User talk:AnonEMouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

January 2006 – May 2006: 2 DYK's, a Barnstar, 5+ AFD arguments, ... June 2006 – July 2006: another Barnstar, the opport, meet Phædriel, photo & other arguments ... August 2006 – September 2006: another DYK, a peer review, meet Chidom and >Radiant<, religious criticism ... October 2006: Arch Coal, Elonka, WP:CHILD, some WP:FAC reviews ... November 2006: adminship, a DYK, arbcom election qs, AFD opinions, a P* name, Yasmine and Alessandra images again ... and a cookie! December 2006: first block (and an unblock), cocktails, Jenna review and GA, arbcom elections, a DYK, 3 barnstars... January 2007: Jenna comments from Rosenzweig and Tabercil, first WP:SSP work... February 2007: Jenna FA!, others' FAs, more SSP work...

Contents 1 Advice re:WP:SSP 2 Barbara Dare 3 Simon Templar 4 barnstar 5 Re:Removed 6 Requesting semi-protection for Wild Arms 2 7 WP:AUTO 7.1 One Favor 8 Thanks! 9 Wikiproject Pornography 10 User:Doctor39 11 Since I don't know what else to do... 12 Peer review on List of palms of the Caribbean 13 Travel 14 Update to position statement for RFC at Talk:Girl-girl 15 Care to weigh in on this? 16 User:Evergreens78 17 Politics 18 User:TheKorrektor=User:HEWatch 19 Join the fray 19.1 Giano comments 20 Deleting sections from user pages 21 Epbr123 continues 22 Cockroaches 23 WP:POINT 24 WP:ATT 25 Smile! 26 Betacommand 27 Even more AfDs 28 Thank you 29 Sheesh 30 FA review for History of Minnesota 31 User:Deathrocker 32 Your message 33 Betacommand 34 TFA/R revamping 35 RFA 36 Question on CoI

[edit] Advice re:WP:SSP

AnonEMouse, I wanted to ask if you could review some actions I've taken at SSP. As you know, I've been closing cases where all the accounts have been blocked. Since the page is backlogged, I've closed a couple of cases where there are accounts/IPs that aren't blocked, and I want to make sure I'm not doing something harmful. Specific cases are:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Animesouth--named accounts were blocked, but IPs were unblocked. Most IPs hadn't contributed since January, one IP has contributed recently, but the edits seem constructive, or at least not malicious.
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Damir Mišić--there was extensive discussion of the alleged sockpuppetry at Checkuser and ANI, and the consensus seemed to be that some of the listed accounts were sockpuppets, but not all. No action had been taken since January.
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jefferson Anderson--the alleged sock was blocked as a sockpuppet of a user not named in the case, and the alleged puppetmaster has left Wikipedia. The rationale for closing this one seems pretty clear, but it's still a situation where I closed a case and one of the named users was unblocked.

I just want to make sure I'm not being too bold here. By the way, congrats on the Jenna FA! --Akhilleus (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Dare

Stub assessment is based on the stub tag at the bottom of the article. Change it if you disagree. I didn't read the text past "porn actress", and so my assessment is necessarily arbitrary. DrKiernan 18:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Templar

Caught me between edits. Noticed my typing mistook, and my slop of the keybood. Well spotted thanks. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] barnstar

Thank you. :) - Denny 19:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Removed

Thanks - I'll remember that for future reference :-) --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 20:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting semi-protection for Wild Arms 2

The page is getting smacked literally every half minute or so, and I think the joke's worn thin. Give us a break? HalfShadow 03:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say every few minutes, but that's still a lot, and different IPs, so we can't just block them. Semi-protected for 24 hours. Just curious, why did you pick me as your admin of choice? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 03:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No particular reason at all. You were the first admin I saw. Back when I posted, it was being vandalized roughly every 30 seconds to a minute. Thanks for the break. I really wish this place would go 'account-only' sometimes...HalfShadow 03:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AUTO

