work. J Milburn 21:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm glad you find it useful. I must give most of the credit to Real96 who came up with the idea for the bot, I just wrote the code. --Selket ^Talk 00:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:2142 hud.JPG

Hi, I noticed you deleted File:2142 hud.JPG as having an invalid fair use tag. I was looking over it when it was deleted. I was about to clear the CSD label. I was wondering if you could say why you think it was invalid? --Selket ^Talk 00:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going on the note that said it was a screenshot from the beta, which violated the company's NDA. I felt that violated any potential for fairuse. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Selket ^Talk 00:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 9 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Four Plays in One, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Again! Question, Do url links on talk pages help pagerank on searches?

Dear Mr. Selket it's Evinatea remember?. It's a long story. But now that I can function at WP as Jrod2, I would like to stay in touch and ask a question about external links:

Remember we discussed before the possibility of getting pagerank preferences on search engines, when you have a link on an article page? Does that theory applies to links on the talk pages as well? What do you think what this user did (See: [4]) I "wikied" his link, would this prevent page rank? (See:[5]) I am eager to hear from you again. Best. Jrod2 18:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The general rule is that Wikipedia uses nofollow but mirror sites may not. Since most mirror sites do not include the talk pages, it is unlikely that posting a link on a talk page will increase page rank substantially. Also, I would be happy to keep in touch. Let me know if I can be of assistance. --Selket ^Talk 03:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Selket, how are you my good friend? I didn't know you were vandalized 8 times! That seems to happen a lot. I wonder if that includes talk pages, then, I could say that Biggy P did me in at least 8 as well. If you're ever interested in knowing what transpired, read the incident at the Community Sanction Notice Board. Anyway, I am doing fine now, and I am going to be doing lots of good things at WP. But, because of what happened to me, I am going to go spam patrolling and chasing bad guys. And, I'll probably get vandalized in the process, so the problem is, and I'd like your opinion about it, I have disclosed my identity so this could get out of hand, right? Anyway, thanks for the answer about pagerank. You're always very informative as usual. So in essence, this won't affect page rank, right? (See:[6]). Let me know what you think about my comments and thanks for replying. Cheers.Jrod2 18:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Selket, thanks very much for the reply! I read this at the checkuser procedures: Check back regularly to see the outcome of your request. In most cases, any block or other action based on the outcome will not be taken by the checkuser-people or the clerks. Instead, you will have to do this yourself. So, I can block a user if I can prove is committing acts of vandalism? If so, he could then create a new account to unblock himself and argue about his innocence? How does it work? I thank you again for the info. Best.Jrod2 08:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Only administrators can block or unblock, so you cannot block the user yourself, you will need to ask an admin (such as me) to do it. If there isn't a specific admin you want to ask, the best place to post the block request is at WP:AN. THe user you want blocked is probably not an admin either and so cannot just unblock his or herself.

Also, there is a lot going on in this thread. I enjoy talking to you, but could you please post new topics in a new thread? You don't need to for each reply, but please do when you bring up a new topic. Thanks. I hope my answer above helped. -- Selket ^Talk 15:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Mv-doulos-at-southampton.jpg

Hi.

You write:

Thanks for uploading Image:Mv-doulos-at-southampton.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

Thank you for your thanks, even if they are just slightly belated (I uploaded this file nearly three years ago, in November 2004). If you had checked the history, you would have seen that the image was perfectly properly licensed as my own work.

Unfortunately since then another editor has transferred the image to Commons (which I don't think existed in 2004). That is a perfectly good thing to do, but in adding the NowCommons template, he or she removed the image description and license information. The information should have been retained for historical purposes. I have reinstated it. -- Chris j wood 19:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. I've updated the license on commons and deleted the copy here. The issue was that it said "GFDL" but not "GFDL-self" so the source was not explicitly stated. --Selket ^Talk 03:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Of course the template "GFDL-self" is newer (January 2005) than the image upload (November 2004) so it is hardly surprising it wasn't applied at the time. And the text was faily unambiguous that it was my photograph. Wasn't there some sort of review of older images before "GFDL" was deprecated in this way?. -- Chris j wood 11:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

One would think so. Probably fell through the craks. --Selket ^Talk 14:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Aleuritesmoluccana1web.jpg

Image:Aleuritesmoluccana1web.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by JoJan (notify | contribs).

