User talk:VK35/archive 1

Thanks for the message but I've been editing for a while.VK35 07:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello VK35, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! dave souza, talk 07:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

re: Your Message

Please be more clear on which user talk page you mean, though generally if i have marked an article for Speedy Deletion i will copy and paste the standard text for ease and information. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 01:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, the user involved was given a friendly warning, as can be seen Here, and the article was deleted for copyright infringements, as can be seen Here. Obviously there cannot be any hope for redemption in such a situation, as policy is to remove them on sight. Please get in touch if you need any more help or clarification. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 01:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, however- one would assume that since the activity of the user in question has dropped of since this article was created and deleted, it was a vandalism only accountCheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 02:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocking assistance

You request to block User:I like beanz plus u gai is not quite ready yet because he has not been given a final, level 4, warning on his talk page and THEN he continue to vandalise. However, if he does continue after a level 4 warning, you can report him on this page, follow the instructions and an admin will deal with it. ww2censor 04:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you see someone deleting or vandalising and they already have a level 2 or 3 warning, you, as a non-admin, can leave a level 4 warning. I tend to up the level by one for anon IP users - most don't really deserve the leeway if they already have warnings. If you happen to see that they have continued the disruptive behaviour, just post their name or IP address to the page mentioned above. You just write their user-name or IP address in the appropriate tags. it's not a lot of typing, really. Do what suits you best. Cheers ww2censor 05:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You may well know all this, but this is a wee statement I've put together for guidance:

Thanks for removing a silly edit. The best way of dealing with vandals is to follow the steps shown at Wikipedia:Vandalism, including adding a template message to their talk page and ideally clicking on the "User contributions" link in the toolbox to the left on their talk page to see what other mischief they may have been up to. Your assistance is much appreciated.

You'll notice that you don't have to start at warning level 1: warning 2 is more appropriate if you're sure it's deliberate. As for idle threats, be assured a user who continues to vandalise after a level 4 warning and is reported to WP:AIV will be dealt with appropriately. Thanks for your efforts, .. dave souza, talk 07:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply:Again

Harebag 21:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Harebag

Reply

Harebag 21:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Harebag Sorry about the mess up. Anyway I would like to know if Wikipedia will remove my articles because I use websites info.

Reply

Harebag 21:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Harebag One more thing. Does it look like I've added enough to my web page. If it does I plan to write a couple dozen more articles. For now.

HEY!!!

Hey you! Did you edit my pigeon forge police department page. Please respond. Thanks.Harebag 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question.

I just asked you if you edited my page. As far as adopting I'll adopt you. You NEED some help.Harebag 02:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Important!

Hey VK35! If you want me to nominate you for an administrators position contact me! I think you would make a good administrator. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harebag (talk • contribs) 13:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC). Harebag 13:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Back!

You're missing the point about the SWAT team. In Montana the city's with 40,000 people or more have SWAT teams. Pigeon Forge has at any time at least 35,000 people beacuse of tourism, to note I've visited the city. The city swells with people during spring and summer.Harebag 18:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

SSP notification

The instructions actually explicitly state that {{socksuspect}} should be left on the suspected puppeteer's talk page. Generally, the suspected puppet accounts should be so informed as well-we don't have specific instructions for that, but I'd favor instructing so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oi

I'm now your adoptee! I did it mostly because it would make you shine when I nominated you for an administrator. Anyway, when you think you have enough experience I'll nominate you and mention you adopted me. I think you would make a good administrator!Harebag 01:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

By the Way!

If you want me to I will contact an administrator and see if you could get promoted to a higher position for the time being. I would also recommend VandalProof join it and become a changes patroller. This all will help you become an Administrator. I won't contact an administrator unless you want me to. GOOD LUCK AND KUDOS!!!! Harebag 01:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

How could somebody get it deleted? I've added enough to the article. Because I've looked at other articles and a lot list only a couple sentences. As to the suggestions I'm getting my info from the PD's website and they don't seem to list much stuff. I don't want to get in trouble for plagarism even though I'm not copying word for word. As for suggestions on your article I'm not into Secret Servive and haven't studied them much. But it looks very good. Since this is my first article I need to know how to list references. If I don't they will delete my article.

Signature

Go to "my preferences" (top right of your screen), "user profile", "signature", then enter this:

[[User:VK35|<span style="color:#ff0000">VK35</span>]]

to get this VK35. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 21:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! (testing)VK35 22:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar

I am glad you enjoyed your stay on the rock, you are always welcome back ! Chris Buttigieg 09:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yo!