You do realize that Jimbo has broken WP:AUTO dozens of times, despite making it? If it's important to the project, as you say, perhaps Jimbo doesn't understand the project, as I have said. He follows rules only when he feels like it and he and his supporters (apparently such as yourself) critize others for doing the same thing. Just H^{editor review} 04:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. He's also broken WP:AGF lots of times, and lots of other things. But he's not doing it here. And he's not asking to be reviewed, you are. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 04:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because I want to improve, and he doesn't. All of us as Wikipedians should strive to improve ourselves. In any case, I apologize if I seemed too confrontational, that definately wasn't my intention and I don't think it was yours either. I have a dislike of authoritarian figures, especially those who seem to devalue people and those who contradict themselves regularly. Just H^{editor review} 04:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Understood. To be a good admin, you have to be able to hide your dislike of authoritarian figures... among others. :-). Let's just put it you have to be able to hide your dislike in general. Good luck. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 04:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, i'll try my best to do so while still being honest and fair with people, even if I disagree with them. I'm glad you were able to lend me your wisdom :-) Just H^{editor review} 04:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One Favor

The next time I want to "dislike Jimbo", do you mind if I vent more quietly here instead? Just H^{editor review} 04:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, heh. Sure, why not. Feel free. However, don't think that I will be able to affect him in any way. I'm just a mouse (OK, one with a mop, but so are 1000 others). --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

lol, i'm not too concerned about him, i'm concerned about how you mop wielding mice types view me :-P Just H^{editor review} 06:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I want a cookie. And some chocolate milk. HalfShadow 05:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good right about now. Just H^{editor review} 06:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Your suggestions on the Dartmouth College article were very practical--something a bot can't do. I appreciate it!!DMCer 11:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Pornography

Hi –

I'm contacting you because you're listed as an active member of WikiProject Porn stars. I'm interested in creating a WikiProject Pornography and have started a poll to see whether WikiProject Porn stars should be merged into that project or remain separate. I'm fine with either. Please weigh in at: Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Porn stars: Proposal: WikiProject Pornography

Thanks – Iamcuriousblue 21:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Doctor39

It seems like this user (User:216.83.121.194), who has had several accounts blocked for being sockpuppets, is back again. User:Doctor39 has almost the exact same edit patterns as this users previous accounts. TJ Spyke 01:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the previous sockpuppet case? Sorry, but I've closed so many, I don't recall this one without a link. -AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Since I don't know what else to do...

Hi AnonEMouse, I would like to ask you for help, because you were once involved in Ivan Kricancic case.

• Ivan Kricancic (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 58.165.126.167 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log • checkip)
• 58.165.115.192 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log • checkip)

Ivan's second account Rts_freak was blocked indefinitely and he was strongly warned by you, long time ago. You can see that here: Ivan Kricancic - sock puppet. Ivan had second account which he created in order to nominate Bosniak-related pictures for deletion providing false information about the authors. He is an ethnic Croat, so he created the second account presenting himself to be an ethnic Bosniak who doesn't speak Bosnian, because he is from Australia. According to his user page (original user page) he doesnt like Bosniaks so much, and makes funny of them.

I noticed similar behaviour from the above IP addresses on Bosniak-related topics. Here is another earlier case that proves this, just compare his address 58.165.126.17 and his edit 58.165.126.17 in his original user page.

OK, I'll look at these one at a time.

The problem is in his Bosniak-image obsession, here are some examples when he was logged in:

• [1]

So, on Oct 25, 2006 he removed a deleted image, Image:Bosniak Muslim Flag.PNG. It was deleted on the 24th. Do you contend he should have left it in the article as a red link? It was nominated for deletion on Oct 14, 2006 by User:YellowDot, on the grounds of no source information. The way to fix that, surprisingly enough, is to include source information.

• [2]

Dec 19, he removed 3 more deleted images. They were nominated November 30, 2006 by Psychonaut as (db-copyvio).

(It should be noted that he first nominated those pictures for deletion)

No, actually it should be noted that he didn't.

And here is an example how he put false information when he was not logged in, about the Bosniak-related picture in order to nominate it for deletion:

• [3]

What makes you think this is him?

And here is an example when he promoted his ideas using his second blocked account, Rts_freak:

• [4]

That's been blocked, as you notice.

The worst thing is that he wrote lies about other users who donated pictures to Wikipedia. He said:

This image was unlikely to have been taken by Asim Led. He has a history of providing dubious sources, and lying about source info. Impropper licence. Since the image is probably unfree, it is also missing a fair use rationale.