• we don't accept cc-by-3.0 and it should be fairly easy to get an alternative under a better license Yonatan ^talk 20:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• If the image is really from the USGS as the page claims, then I think it would be public domain. — The Storm Surfer 03:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Two quick points: 1) It was taken by USGS employees but not (as far as I understand) in the course of their official duties. It is therefore not PD. 2) Last I checked cc-by-3.0 was still being debated and there was no definitive decision one way or the other. Either way, the owner of the site in question has been contacted to request release under cc-by-2.5, as many photographers don't realize that there is a difference. Please hold this deletion request pending the outcome of that exchange. --Selket ^Talk 03:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I removed the deletion request. At some point that website stated all photos are released under cc-by-2.5 rather than cc-by-3.0 (it was changed when 3.0 came out) so it should be fine. Even if that's not the case, we might as well leave the picture until a decision has been made (which will probably be to accept it IMHO, even though it isn't a completely free license). A request for release under the GFDL wouldn't hurt though. Yonatan ^talk 09:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image alignment (Oirialla)

{{helpme}} Oirialla :I have copied picture from another wikipage but it is on LHS not RHS. Can you move it or show me how?

Like this --Selket ^Talk 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with the picture AND you even organised my talk page for me. What more could I ask! Aatomic1 11:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For confirming I can count ;) --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 09:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrator Selket? WOW!!

I was talking to you this whole time and you were a sysop? Man! That's awesome, thanks for the reply!! Then, you are one of the best ones. I now feel disturbed of a presumable violation of guidelines perpetrated by another admin just to prove YOU wrong. I don't know, maybe you should take a look at this evidence and let me know if you see any wrong doing. And, maybe you can tell me also how serious it could be? . You remember this fellow? This thing he did, it's really what disturbs me (See evidence: [7]) when in March 2007, he tried to change external link policy and was luckily he was stopped (See: [8] he probably didn't realize at that moment, it was reverted. Next, he went back to tell you to stop [9], and even adds another one (I guess to rub it in) (See: [10]) Does he win his argument or dispute about reverting deleted external links with you? You tell me, see: [11]. If that's the case, does he have to win a dispute that way?. As I recall it, you deleted the external links because we both agreed that they were not providing further information to the article and in fact, looked more like they were promoting other business web sites. Let me know your views on what really happened with this fellow. Have a great Sunday. Jrod2 17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I was talking to you this whole time and you were a sysop ... you are one of the best ones.' Well, thank you. It's probably just because I'm new, but I hope not. When we first started talking I wasn't one. I was sysoped fairly recently. The user you cite did some things that may have been a bit rash -- as we all do from time to time. It was a while ago, and I would prefer at this point I think to let it go rather than digging it up again. Thanks again for your support. --Selket ^Talk 04:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you can count on my support and you are also a kind man. I respect your wishes. I got more dirt on this user, though. But, per your request, I'll stop all research on him. I have to tell you though, if he commits one more act of bad faith or abuse in front of me....Well, you know, what choice would I have? Cheers. --Jrod2 01:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Blove 6969

I am considering extending this block indefinitely as there is little potential that a user this immature and abrasive would have any motive for making positive contributions to Wikipedia in the foreseeable future. Would that be OK with you? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. --Selket ^Talk 05:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your three revert rule blocks

You were right to block Diluvien for breaking the three revert rule, but the article history shows that The Future also broke it. I've blocked The Future for 31 hours, the same as Diluvien. Also it's normal to leave a note on the talk page of users blocked under the three revert rule; I'm leaving Diluvien a note now. Sam Blacketer 10:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the notice. I thought I left it. Thanks for the catch. --Selket ^Talk 14:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Georgia

Thanks for the warning; I will heed it. Note, though, that the Georgia article has been the subject of back-and-forth editing recently, and (admittedly) complicated by editing errors on my part. Anyhow, it may be prudent to monitor goings-on there in the coming days. Merci. Corticopia