Hey! Please visit my site one more time and see if it looks fine. By the way. A user named Mufka got mad at me beacuse he thought I deleted the speedy deletion tag on my article. *Mufka is a big dog that helps run wikipedia. Anyway now I'm having to chew them up because they won't listen.Harebag 02:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Hairy-Bag

Hej!

Your article on Nitrium was tagged for deletion. I wrote more on the article to try to save it.VK35 21:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary: it's a fictional metal belonging to the Star Trek universe, since it exists only there, the "information" might be merged into any relevant Star Trek article. Deleting is fine by me, only if important and relevant information is saved elsewhere. Rursus 17:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Missouri

Thanks for your offer to mediate. We would love your help. Let us know if there is something we can do to get started. Also, the issue might have been resolved, the page has not been revert in two days. Thanks for your help. Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Google

There are 2 types of searches that I commonly do for AfD and 2 types of hit count measures. You can search on words or by specific phrases of words.

Searching on "Tiger Airways Australia" yields 1,680 entries at the time of this post. This searches for the phrase with these words in this exact order. However, clicking on page 10 shows that only 83 of these are unique pages.

Searching on Tiger Airways Australia yields 1,070,000 entries at the time of this post. This searches for pages with these words in any order with other words between them. However, clicking on page ten and then going to the address bar and changing 90 to 990 shows that 727 of these are unique. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Response

In response to your post here. I'm laying off. No problem. One note on your adoptee, he has a VandalProof userbox on his user page and he is not an approved user. Perhaps the explanation of the use of that userbox would be best coming from you. I had some concerns about the user being a troll because of the crassness of his comments on my talk page. I'll just put that in the "new and anxious to get information" category. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 13:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandal counter

Hi. It's not set to auto-update for two reasons. Firstly, I don't know how to make it do so. Secondly, not all posts to the page are deliberate vandalism.--Anthony.bradbury 08:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Help

VK35 I need help! The problem is with Gatlinburg Police Department. I added more but my ref list and internal link list isn't working! I don't know what the problem is!Harebag 14:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA

I will post momentarily. My end may also take up to a half hour:-) TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Re [1]

Editors who aren't administrators may close AFD discussions whose outcomes are "keep" or "redirect" under the circumstances described in Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. That being said, an important factor in the closure of AFD discussions is that there is currently a dispute as to the extent to which AFD discussions should be closed on the basis of "vote-counting", and the extent to which users closing AFD discussions are to weigh the arguments and evidence presented, and decide the outcomes of such discussions on the basis of their personal analyses of the strength of such arguments and evidence (see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, which is currently protected due to a dispute as to whether the page has achieved guideline status.) As a result, most AFD closures probably employ a combination of both methods. For instance, if an article is an obvious copyright violation or WP:BLP violation, it will, of course, need to be deleted, even if there is a unanimous consensus favoring retention. On the other hand, if there is an unanimous consensus favoring retention of an article, there is probably a very good reason for it; such consensus should not be disregarded without a compelling justification. To the extent that AFD discussions are closed on he basis of quantitative considerations, it is important to avoid counting votes by sockpuppet accounts. For this reason, only votes by established users are counted. For instance, if 20 new accounts whose only edits are to an AFD discussion favor retention of an article, this does not constitute a consensus to keep the article. Not all new users commenting at AFD are sockpuppets, of course; however, votes by new users aren't counted due to the potential for sockpuppetry. To the extent that a user closing an AFD discussion weighs the strength of the arguments presented, all arguments are considered, including those presented by new users. It is likewise important to avoid giving undue weight to comments in an AFD discussion which have been generated through canvassing in violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing.

Most importantly, to the extent that a user closing AFD discussions is called upon to personally weigh the evidence and arguments presented, he or she must be quite familiar with Wikipedia's deletion policies and practices, and policies and practices which relate to deletion. For instance, if an article cannot be written from a neutral point of view due to the choice of topic, it would need to be deleted. If in doubt as to the correct outcome, one should not close an AFD discussion. John254 02:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Block of Enorton

VK35, thanks for the note. I blocked Enorton for 48 hours because he was using the IP account and the Enorton08 account in tandem to violate the 3RR (see the sockpuppet case for details). If the user promises to work with you in mediation, I'll reduce the block to 24 hours (and if he prefers the Enorton08 account I'll unblock that instead). I'll put a note on his talk page to this effect. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger's RfA