Now, I want to show you few edits, just about Bosniaks and Bosnian language, he really hates them, when he was not logged in:

• [5]
• [6]

Again, what makes you think this is him?

and when he was logged in:

• [7].

He changed some uncited numbers -- without being an expert on Bosniak population figures, how am I to know which are right? The way to fix that is to include a citation: Wikipedia:Attribution.

There are so many examples...

When I found those evidence he became mad, and he started to go around and accuse me of insulting him. I earlier had a lot of problems with nationalists, and I was not aware of so many rules in Wikipedia, so I used to break 3RR rules (And I was blocked fairly). I felt I should defend articles from nationalists. Now, I am aware of that. Ivan damaged Wikipedia, because he nominated so many good photos providing false information. And after that photos were removed. I think after earlier strong warning it is time to block Ivan original account, because I don't have will anymore to discover the damage he prodoced to Wikipedia every now and then. Emir Arven 13:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I addressed each example above. In sum, it looks like you are wrong about his image nominations, haven't provided evidence he was Special:Contributions/58.165.115.192 (for one day, mind), and Rts_freak is already blocked. While that doesn't rule out further misbehaviour (I'm not at all happy about that Rts_freak business), it hasn't been shown that he has been abusive since then.

Meanwhile, please note this. We're here to make the world's best encyclopedia, not refight wars in text form. That means that the thing to do here is not to make enemies and try to have them blocked, the thing to do is to write good articles. When someone says "I don't think there are X million Bosniaks, I think there are Y", the thing to do isn't to go running to an administrator, the thing to do is to find a good reliable source that says there are X million, and include that in the article. If the other person then finds a good reliable source that says there are Y, then you include that too, and note in the article that there is a substantial disagreement. Remember also that while people are human, and will get mad, and will have bad days, and will make mistakes, the odds are good that most editors you will find here at least at first came here to try and make the world's best encyclopedia. Try to cooperate with them. Honestly. Wikipedia:Assume good faith. So many of your examples above could be taken either as good faith edits, if a little brusque, that I really don't think you are doing that all the time. Try it. Sometimes just the act of assuming good faith will convince someone to work with you, instead of against you. It won't always work, but sometimes it will. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Emir Arven 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review on List of palms of the Caribbean

I missed your comments, only noticed them today. Thanks for the input, you made some good suggestions. The evolution/colonisation issue is interesting, though probably ultimately unanswerable given current knowledge (there are far too few molecular phylogenies of palms, which is a shame, and too little resolution in fossilised parts to get below genus at best). The issue of economic use didn't really cross my mind - there are sources for that sort of info. Thanks again for the suggestions. Guettarda 19:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Travel

I'm going to be traveling for two weeks, so can't watch Wikipedia:Today's featured article/amendment proposal; have you seen what's happening? The rejected tag is gone, as well as old comments. Shouldn't that editing be occurring in a new proposal? Not sure, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

He's apparently working on rewriting it, and archived the old one. I don't know what the formal way to do that is, but the basic idea seems all right to me. Presumably he'll tell us (or at least Raul) when it's ready for people to look at again.

Meanwhile, bon voyage! What are all the FACs going to do without you? Expect to find nothing but Pokemon in the lineup for the front page when you come back... :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I 'spose they'll survive without me :-) Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update to position statement for RFC at Talk:Girl-girl

I just wanted to let you know that I have modified my initial suggestion to where Girl-girl should redirect: as "girl-girl" is a term used only to refer to a certain genre of pornography, Girl-girl should redirect to List of pornographic sub-genres#Lesbian pornography. Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Girl-girl. Thank you. Joie de Vivre 23:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Input? ... inputted? ... put in? ... better not go farther considering the subject matter... :-). --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Care to weigh in on this?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz Stewart. Dismas|^(talk) 17:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weighed in. Have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Porn stars/Deletion (also reachable as WP:P*/D)? It's supposed to be a common noticeboard for such things. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Evergreens78

I suppose you've seen the comment left by this user on the Liz Stewart AFD (if not take a look)... I find it suspicious that a new user creates an identity and immediately puts an article for AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godwin's Law (2nd nomination)). In fact, given the obviously imflamatory comment left by him, I suspect Evergreens78 is someone who has already been blocked on Wikipedia. If you run a checkuser on someone, do you need to know who you are checking for?? Tabercil 20:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politics

Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Politics. I'm quite gratified to note that most of the criticisms you made referred to parts of the article that I did not write, and hadn't got around to improving yet. (In particular, I didn't write the very first paragraph, or most of the sociological stuff about political power.) I have since done the following to address your concerns:

• Removed the (and non-human) comment to which you referred - that was added by another editor, and I had my doubts about it as well, particularly as it was unsourced.
• Unbolded Political science and decapitalised political philosophy and public administration per your recommendations. They were already bolded/capitalised when I started work on the article, but I see why you didn't like it that way, as it might confuse the reader as to the precise topic of the article.
• Clarified the statement about Aristotle, and used a consistent past tense ("Aristotle asserted", etc.) in all the statements about historical books.
• Removed the unsourced references to specific politicians who "transcend the left-right divide", although I kept the sourced comment about Christian democracy.
• Expanded the Authoritarian-Libertarian subsection and added sources, and also expanded the "post-modern and post-structuralist" subsection on political power, after trawling through some rather verbose sociology articles. As I said, I didn't write most of the stuff on sociological perspectives, but I've done my best to make it clearer and add appropriate sources.

Once again, thanks for your advice on the article. If you could take a look at the revised version and comment at Talk:Politics or on my talkpage, I'd be very grateful. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:TheKorrektor=User:HEWatch

AnonEMouse, would you kindly block this new sockpuppet? Thanks. (→Netscott) 07:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this has been resolved. Thanks. (→Netscott) 07:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Join the fray

Your doubts about drinking olive oil motivated a well-deserved review. Why don't you join in?

Peter ^Isotalo 20:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I appreciate it. Perhaps I will, but not quite this minute, I've been undeservedly rude to good people, and don't want to do it again. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 06:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giano comments

• Please note -
• (1) I have never mentioned my credentials or lack of them anywhere publicly on wikipedia - nor shall I, they are my affair alone. So I certainly do not sit and stare at them.
• (2) Pages I edit are not purely architectural, there are several including one FA which is nothing at all to do with architecture - in fact many are concerned with boxing and prize-fighting! So when speculating on my credentials you have a far wider and more dangerous field than you thought. Giano 22:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, I was out of line. I removed those comments, rephrasing the statement. I did and do mean the part about respecting your work. Bish had a point that I was misusing her talk page to debate her friends who were harmlessly blowing off steam. Please go on writing good articles, whether or not you want to seek the star for them (even if they won't meet FA standards, they'll certainly be better than 90% of the WP), and please do go on using her talk page to vent. I should not have jumped on that, and shall avoid it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 06:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• OK forgotten - forgiven - lets get on with what we are here for. Giano 07:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting sections from user pages

Hi, AnonEMouse. I noticed that User:Epbr123 had deleted several sections of text at his talk page. Perhaps it is irrelevant, but these sections include allegations of sock puppetry and WP:POINT-making. Following the Archive — don't delete recommendations at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, restored them. He has again deleted these sections. Is this appropriate? Dekkappai 23:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. What warnings you can and can't delete from your user talk page is a perennially contentious issue on Wikipedia: Administrators noticeboard. The arguments for them not to be deleted are that they serve as a notice to other people giving warnings that the user has been warned before, and perhaps to escalate the issue. The arguments for them to allow being deleted are that warnings aren't primarily supposed to be a notice to other people but to the user themselves, and by deleting the user has clearly taken notice. The usual WP:AN/I consensus is not to block someone just for that, but to treat it as an aggravating factor in borderline cases.

Personally I try to archive rather than deleting, and recommend it to others, but I wouldn't make a federal case out of it ever since I noticed a respected user or admin using "archiving" as a comment when deleting large swathes of talk page comments. I asked about that, and was told, not just by them, but by a couple of others, that since it still existed in the revision history it wasn't, technically, deleted. (Maybe I can find that incident in my contribs...) I don't know if I accept that fully, but at least it's something.

Deleting a WP:SSP notice from the user page has definite rules associated with it, but there's nothing specified about the talk page notification Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect.