I have a request/question

I have the heads of this 2 sock puppets. OK, they come from this IP address 75.19.58.45. Now, bear in mind that everything I tell you will always be confirmed. I don't play games and I never make false accusations, unless, it's an honest mistake. OK, this other IP address 75.4.209.107 is from Mike Sorensen, a confirmed sock puppeteer with a total of 5 socks on this IP address. I suspect there are more of them still out there at WP. So, the sock puppets of 75.19.58.45 were used to support 2 of Mike Sorensen's puppets. Obviously, I have the proof. Question: Can you indef block'em, or the crime does not warrant the punishment? Don't forget, the likelihood that is the same user (I mean, what are the odds here!) is 99%, as both IPs are from Torrance, CA. Please, let me know. Best. Jrod2 01:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't done any sock-puppet blocks yet, and I'm a bit hesitant to make my first leap into that area against another admin. If you are really sure he has violated policies, you should compile the evidence (diffs included) and post it to WP:SSP. --Selket ^Talk 02:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S., make sure you follow all of the instructions on WP:SSP. If you are right and an admin is using sockpuppets to insert spam or COI links into articles it is going to big deal. You will want all of your "I"s dotted and "T"s crossed as it were. Do not cut corners. --Selket ^Talk 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, no my dear friend, this isn't, you know...him. I told you, I am not making a move on him as per your suggestion. This is just a user who was spamming and making and argument for the inclusion of an article (Complete with spam links and all), and who used multiple accounts to create greater support than he actually had. So I got these 2 other sock puppets in connection with him, but the problem is they appeared to have served as "throw-away" accounts. No big deal, but if you can block, hey nobody can oppose that as the main user account was a blatant sock-puppeteer(See: [12]) Don't forget the IP address user = 75.4.209.107 and the other sock puppets = 75.19.58.45. Thanks again for reading all this. Best always. Jrod2 04:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok you had me worried there for a minute. I would be hesitant to act on it without checkuser on those IPs. --Selket ^Talk 04:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

protecting today's featured article...

... generally we don't, as it's often the first article that new users try to edit (and there really are still people out there who are new to Wikipedia every day). As you can see from some of the chatter in the cell nucleus protection log, that's not a hard-and-fast rule, but semi-protection is discouraged unless you see lots of major vandalism that is going several minutes without being reverted. Since it's on the main page, most reverts happen within a minute. Move protection, though, should be in place. Hope this helps. ··coelacan 04:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is brought up quite often, though, since the featured article is pretty much a painted target to vandals. Still, as has been said, generally consensus has been not to do anything to the featured article unless it's getting hit every minute or so. HalfShadow 04:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a perennial proposal though. And returning to reduce the protection after an hour or so is probably a good idea (also as seen in the above log). ··coelacan 04:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan, I understand your argument and in a perfect world would absolutely agree with you. However, in the three hours between when it was unprotected at 19:05 and re-protected (by me) at 22:08 I counted 15 vandalism edits, 12 reverts, and zero constructive changes. This seemed like a no-brainer to me. I'm new to this, I admit, so if you would prefer me to leave today's featured article in whatever protection state I found it in, I would be happy to. --Selket ^Talk 04:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the argument goes something like this: 'We could protect the featured article, but then what sort of message would we be sending people?' HalfShadow 04:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In all likelihood, nobody's going to scream at you when you feel like you need to protect it. =) But be aware of WP:NOPRO, and if you're feeling Sisyphus-y, join in the convo at WT:NOPRO. ··coelacan 05:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Selket ^Talk 05:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

According to TimVickers, when he protected it he didn't actually realise that the thing was on the Main Page! Yeah, you really aren't meant to protect the damn article, though I put 15 minutes of semi-protection on earlier on when I needed to move from one computer to another and I felt as though no other admin was online: I was swatting the AIV backlog and reverting on that all at once. It's not meant to be protected for long, though, and in all fairness there were a couple of high-quality anon edits to it that I saw earlier. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 09:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Again. How are you?

How are you Mr. Selket? I have to tell you that, I am convinced that sock puppetry is rampant at WP. No matter where you go, you find, anonymous IP's doing stuff, disruptions etc, etc. I'll tell you another thing that happened just recently. How would you like if, after working 6 hours on revising an article that you Prodded and had many problems, including questionable references and suspicious spam links. Next, you are asked to work on it, so you clean it up and revise it, only to be disrupted by an user who can't make up his mind? He basically engaged in reverting and hindering every thing, and in the end, he reverted it all back to its pitiful state. Please give me an opinion if you have time. This is the page originally [13] and this after I revised it and cleaned it up from conflicts of interest issues and suspicious external links [14]. You will notice also that I significantly contributed to making that page coherent and understandable in laymen terms (See sections Loudness to Opponents). However, I couldn't continue because of the multiple disruptions by this "couple of users". You can get more details over here. Oh, I still want you to block those sock puppets that belonged to Mike Sorensen. I haven't had the time but I will be back with the whole argument and checkuser confirmation by admin for you. Thanks very much. Jrod2 00:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Selket, Here I am again, asking your help as anti-spam member, to stop another disruptive editor, who may inadvertently be protecting another "spam link farm" article page, constantly attacked for insertion of spam by many users . A real spam nest which I "prodded" before, but this particular user has countered my proposal also. I would appreciate if you can let me know, what changes would require here (See case: [15]) to have this acceptable by the admin and not regarded "fishing". Would taking away those IP numbers do it? I thank you for any advise. Jrod2 05:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