Beats me. But, now that you say it... "I oppose neutral" — maybe he really meant he is opposed to neutral !votes and hates the neutral section (="that guy") in RfA's. Weird way of saying it, though. TonyTheTiger didn't understand it either. Nobody can be expected to understand that, esp. when you're double stressed because it is your own RfA. Punishing TTT with an oppose !vote is an awkward way of saying "sorry, I meant to make a joke, you see, with 'that guy' I meant the neutral section not you sorry for the misunderstanding etc". Reporting it to AN was a bit hasty, but El C and some others don't seem to understand how that joke isn't obvious (or funny) at all. —AldeBaer 00:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

IL award

What am I suppose to do with an award that does not at least have an image. I need at least an image to put it up on my mantle. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm blushing. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerns

I may be jumping to a conclusion, but I'm concerned that User:Harebag, your adoptee, may have created another account to do things like remove speedy deletion tags and other templates from articles that s/he has created. For an example, take a look at Gatlinburg Public Services. Harebag created the article and has made multiple edits. In the midst of these edits, another user User:JV17, removed the speedy deletion tag. If you go to that user's contributions, you can see that their other edits have been to remove tags that Harebag previously removed (Bristol Tennessee Police Department). JV17's user page also contains similiar statements to those found on Harebag's (though it is nowhere near as elaborate). Ordinarily, I would discuss this directly with the user in question, but my previous interactions with Harebag have been quite, um, dynamic. Would you mind, if you think it is appropriate, bringing appropriate Wikipedia policies to his/her attention? Thank you. janejellyroll 01:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Last Time!

I'm leaving VK35. I've cleared you of this mess so I won't be coming back. I tried to be reasonable with them but they weren't so I'm DONE! Thanks for all your help.Harebag 18:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Response

In response to your comment here and here. In providing evidence in a sockpuppet investigation, it is necessary to provide any facts that might be pertinent to the investigation. Mentioning you as the adopter is a positive comment. The fact that you felt that you were able to adopt another user when you were so new shows that you were serious about the project and thought you could help. Please do not misconstrue my mention of you as a "noble adopter" as an insult or attack. I think adoption is noble and puts a shining start next to your name for trying to help. I ask that you give me the benefit of the doubt and not assume I have ill intentions. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 19:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

about me

My wiki-interests bounce around quite a bit. Some days I'll spend hours monitoring new pages or new user accounts. Others I go on an anti-vandalism crusade. Sometimes I just like being the policeman that I wouldn't be in real life. I also like just going around and fixing random things: like spelling. When it comes to constructive editing, I'm a bit of an historian so I like to dabble in historical articles. For all the constructive editing I'd like to do, I just have too much fun fooling with other things. Any way you slice it, I spend far too much time here. But I guess that's better than porn, gambling or drinking. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 20:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey

In response to your artcle on our secret talk page: YES I'M BACK! Anyway. So whats new at the end of your line.Harebag 00:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I'll be on a couple day wikibreak. Hold down the fort.Harebag 14:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Miaers

VK35, have you seen WP:CN#Disruption_by_User:Miaers? If you are interested in mediating this situation, you should be aware of that thread. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD question

My answer would be, almost never. In some cases, the strength of the keep arguments are so overwhelming that they should really come out on top in the debate. But then I have to ask myself if there's a good explanation as to why others didn't agree. If, for instance, the killer keep argument came up after all the deletes had already been posted, that might explain it. Or, if the deletes were possibly orchestrated or in bad faith. Even in such a case, I would be tempted to merely relist the debate and add my own voice, but in some cases, I might just close as a keep on the basis that the keep argument should really win the debate and someone else might close as delete. Debates sometimes have turning points where the general opinion changes. See, for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MLB.com, one I'm proud of. In some circumstances that turning point comes late enough that the debate attracts virtually no participation afterwards, but that's rare. Sometimes I might close a debate as moot thanks to article changes. But it's tough. The funny thing is, I feel like it's much more likely for a debate to be reasonably closed "delete" when a majority of users want "keep," because keep reasons are more likely to be ignorable and delete reasons are sometimes very strong, whereas the reverse is rare.