Specifically in this case, I am inclined to urge leaving Epbr123 alone a bit. Yes, he did push the boundaries of making a point by a string of AfD nominations, but his explanation that he did it in good faith to determine deletion standards is also possible, and I am impressed that in at least one case he changed his mind due to good arguments. And some of his nominations were fully worthwhile ones; note that such noted champions of WP:P* as User:Tabercil and User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. are also known for nominating not notable porn star articles for deletion. We're not solely inclusionists - even I occasionally argue to delete something. :-) In short, I think Epbr123's heart may be in the right place, and if we give him a fair chance, he may turn out an asset to both WP:P* and the Wikipedia as a whole. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 07:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, for the thoughtful advice, AnonEMouse. OK-- I just wanted to make sure selectively deleting chunks of text from one's user talk page is acceptable. Personally, I find it dishonest. In the heat of discussion, I've probably made some statements on my own talk page that I'd like to erase, but, out of respect for a true record, I won't.

As far as being an "inclusionist," I wouldn't characterize myself as one, because I do believe in notability standards, and that they should be used to keep out truly non-notable vanity pages. Also, I would not do anything as dishonest as voting Keep when I really believe the subject is non-notable. I'd like to point out, that I have voted for delete in several AfDs, including at least two on Japanese porn subjects. I hope my editing history also shows that my own policy is not to create an article until it is fairly lengthy and well sourced, or can soon made to be so. Even if I start an article as a stub, I make sure it is sufficiently sourced for easy expansion. When another user creates an insufficiently-sourced article on a subject I feel is notable, I try to improve it rather than delete it. And I recently voted to delete an article on a Japanese subject on which I did work, but which I could not sufficiently source-- I did, however save it in my own workspace to work on later.

The work I have done on articles recently put up for AfD which are outside of my usual area of interest stems more from a hatred of censorship and a firm belief in intellectual freedom than an "inclusionist" philosophy. (Even if the impulse behind these nominations was not the typical prudery or moral outrage, the result of their successes would have been censorship.) I've taken a week out of working on the area which really interests me-- Japanese erotic cinema-- to fight what seemed to me an attempt at censorship, and, if some of these articles are now better-sourced, I feel it was time well-spent. Even if one or two of the-- what? 2 dozen articles?-- that have been been nominated for AfD recently are truly non-notable, I see this, "Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out" approach as censorious in its lack of discrimination. I've attempted to improve the article first, and vote Keep only when I've proven that the subject is notable.

As for the editor account that has made mass-AfD nominations within a couple weeks of its creation-- showing a prodigiously swift capability for learning the ins & outs of Wikipedian procedures-- I join you in hoping it will be a productive member of the Wikipedia community. Dekkappai 16:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Epbr123 continues

Hi, AnonEMouse. I assure you I hate this kind of time-wasting as much as you do, but... Not do the AfDs keep on coming, he has marked Candy Manson for a Speedy. How long do we have to assume good faith until good faith is shown? Dekkappai 18:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I begin to see your point. :-(. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Furthermore, prior to your post on his talk page, he removed a majority of his talk page, without showing where his archives are. Since his deleted contents are not sequentials, and in responde to the deletuion he said "mind your own business", I would say that he actually deleted them in bad faith, and I cannot assume good faith of him any more. That, with the AFD of Candy Madison, seems to explain that he's doing this out of spite. I am not sure where to address such issue, but it seems that we have to watch this person's action. George Leung 21:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

He's now blanked pretty much the whole thing without archiving. I tried being nice about it and explaining to him that he should archive, (I thought maybe he didn't see Dekkappai's message about blanking content) and he blanked me too. *sigh* LaMenta3 22:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, he didn't tell you to mind your own business or call you a "nutjob," LaMenta... Count your blessings. ;) Dekkappai 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. reported to WP:AN/I. George Leung 22:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've counter-reported you for harassment. Epbr123 23:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cockroaches

Hello and sorry for the spam. You participated in this discussion, which was closed but now restarted as a new discussion by the closing admin. In case you're interested, please join the new one. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd 20:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT

I would like to clear up this WP:POINT business. My article on Sharday was deleted on 16/3/07. I began nominating porn star articles for deletion on 14/3/07. I had nominated Maria Swan and Ashley Juggs before Sharday was deleted. I did not start nominating articles to prove a point about the Sharday article. Anyway, Sharday apparently shouldn't have been speedily deleted for the same reasons Candy Manson shouldn't have. Epbr123 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Disavian has just nominated an article I created, District Of Canterbury Credit Union, for speedy deletion. This is clearly harassment and WP:POINT. Epbr123 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It is legitimately a candidate for speedy deletion; the fact that he acted out in the way that he did brought scrutiny on his contributions and was a catalyst in bringing it to my attention. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaa! It looked like it might be going well, finally, after that chat on Epbr123's talk page. Then I log out for a few hours, and it's spread to WP:ANI, revenge deletion nominations (possibly appropriate ones, but still)... Folks, please, play nice. I'll go to ANI, which seems to be the most active place that isn't deleted several times a day. :-( --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ATT

You commented at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth about the inclusion of the sentence "Not everything that is attributable is worthy of inclusion". I'm sorry, but I can't tell clearly from your comment whether you oppose the inclusion of this sentence or not. Maybe this is obvious to you, but another user who I thought obviously opposed the sentence has clarified that the user never did oppose it, so I'm asking for clarification please; sorry to take up your time. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth. If you oppose the inclusion of the sentence, please explain why and participate in discussion to try to come to consensus -- note that there is an underlying concern which this sentence is only one proposed solution for. Thanks! --Coppertwig 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond. Based on Septentrionalis' comment, the discussion may have moved on to other possible solutions, as you noticed. I appreciate your clarification nevertheless and apologize again for having taken up your time. --Coppertwig 15:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile!

I think we all need it :) LaMenta3 03:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommand

Just a heads up, since you were involved in this last time. It looks like Betacommand has started up with the indiscriminate link removals again. - Ehheh 15:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh nuts, and I just thanked him on AN/I for restoring his earlier work!

On further inspection, it seems like he is going more slowly now, that is a useful difference. If nothing else, will reduce the amount of damage. :-). --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Even more AfDs

Hi, AnonEMouse. It appears that after that very well-reasoned advice you gave Epbr123, he has, instead of thinking his actions over, re-doubled his efforts at disrupting Wikipedia. A dozen in one 24-hour period. Whether they're made in good faith or not, it's clear that these AfDs have become a disruption, and are wasting a lot of people's time in the process. Whatever his WP:POINT is (I do him the favor of assuming there IS a point, because if there ISN'T, this is simple vandalism), it should either be discussed at WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO, or be handled in some other constructive way. We have all suffered the pain of a deleted article which we care about. I gave him some advice on how to handle this constructively, but he deleted this text from his talk page and clearly has no more intention of thinking over that advice than he did yours. I am not, and I doubt any of the other editors are, looking forward to another day of following Epbr123 around, trying to catalogue his AfDs. Dekkappai 17:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, no. Thalia festiny for example is hardly a bad faith nomination. I don't know if I agree with all the people asking for it to be actually speedied on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thalia festiny, but they certainly have a point. For goodness sakes, the article meets Wikipedia:Geogre's Law! If they're all like that, he's doing a good thing. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would likely agree-- I haven't even looked at the article. Sure, shoot willy-nilly into a crowd of pedestrians and you're bound to hit a crook now and then too, but that's hardly constructive. The thing is, there are so many of these AfDs coming up so rapidly, I don't even have time to look into them all. But isn't that a good a sign of what this is becoming? Twelve nominations in one day? There's no way I can look into each one of these sufficiently, or even in passing, not to mention the fact that I'm not really interested in the American models anyway, except in preventing POV mass-deletions... I'm on the verge of saying, 'To Hell with it,' and just sticking my nose back into researching Japanese subjects, and leaving the rest of the AfDs up to whoever has the time and interest to fight it. Meanwhile he's attracting an "Ew! Porn! Delete" group of followers. Is that, maybe, what he's going for? And if so, should he get what he's going for? Dekkappai 17:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the very definition of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh Mickey and Minnie. Why do this and Betacommand have to come up at the same time? Someone send me a simple straightforward vandal I can just block! Sigh. An AfD takes 5 days, and saving a good article takes a bit of research which takes time. Betacommand, on the other hand, has shown that he can take out external links faster than a speeding bullet; he's also an admin, which is a separate can of worms. If you don't know what that's about, take a look at WP:AN/I#Proposal - but for heaven's sakes don't get involved, that's enough of a firefight. Can I ask you guys to save the articles you can (and want to) for just a few days, and not to get into any fights enough to risk getting blocked yourselves? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Good advice as always, AnonEMouse. I know I tend to fly off the handle when a group of AfDs come up, and I've been trying hard to hold my tongue in this one. I'll forge ahead in stoic calm for another day, anyway. However, I don't know about Dis, I must take exception to that "Mickey and Minnie" crack-- Pixie and Dixie, maybe, they are both guys, aren't they? ;) Dekkappai 18:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't referring to you, just a general mouse expletive. ;-). --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