First, remember that checkuser is viewed as a last resort and requests get turned down all the time, so you shouldn't take it personally. Checkuser will not be used for "I have a disagreement with these two other editors and think they might be the same person." You need something more substantial than that. For example, you listed code "C", which means "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents." To get such a request fulfilled you would really need to list dozens of diffs. Now, it is possible that these are two editors both found the referenced sites on google and are making a good faith attempt to write a referenced article. Don't forget that we should assume good faith on the part of other editors whenever we can. I would recommend that you begin by discussing these links on the talk page of the article in question. From there try mediation or RfC. People are going to edit your work. This is the nature of Wikipedia. Sometimes they will do so for the better, sometimes for the worse. When you feel someone has changed your work for the worse, try talking it over with them, reach out to others, and build consensus. --Selket ^Talk 06:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Selket, Trust me, I always assume good faith. The problem is good faith means nothing when dealing with disrespectful, irrational users. As soon as I identify that, the user is "dead" to me. When a pattern of illogical reverting, support for the inclusion of spamming links, become a confrontation with me, I first study and research the users involved. If my research reaches the conclusion that two users are the same, I will try to prove it. Anyway, your advise was very good but, it came too late. The admin declined it. I analyzed how you presented your request and I've adopted your style (See: [16]). You were absolutely right, that checkuser code "C" was doomed. Let's see what happens with this new approach. Why do I have to twist admin checkusers arms for a simple confirmation to prevent a page like "Loudness War" from being vandalized and spammed like that? I think they should be more suspicious and more helpful to our "squadron". Thanks again. Jrod2 08:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you think?

Take a look at this link. It wouldn't be impossible that this engineer is being promoted at Wikipedia for no other reason than he was interviewed by this publication, one of the biggest corporate spammers in WP history and whether or not whatever he is saying bears any truth, it's all speculation and heresay. Take a look:

• The Big Squeeze: Mastering engineers debate music's loudness wars (MIX Professional Audio and Music Production magazine)

• December 1, 2005 article by Sarah Jones, full title: "The Big Squeeze: Mastering Engineers Debate Music's Loudness Wars"
• Note: whether of not it is a reliable source, MIX online is cited in quite a few Wikipedia articles (Linksearch for *.mixonline.com).

This is where that link resides. A directive from the foundation was specific: Kill spam on sight. I have tried, but again, a user has been reverting everything and I can't prove that he is probably using another account (For now anyway) as the admin declined checking him again for the second time. Maybe he won't dare reverting you. But respectfully Mr. Selket, I do understand you have your own things to do and problems to solve, so if you don't chose to be a part of it, I will respect and understand. I am just covering all bases. Have a great day! Jrod2 17:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:68.248.8.85

Not that he's doing anything useful, but you did give a final warning for the same edit I gave a lvl1 warning on (he only edited Tim Duncan once) --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 05:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I gave a final warning because of the BLP issues as well as observing a pattern of vandalism. Perhaps I shouldn't have used Tim Duncan, but clearly at least one other person agrees with me. It's moot now. --Selket ^Talk 05:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

VOA

Just a guess, but looking through the accounts contribs, I suspect VOA means Vandal Only Account... WjBscribe 14:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, what to do with the autoblock then? I assume there is no way to do an indefinite on the account and some shorter time on the IP. Should user be directed to 2nd chance? --Selket ^Talk 14:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Autoblocks aren't indefinite, they wear off after a couple of days. As to the unblock request, there are two ways of looking at it:

1. The account requesting the unblock has no edits, meaning we have no behaviour to judge them by. Its not the same as a regular user getting caught in an autoblock because a vandal uses the same IP as them.
2. On the other hand, we tend to assume goof faith. If the autoblock is lifted this account can be watched and blocked in its own right should it start vandalising.