As to what to do in practice, try to get to those salvageable articles early in a debate, before it becomes too late. If it's too late and the article might get deleted anyway, just make the argument that you're interested in salvaging, and wait until the debate completes before doing the work. (Ask yourself, just because you can salvage something, is it really necessary when many others want it deleted?) Mangojuice^talk 19:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiger Airways Australia

In http://www.tigerairways.com/oz/ozwelcome.php, it said that Tiger Airways Australia is the only true low fare airline that will fly out of Melbourne Airport. That implies that the routes will mostly originate from Melbourne Airport, hence it is the hub of the airline. Isn't that correct? --Zack2007 07:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Re : hello

Hi! :) Hope that you're doing well so far, happy editing! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 00:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Motoring in Singapore

Hi. The photos are not mine, I just recycle the ones found at Electronic Road Pricing and Expressways of Singapore. Do add or replace with your photos, the more the merrier. :D. Welcome to the SGPedian community, we look forward to your participation and contribution. Be Bold and remember to have fun! --Vsion 19:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Use "Move" not just copy and paste

I'm sure you mean well, but it's important to retain edit history for articles. You should have used the "move" command rather than a copy-and-paste to create Nitrium (Star Trek). Now only an admin can fix it. --EEMeltonIV 20:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your intent. The Nitrium (Star Trekk) article will likely become a redirect, in which case having the original Nitrium edit history would be a useful record. The way you've adjusted things, some unknowing user who thinks Nitrium (Star Trek) should have a whole bunch of additional information would not be able to see its edit history to see how the material has progress/regressed, since all the info. is sitting in the real-world Nitrium spot.

Either way, it's probably a moot issue. In the grand scheme of things, I doubt anyone is going to go poking around for nitrium in the Star Trek context -- which is why it should be deleted/redirected in the first place. My note was more a "for future reference" heads up. That's why the Move button is there. --EEMeltonIV 21:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Adoption -

Most certainly, I'll always be willing to answer any questions. Gnangarra

Question 3A

Hi, I saw that you opposed my RfA because of my delay in responding to question 3A (thought you are hoping to support! :-)). Please be assured that I was not being arrogant or trying to "blow you off." I found yours to be an excellent question and have just answered it. I am very sorry for the two day delay in answering your question. I was simply not aware of urgently my answers were needed as I was busy in "real life" and had some edits to conduct on two of my articles. I hope you will forgive me my delay; I really had no malevolent intentions. Regards, Signature^brendel 21:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fast

Maybe, but I'm not fast enough, since it was on my page for 20 minutes after all :) The whole career thing really gets in the way sometimes ;) · jersyko talk 18:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Steve Rizzono

If you check the talk page there's a link to the checkuser IP archive, with a catalogue of socks. The article was originally created by a JB196 sockpuppet, and with the exception of one editor every other major contributor has been JB196 on an ever changing open proxy, as his IP is blocked and the proxies keep getting blocked as they are identified. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

See here. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement of intent

I learned that volunteers may become checkuser clerks. I will be volunteering for a trial period of approximately one week. My understanding of the job is that it carries no status or access to the checkuser, which is my intent. In view of the many articles that I have written about Singapore, I will recuse myself from any case that involves articles related to Singapore during the trial week.VK35 23:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

{{rfcu problem}}

Don't forget to subst the template, or the output might not be what you wanted ;). When subst'ed, the template automatically signs for you, adding that you are a clerk. -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

RFCU clerking

Hmm... why did you blank an RFCU page? Cbrown1023 talk 18:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Procedures? I suggest you use an archiving script. Futhermore, normally, only requests that have been non-compliant get blanked then deleted, the others are just archived. Voice of All's script (linked from the archiving section of the Procedure page) makes it very easy, and I suggest you use it. :) Cbrown1023 talk 19:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The archiving template goes above the header, just like in archived AfDs. VoA's script should do all of this for you. Cbrown1023 talk 19:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you on IRC at all? If so, you could join our IRC channel (#wikipedia-checkuser-clerks) for real-time help. Cbrown1023 talk 19:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to ask for permission. :) Cbrown1023 talk 19:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you getting on IRC requires no permission, but getting in to that specific channel would. If you could just login to IRC< I could get you access quickly. Cbrown1023 talk 19:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an IRC client? What internet browser are you using? Cbrown1023 talk 19:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's fine... you don't need to use IRC. :) Cbrown1023 talk 19:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Go onto irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-en . Cbrown1023 talk 20:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

then flag me with a message containing Cbrown1023. :) Cbrown1023 talk 20:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Subway

Chicago 'L' has many good pictures and commons may have some more. I do not have any at this time. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok then

Checkuser confirmed that you are editing from the same IPs as Dereks1x and his socks, and corroborating evidence I've already presented backs up checkuser. That's basically as strong a confirmation as can exist that you are the same person who was behind User:Dereks1x, User:Atlas87, and/or User:Doc United States. Thus, I think we can take that as a given, right?

