User talk:Wikitumnus

Welcome!

Hello, Wikitumnus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Alientraveller 19:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template messages

Just cos I saw your message to someone else: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace HTH, Cheers Stephenb (Talk) 14:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've used them several times now. Mr Tumnus (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning vandals

Hello, I reverted a nonsense edit which Jameshowe2k7 made to Mouse, and saw he had made other similar edits, so I reverted them as well. I went to his talk page and saw that you had left two messages for him. One of them had "Template:uw-vandalism1" in invisible text, and another had "Template:uw-vandalism3". Can you tell me how to use these templates? Thanks. Mr Tumnus (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. These are the standard vandal warning templates, and can be used like any other Wikipedia template. For example, the vandalism1 template can be called trough {{uw-vand1}}. A list of all the available templates can be found here

Before filing a warning template, make sure you check the users talk page for previous warnings. For example, if a user already has a recent level 2 warning (Recent is less then 1 week ago) you place a level 3 warning on the page. If the user didn't receive any warnings yet, then a level 1 template is placed.

One exception is the "Last warning" template (level 4) Once a user has already received that you should add a second level 4 warning, and report him at WP:AIAV. Instructions on how that's done is done can be found on the AIAV page. Is that enough information? If not, feel free to ask for more :) --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Mr Tumnus (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crum375 sockpuppet of Slimvirgin

It is beyond doubt that Crum375 is a sockpuppet of Slimvirgin, even down to deleting repeatedly the article on Swalwell, Alberta which is where SV is rumored to live, until told to stop.

So there is nothing uninformative about using the sockpuppet template, because that is exactly what it is supposed to be used for - to mark accounts used for abusive sockpuppetry.

Your vandalism will be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.88.98 (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My vandalism? Mr Tumnus (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in New Articles

When dealing with new articles that contain vandalism, use the {{db-vandalism}} tag rather than just removing the text. It helps to keep track of what's going on and allows the offending user to be properly warned. Cheers. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll do that in future. Mr Tumnus (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Aslan's How

An article that you have been involved in editing, Aslan's How, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aslan's How. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queluz National Palace

This article, to which you contributed, will be featured on the Main Page on January 5, 2008.[1] Risker (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for warning 68.49.200.156 about vandalising the Hitler talk page. I was just about to warn him myself, but I wouldn't have known how to revert the page! Keep up the good work! Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

England FC mistake

Hi, I have reverted your edit to England national football team here [2], where you inadvertantly dissapeared the article from line 634 downwards. MickMacNee (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't know how that happened. The IP had added {{main|failure}} to the article, and had also added {{main|urine}} to American beer and {{main|inferiority complex}} to Germans. I used TWINKLE (which I'm not very familiar with yet) to roll back, and somehow it did more. Thanks for catching it. Wikitumnus (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe worth telling the twinkle people, you might have used it correctly it just might be a bug. I was more amazed no-one had noticed it sooner. MickMacNee (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pedophile comments and wikilinks

Hi, although your edits are hopefully well-meaning the "pedophile scandal" is what made international news. We correctly have pointed out - directly after the quote - that the term is misapplied. Str1977 and I have been asked not to engage each other so I wanted to respond to you directly so you knew at least that I considered your view and I'm open to improving the article. Also, as indicated in the edit summary, I wasn't able to find a good source to reconcile the drunk priest comments, if we include anything we have to qualify if she was joking or what context it was said. Frankly it's a talk show that covers dozens of topics everyday so realistically we shouldn't put everything the hosts say even if they are outrageous. On a BLP we need to show extra care and ensure balance. Benjiboi 15:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Hopefully well-meaning"? Err, thanks! Btw, I think it's better to keep the discussion on the article talk page. I really don't see how you can just revert and revert, with no discussion on the talk page, on the grounds that you've been asked not to engage another editor. Wikitumnus (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, I didn't quite and still don't quite understand what that editor who suggested to both of us not to engage truly intended unless they honestly thought both of us were simply going to walk away from the article. In my defense I didn't engage them on the talk page but did respond to everything they wrote. I've pretty much gone over everything in the article myself from lede to EL's whereas the other editor's only intent has focused on labeling the subject as anti-Catholic and lately has moved on to another "controversy". In any case I dug up references when they weren't able or unwilling and added them.
Consensus generally is arrived at through editing as well as talk page discussions. Ironically our roles had reversed with myself inviting them to the talk page to stop the revert warring on past occasions but due to the direction given I had held back directly conversing with them. Now, sadly, I've just decided to step back even though there are some untruths there. They aren't major but I feel if something's wrong we should fix it. I had taken about nine days wikibreak because of this situation and just saw this reply here so wanted to reply back. I think for the time being I'll just have to wait and see what happens with that article as i do have plenty of other projects to work on. Benji boi 18:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For the revert here!--MONGO 02:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Rather a childish piece of vandalism! Wikitumnus (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hello Wikitumnus, I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 20:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I'll try to use it responsibly. Wikitumnus (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Acalamari 22:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Wikitumnus, can I ask if you are a returning editor? Some of your edits seem to suggest that you may have prior experience. Feel free to email me if you like, if only to tell me about other editors who may know about any situation. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request opened.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Lar. Thatcher 14:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests

Wikitumnus, if you'd like, I am open to explaining to you by email the issues that I raised and that I believe led to your account being checked. I'm just not comfortable posting all of it publicly as a first measure. Of course I know nothing more than you about whether ArbCom intends anything further. I can't email you currently, however, as it doesn't appear to be enabled. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mackan. The best thing you could do would be to waive privacy, as SlimVirgin, Crum375 and I have done - at least as far as the restriction on showing Lar's evidence to me and SlimVirgin (and Crum if he requests it, though he may not as I believe the handling of this case has been the last straw as regards his wish to continue involvement with the project). I am happy for Slim and Crum (but not for you unless the committee feels that your ignorance of my personal information is hindering them from investigating this case properly) to see anything that relates to my privacy, identity, or IPs. I believe they are also happy to have their personal information seen by me and by each other, and they have confirmed that. As far as I know, the official reason for our not being allowed to see Lar's evidence in its original form (I have seen bits that were extracted by an arb, and Slim and Crum as far as I know have seen none) is that it contains an e-mail (or e-mails) from you - where you requested the usercheck on me and Crum, and could not be shared without your consent. I don't think you have ever been asked for your consent, so I'm asking you now and would appreciate if you could remove what may be the last pretext for not allowing the evidence to be seen and addressed by the affected parties. If you could post your consent here as well as e-mailing it to Lar and to some arbs, that would help, because all my private e-mail protests to arbs that I hadn't seen any of Lar's evidence quoting me, despite his promise to copy me, and my private e-mail queries to them as to whether or not he had submitted were ignored or answered inaccurately until I came forward and made them on-wiki. Thanks. Wikitumnus (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point in raising the above is that I believe much of the frustration here, though not all, arises from poor communication between those involved. As I said, I think the ability to email you would improve that. At the same time, the basic argument that anyone who is checkusered is then entitled to see any private communication related to the matter, doesn't strike me as viable, or at all consistent with prior practice. In this case, I would sooner post any relevant emails publicly than I would simply "release" them as you suggest. If you'll allow me to email you, however, then we can at least be a little more educated about what we're doing here. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't argue that anyone who is checkusered is entitled to see any private communication related to the matter. If that were the case, I wouldn't have had to ask your consent; your e-mail would have been automatically provided to me on request. While I do not accept and never have accepted (or said that I accepted) that the check was justified, I understand that it is difficult to prove abuse, because if a checkuser claims that he genuinely believed that X was a sock of Y, that seems to be the end of the matter, regardless of how unconvincing the evidence was.

I'll ask you something - is there some particular reason why I shouldn't be allowed to see what you wrote to Lar, other than that you think that people who are checkusered are not normally given the evidence? You've said you'd be willing to discuss it with me. So obviously you have no objection to allowing me to know what you told Lar. You say you'd rather post the e-mails publicly than allow me to see them in Lar's evidence. Is this a trap? Supposing I say "Please post them publicly, then", was there something in the e-mails that would compromise someone's privacy? For example, you have evidence that Crum375 is a professor of history at a particular university and I edited an article about history and another article about that university? Or perhaps the "evidence" you sent to Lar contained a link to a site which harasses Wikipedians.

In the interests of ensuring that the arbcom cannot use our privacy as a reason for refusing to address the evidence or answer essential questions, SlimVirgin, Crum375 and I have waived our right to privacy, at least as regards the circumstances surrounding the check and subsequent events. Obviously, we do not want our real names, locations, etc. publicized, but there would be absolutely no reason to do so. I would say, if there is nothing in the private request you made to Lar that would provide identifying information about any Wikipedian who is not using his or her real name when editing, then by all means go ahead and post the e-mails here. However, it would be preferable if you would just agree to allow them to be circulated to the parties in the case.

Thanks. Wikitumnus (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Wikitumnus, but I thought it reasonable to suggest that we could discuss this by email, considering you appear to be concerned about a check run on my request. You're apparently declining, instead saying that I should simply allow third parties to release any email that I have sent to Lar. To be honest, I don't find this either sensible or assuring.

That's really about where I see it. If it's just a public fight, I'm not currently interested in participating. If on the other hand you aren't assured by the Arbitration Committee's findings, then I was offering to explain my understandings by email. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]