Its a close call, though I would keep an eye on the account if you do lift the autoblock. WjBscribe 14:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think if he is a sock, then lifting the auto will result in a new, third account being created from which vandalism will ensue and we won't even know that it's related. I posted the 2nd chance template. It is a major inconvenience if this user really was collateral damage of the block, but considering the alternative, think it's fair. What do you think? --Selket ^Talk 14:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems fair enough to me. WjBscribe 14:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

AN3 on Goguryeo & Goguryeo controversies

Selket, is the 2nd report (further down) on Goguryeo controversies moot as well? Let me just point out that revert-warriors have clearly sidestepped the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo, an ongoing RfM. Please discuss further with the mediators before you protect any further related pages, since the pages have been unprotected due to the mediators' disretion in the first place. Thank you.--Endroit 06:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the Request for Meditation is put on hold due to some reasons (anyway, wikipedia is a non-profitable organization and it is not a full-time job). First time to participate in RfM, so I am not familiar with the procedure. Is it imperative that every participant should stop editing the disputed articles? If yes, I believe the article should be locked into a version that had already been there before the disputation occurred (even if the version is years old). It is very despicable to change the article into a personal form, then request WP:RFP to lock it into the personal form. This is way way off the ethical standard.--Jiejunkong 07:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Endroit, please see my comments at WP:AN3. Jiejunkong, please see m:The Wrong Version. I cannot address any questions about the mediation case because I have no involvement in it. Just, that everyone should behave themselves while the slow course of mediation progresses. --Selket ^Talk 07:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Selket, I am not asking to lock the article into a "right" version, but a stable version before disputation. Whether it is right or wrong, it prevents an unethical user from intentionally exploiting a system loophole, i.e., changing an article into a personal form then asking for a lockdown.--Jiejunkong 08:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I know it can seem like someone is gaming the system, but:

1. I am not the admin who protected the article
2. The third (satirical) boiler plate request on m:The Wrong Version clearly reads I request that you put the article back the way it was before [user] started messing with it and then protect it.

--Selket ^Talk 08:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault in expression. It is actually about "all" articles, not "the" article. I work in security area, and this loophole does look like a vulnerable point of the wikipedia system. What I meant is to think about a new wikipolicy, for example, WP:LockBeforeRFM. For WP:LockBeforeRFM, the executive admin should find out a very early stable version to lock on. This will stop the loophole, otherwise it could become a standard trick in the near future.--Jiejunkong 08:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong, Selket has done the best he could. We need to continue discussions at the mediation wiki site. Even though the other editors may not be doing so, we are required to carefully follow WP:DR, and the mediation is the best we can do to resolve our disputes at this point.

Selket, thank you for all your help.--Endroit 08:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong, no problem. Now that I understand, I think it is an interesting idea. The place to start that discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). --Selket ^Talk 08:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the direction. I have posted a message there. A first-hand backup from you would be very helpful.--Jiejunkong 09:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR report vandalism

About the 3RR report I filed yesterday against User:Good friend100 at WP:AN3#User:Good_friend100_reported_by_User:jiejunkong_.28Result:_moot.29, I indeed didn't want the report to be diluted and smeared by the vandalism behavior you are warning against. This time I didn't know the rule, and you also put a warning message against me because I followed up his countercharges against me. So next time, can I delete the redundant followups that are not directly related to the 3RR reports? Please give me a direct answer. This looks like a dilemma.--Jiejunkong 07:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I would leave them. Most admins are smart enough to not be swayed by someone ranting on the noticeboard. Don't take the warning personally. My primary goal was not to reprimand editors but to stop a situation from getting out of control. I used the rather harsh "stop" icon, because I wanted to get a point across and thought it best to treat everyone equally in that regard. I didn't want to get into who was right and who was wrong in the content dispute; I wanted the content dispute spillover onto AN3 to stop. --Selket ^Talk 07:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at this

Hello Mr. Selket. I am in the middle of a edit war at the Loudness War (See history [17]) Where I keep getting my anti-spam and spam clean up templates removed by a User:Illuminatedwax. He also continues to add reference links that violate "Links to be avoided" guidelines. Please, whenever you get a chance, take a look at it. I think I should bring this user to the noticeboard. Let me know what you think if you have a chance to examine the situation. I left a comment on your talk page above a few days ago, where I was mentioning one of the links that seemed not be the ideal as a reference. All of this is reminiscent of the JimPrice web site reference link at dBFS, remember? Anyway, I personally think that, having a whole article dedicated to the "Loudness War" seems overdone. At the most, It should have been just a section at the Loudness page. After all is nothing but, some ME's ranting about hyper-compression issues throughout the years. Big deal. Jrod2 16:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)