The real issue now, it seems, is whether you should have been banned in the first place if you are, in fact, a doctor. Trusting Jimbo that the evidence you gave him reasonably proves you are a doctor, I will not initiate any further process that could lead to a second ban. Frankly, I'm almost willing to drop the entire situation and go about my own article writing at this point (I tend to prefer writing articles from scratch on my own). Are you satisfied with my statement here? · jersyko talk 18:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. I am not Dereks1x. Although my response to Jimbo Wales' questions are privileged (private), I can say that I do not defend Dereks1x' actions. In fact, I condemn them in the strongest possible terms. If the community ban were still up for voting, I would vote allowing a written statement from him and then a ban or at least a long block. Deception and bad behavior has no place in wikipedia. I do commend you for seeming to stop your fighting with me.VK35 19:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:WPChi

Welcome to WP:WPChi. Make sure you put at least one category from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Categories on your article or it does not really count as a Chicago article since the bot will not assign it to us. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Newton Minow

Thanks for your note. I've continued to tidy up the references and footnotes. Frankly, I think the article doesn't look very good right now, with too many one-sentence paragraphs and very short sections. In my opinion, the article has a chopped-up, amateurish look, which doesn't help the reader. A couple sections are currently empty, and several other sections, including the lede, do not flow well. Once you complete your additions, I would like to work with you on copy-editing the article into a more coherent and polished format. Thanks again. Casey Abell 05:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to hog the bathroon, either! (That's a funny image. I'll have to use it next time I'm editing an article with lots of other active editors.) Anyway, you've improved the article greatly. I formatted the footnotes and made a few copy-edit tweaks. There are still some pretty short sections, but that's not a big deal. I'm not crazy about short sections but some people like them for ease of reference from the table of contents. By the way, the tags on the multiple footnotes are "embassy" for the story from the Singapore Embassy publication, "medill" for the story from Northwestern, and "MBC" for the story from the Museum of Broadcast Communications. I hope this helps if you edit the article more. Casey Abell 18:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Brya community ban

I believe the case has been taken care of and a more complete list of sock puppets arleady posted. Do you still require information? The ban is right here[2], and the sock puppetry is not subtle or unique to anyone but to Brya. Let me know what it is you are asking. KP Botany 00:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Being accurate is always useful. Yes, you are correct, it's not a community ban, he/she was blocked for failing to abide by procedures while banned from posting anywhere but in the RfAr going on to decided whether or not a community ban was going to be implemented. I will be more precise in the future, and point out that User:Brya is indefinately blocked for failing to follow procedures during discussion of a community ban on ArbCom (or whatever). Ironically I was originally one of the editors strongly against a community ban of this user, and still disagree with the way it was done, in spite of his/her continued behaviour that seems to only indicate a community ban would have been totally appropriate. KP Botany 02:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

New topic: I found two more Brya sock puppets, and added them to the case[3] but I don't understand what I am supposed to do to make it appear on the check user page, am I supposed to fill out the form, then edit the project page and add the request to the list of outstanding checks? Could the page be altered to make it clear what is supposed to be done? Thanks. KP Botany 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Your old request has already been answered so your request for the 2 names may not be answered because it may not be noticed.

Consider filling out a new checkuser request. See the WP:RFCU box for adding a new case. Consider listing Brya and the 2 new names, code G, an explanation to why you think the 2 names are socks and why they are disruptive. You may also consider other ways of WP:Resolving disputes because if the heart of the matter is not resolved, there is a reasonably high chance that socks will return. Are the sock edits false information, nonsense vandalism, or just controversial? (things to think of during dispute resolution)"

I can't fill out a new checkuser request, because using the box just generates the old request--so I'm not sure how to do this. There is no code letter G involved. You seem not to know that banned or blocked users are not allowed to create sock puppets to evade their ban, but this is a Wikipedia policy. Since banned or blocked users cannot edit Wikipedia, and dispute resolution requires two parties, there is no dispute resolution option. The only question is, how do I relist it when it's already listed? This can't be the only case ever where additional sock puppets were later discovered. KP Botany 16:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm having some difficulties understanding you. The issue is this user is blocked from editing Wikipedia.[4] As a user blocked from editing Wikipedia, she cannot use sock puppets to evade her block. She IS using sock puppets to evade her block. 13 of the sock puppets have been blocked. The other 3 should be blocked also.

I have not "knowingly submitted a non-compliant or false declaration in a checkuser request," YOU were the one who suggested I do so![5] I declined to fill out a letter G request when the request is strictly a letter F request--and you came back and accused me of knowingly filing a false declaration that you suggested I make!

There is no issue to resolve with her as she is NOT a Wikipedia editor. I don't know what is going on here, but I don't think you understand this issue, that blocked users are NOT supposed to be editing Wikipedia.

This is very frustrating, all these extraneous issues you are creating here. I have no idea what you are doing, but clearly you should not have your name up for helping users through the process of posting check user requests if you don't understand some basics, like what a letter F request is. I will ask someone at the help desk. Please learn what being blocked from Wikipedia is, it means the editor is not allowed to edit, not as themselves, and not as a sock puppet to circumvent the edit.

Please don't respond to this, I will simply get help from someone else. KP Botany 18:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My Review

Thank-you for your well thought out and considerate comments in my editor review! I appreciate the advice specifically towards Bridlewood, Ottawa. At the moment, I am not looking for formal adoption, but I would be honoured if you are willing to let me bounce ideas off you every so often! Thanks again,--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 23:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

David Charles II

My apologies, you are correct. Please delist as in this case, even if they are sockpuppets, theer has been no 3RR violation. So while the sockpuppetry is likely true, there is no need for a checkuser at this time. -- Avi 16:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you leave it alone?

I have already told you that I don't understand you, and went to the help desk to try to understand what is going on? Would you stop suggesting I mediate a dispute that doesn't exist with an editor who isn't allowed to edit and please leave me talk page and my attempts to get help alone? KP Botany 19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Now everyone at the help desk appears to be assuming my request was answered by you already. When a user says they don't understand you and tries to get help elsewhere, please just let them--how incredibly infuriating that you are preventing me from posting a legitimate check user request and blocking me from understanding the proces when you are on the list of users who are supposed to help, not hinder. I am striking your "Answer" as it wasn't one, and noting in the edit summary that you did NOT even attempt to answer my help request so someone can help me with what I am trying to do instead of continuing to shove me down the throat of a none editor. And please just leave my posts alone in the future, along with my talk page. KP Botany 20:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank You for that lovley Intro to wikipiedia I found it very useful. Can you also adopte me?

adopt-me-please!

Thank You I would love it if you adopt me as you are so friendly! Wikilove123 16:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

thanks for the user box i don't mind you can change my page anytime!

Please

Please can you adopt me? I am seeking an adopter, and think you sound really nice? Christine118Maureen 16:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerkwork

Thanks for the clarification - the user is about meltdown anyway so it's become pretty pointless in that regard. --Fredrick day 22:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

adoption

i have no problem with pointing other users in my direction. thank you very much! how are your adoptees coming along ?
MatthewYeager 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me make a new page?

Hi i whanted to make a new page about a website TV-links I have tried to make it before but it was removed can you help? Thanks Wikilove123 16:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I was only jocking sorry if it up set you

Why the CU

As I noted in the CU request, User:TobyHilton in this vandal spree made now-oversighted overt death threats against the article subject Benny Hinn. The use of long-idle sleepers to keep up the attacks after an indefinite duration semi-protection was applied indicates a very persistent, possibly dangerous (real life, not to WP) vandal. I would really rather get this guy off Wikipedia entirely and permanently. Mere persistent vandals are just annoying, even if they're sleepering around semi-protection. This is a couple of notches more serious. Georgewilliamherbert 18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Also minor note... F on the RFCU categories is "Evasion of community-based bans or blocks", not just bans... It may better fall under G (and if you want to, feel free to use clerkly perogative and change it), but I think it's an F. Georgewilliamherbert 18:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

help

help vk35 I'm in such a mess. A long time ago I was part of the "FREE TOAST VANDLES" Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dom56! but those time are over unluckly for me they keep coming back no I whanted to make a nice acount with userboxes and a clen record but no they know that i am a sock puppet. The rules say that I have to try and get my perant acount user:jimbobjounes but that has been removed I tryed greating it agin but it said it was already taken please help Wikilove123

RFCU

Hi, and welcome! I noticed your comment on that RFCU, and wanted to drop a note: unless you're sure you're right, I think code F says that it applies to blocks as well, may want to remove that comment unless someone told you definitively that it's community based only. If it does stay, the case needs to be moved from WP:RFCU/P to WP:RFCU/NC. We have an IRC channel, #wikipedia-checkuser-clerks, if you do that kind of thing, and good luck! --ST47Talk 19:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nitrium

Hi,

I think that merging the nitrium page and nitrium (disambiguation) is a good idea. However, I don't think that there should any link to "Nitrium (salt water), found in salt water and in the human body". I am fairly certain that this use of the word, as in this page, is actually a reference to sodium (perhaps a mistranslation).

Acegikmo1 22:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Sonic Flood's Glowball

Hi there; you have commented on this user's vandalism edits in WP:AIV. I cannot find any. Could you point them out, please?--Anthony.bradbury 21:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, but with the deepest respect, if you post a message referring to this user - which you did, it is still on WP:AIV - it would take a remarkable leap of intuition to recognise that you actually meant somebody else. --Anthony.bradbury 21:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot locate a user called Sogood 123. Or Sogood123, or sogood123, or sogood 123. Please give me the name of a vandalised article.--Anthony.bradbury 21:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking may well be appropriate, if you will give me accurate information so that I can locate him.--Anthony.bradbury 21:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. His username was User:Sogood 1234, which is why I could not find him on the info you gave me. But no harm done.--Anthony.bradbury 21:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

New category of users

Hi, I was one of the editors who replied to the AN topic that you created. I am sorry, there I was being too harsh in rejecting the proposal. I was being too, I don't know, thick, may be. But later when I thought of it, it seemed a very good idea. We work so hard in improving articles, and we get its fruits when the article gets recognized. But as editors, we do not get any recognition.

My reasoning there still holds, since all editors have same editing capabilities, creating a new category of users wont be of help. But rather creating titles for users would help. Also, I think the three month period that you mentioned seems too long. How about this:

We create an Star Editor program, where people will nominate other users (maybe self nomination be allowed as well). We will go through their contributions and judge them solely on the basis of their article contributions - no deletion noms, no talk page counts, no AN participation etc etc. Those promoted can proudly display a badge on their user page. And may be an accompanying Star Editor of the Week program. --soum ^talk 07:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I will write up an informal essay describing the essay and get a discussion rolling. --soum ^talk 16:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Ah, okay. I'll see what I can do. *Cremepuff222* 22:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Better? *Cremepuff222* 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yay, thanks. I like your font too! *Cremepuff222* 22:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have met you before

	Gnomes, unite!
	Hello, VK35! You are invited to participate in Gnome Week, a mass article cleanup drive between June 21 and June 28, 2007.
	This week, backlogs will be cleared. Articles will be polished. Typos will be fixed. Bad prose will be edited. Unreferenced articles will be sourced. No article will be safe from our reach! The more people who participate, the better Wikipedia will become as a result.
	I would love it if you would participate! - Christine118500
Edit message

Nitrium

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Nitrium, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 147.70.242.40 20:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Yes, I found that blocked user too, and referred to it obliquely in my initial review of his edits. However, that blocked user wasn't a banned user. Is WP:SOCK to be read as meaning that if you've been blocked from editing because of vandalism, you can't return as a reformed character? I think I'll ask for further advice on this point in case I'm unwittingly encouraging a breach of policy. Thanks for the heads-up. Bencherlite 17:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

do i get banned if i have been a sock puppeteer in the past? Christine118500 15:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on medical referencing, my tak page, I have read the core cite on foreign referencing but did not see any requirement to provide or cite an english translation? Perhaps you could direct me to these words in core policy?.Pubmed only requires an english Citation, why would wiki demand higher?Jagra 03:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Singaporean patriotic songs

Many thanks for adding to the article. I was going to do it but didn't think I would have time until later in 2007. I am sure that I would not have done as good a job as you did! VK35 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I was looking at the article, one thing led to another, and I ended up doing a bigger cleanup than I intended to. Do continue adding to the article – I'm sure there are many other patriotic songs apart from those already listed in the article, particularly those with non-English lyrics. Cheers, Jacklee 18:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Meetup 4 date changed

Singapore Meetup
Meetup 16
Status: Upcoming Date: 28 September 2024, Saturday Time: 1:30 pm Place: Subway @ Singapore Management University Please indicate your interest on the meetup page.
v • d •  e

Hi VK35, you were originally invited to Singapore meetup 4. However, due to the lack of response, the date of the meetup has been changed to November. Please refer to this page for more information. -- ZhongHan (Email) 05:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your warning to User:Bawlmer

I think you might want to retract your warning because if you check the editor's contributions, you will see that he was removing vandalism. -- Gogo Dodo 18:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Re your message: No problem. I left a welcome note for the editor explaining what happened. -- Gogo Dodo 18:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

More a warning

Re: [6]

Apparently I should have been clearer. My comment on the RFCU talk page was more a warning that you're being watched and as long as this account continues to make constructive edits, I won't make a stink about it. If the RFCU were the only evidence against you being a sockpuppet of Dereks1x, then we'd be more forgiving. However, the RFCU was requested in response to similarities that were noticed between how you worded comments on talk pages and how Dereks1x worded his comments. When that circumstantial evidence came back with a hit from RFCU and then Jimbo repealed your block, the only thing it made us do was question if we had been incorrect in thinking that Dereks1x's claims of being a medical doctor were false. All in all, regardless of you being a sockpuppet or not, if this account continues to contribute constructively, then you've got nothing to worry about. If it starts showing Dereks1x's tendentious editing patterns, then I wouldn't be surprised if a block is heading this direction. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Why

May I ask why you're interested in mediating a dispute (that doesn't exist, at least as far as I'm concerned, since I'm not involved in a content dispute at the article and have hardly edited it in over two months) between the sock puppet of a banned user and me? There is nothing to mediate, as the banned user is no longer on Wikipedia, or, at least, shouldn't be. · jersyko talk 00:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What Jersyko said. Feddhicks was pretty obviously a sockpuppet of Dereks1x and has been blocked for it. There isn't anything to mediate.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My answer is the same. A banned user cannot be a party to mediation. · jersyko talk 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That is the legalistic answer. The practical answer is if everyone wants to, I am willing to consider it. Since Bobblehead and Jersyko have refused, the question of informal mediation is settled (won't happen). VK35 00:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm an attorney. That's how I write. · jersyko talk 00:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How is this harassment? I'm merely trying to get a clarification on the original checkuser request that did confirm that you're editing from the same IP range. If you're not editing from the same IP as the most recent sock, you shouldn't be worried. I'm asking for a clarification, perhaps even to clear you so that you can go on about your business without ever having to worry about Dereks1x again. So why is it harassment? · jersyko talk 00:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

After all, you're the one that contacted me requesting mediation with the banned user's sock. Not the other way around. · jersyko talk 00:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the secret RFCU not published, you claimed that I was. So even if true, the determination of identity is wrong per Jimbo Wales.VK35 00:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

VK35, take a breather for a bit. One way or another this will all be over shortly. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, my above comment is not irresponsible, it is a bit of advice that you should really take. Getting yourself all worked up over this is not going to help your situation. Sockpuppet and meatpuppet accusations are part of editing on Wikipedia. The appropriate course of action is to ride it out and let it run its course. As for adding my name, if you have reason to believe that I'm a sockpuppet and can provide evidence for this, you're more than welcome to submit a request. However, if you do not have evidence that I'm a sockpuppet and are submitting the request for some other reason, I direct your attention to WP:POINT. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You ought to listen to Bobblehead and ride it out. You're not helping your case. Tvoz |talk 16:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you sent an email to Jersyko, it went to Jersyko, not to me, so I can't read it, can I. Tvoz |talk 16:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

VK35, you may not be aware of this, but wikipedia has a policy against reverting a change by another user more than 3 times on the same article. See WP:3RR. You have currently removed your username from the RFCU 3 times and if you remove it again you'll be in violation of this policy and subject to a 24 hour block.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've created an entry on the talk page so it can be discussed without edit warring over it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Per checkuser

I have no control over the action or inaction of other administrators. But per this checkuser, if I see ANY further Dereks1x sock edits from any accounts other than this one (i.e., VK35), I plan to either block this account indefinitely or (more likely) get another administrator to do so. Otherwise, don't plan to hear another word from me (again, I cannot vouch for anyone else). · jersyko talk 17:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

message

Yeah I understand and thought the same thing but hopefully it'll remove alot the anxiety that you must be experiencing over the matter. Hopefully in due course people will not need such a reminder and it can be removed. Talking about time I'm on the west coast so its the same time as Singapore just pushing midnight, I do keep an eye on my adoptees but only step in unannounced when the situation needs another perspective. Gnangarra 15:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Move on

VK35, you have got to move on, man. All you're doing by continuing to argue your case on the RFCU is digging yourself a hole that you might not be able to get yourself out of. There is more than enough circumstantial evidence that even if you aren't the same editor as Dereks1x and despite your constructive and value added edits, you will get blocked. As Jersyko says above, as long as you keep your nose clean, there isn't anything to worry about. Just go back to editing your medical related articles and forget this unpleasant business ever happened. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)