'Salright. Dekkappai 18:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Cute. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All right, it's Monday, I looked at a bunch of his nominations. He really is nominating stuff worthy of deletion; a few so clear but not yet unanimous that even I had to support deletion on them. I only wrote keep on one or two. (I avoided the obvious snowball keep or delete ones) I was amused by Dekkapai's supporting deletion despite the nominator on a couple - and one where Dek was supporting Ebpr123 defending one of his porn star articles from deletion! :-) Come on guys, he is rough around the edges, but clearly means well. He's gotten better since the first days. I think he'll be a valuable WP:P* member, and that, frankly, is worth a few marginal articles that will never be more than stubs. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 06:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. He seems like a decent guy now that it's all settled down :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for all you do. I really appreciate it. Thank you just for being you! Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 20:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sheesh

Sorry to trouble you again... The nominator is now significantly editing his opening nomination statements, to make them appear to have addressed "Keep" arguments before they have been made. (Here and here for example. He's also changed the notable number of films at WP:PORNBIO from 100 to 75-- I had not noticed the original change from 100 to 75, but it appears that you made this change in this edit. Sorry again... Regards. Dekkappai 21:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, he actually changed it back to 100 from 75, which is a good thing, as I didn't notice the drop either. As for changing the nomination statement, that's not a capital crime - for legibility it probably should have been put as a response to the keep argument, but that's a fine point. It was quite short before, one word. He did evidence a misunderstanding about the 100 film rule in a few places which I addressed at his talk page. Come on, he's making useful comments on the WP:PORNBIO talk page, give him a bit of a break. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK-- Searching the edit history appeared to show that you'd made the 100-75 change. Forging ahead... Dekkappai 21:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA review for History of Minnesota

Could you take a look at History of Minnesota and see if I addressed everything you had questions with in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Minnesota? I think I've gotten to everything, or nearly everything, but I want to make sure. In particular, I revised the Fort Snelling section so it better explained the fort's role in the foundation of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

Also, you said in the FA review that Fort Snelling doesn't mention the Dred Scott affair. It should, but there's probably more work that needs to be done with the Fort Snelling article. There's a lot of history there that just isn't being reported in the article. Another thing is that the article conflates the fort itself with the populated place reported by the Census Bureau.

Thanks for your constructive criticism so far with the History of Minnesota article. Your suggestions have helped the article become better organized. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been keeping the FAC on my watch list but not the article itself. You seem to have gotten everything I asked for. Supporting. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Deathrocker

I notice that you've blocked this user. I had done the last block, escalating to three days from previous one and two day blocks; I approve of a week this time. Per the arb case the next block, which seems inevitable at this point, is going to be for a year—long enough that it might as well be indefinite. Should we take this to WP:CN? One last kick at the can/helpful warning for Deathrocker? Not now, wait for the week to expire, so s/he can post? Marskell 17:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean here. CN is for discussing community blocks, right? Are you proposing one? Seems unnecessary. Personally I see poor Deathrocker as a well intentioned user who doesn't do well with things like rules (what a shock for someone focusing on heavy metal music). If there is a way to keep him from being indefinitely blocked (I agree a year is almost the same thing) then I'd be in favor of it, I just don't know how to do that. If I knew anything about heavy metal, I could try and deal with the individual issues, but I don't. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I was suggesting that a year block effectively amounts to a community block (or would be interpreted as such by the recipient). I'm not proposing one, but I think WP:CN would not be an appropriate place to bring up a case like Deathrocker's. Marskell 19:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't plan to bring it up there, and didn't think I suggested it. I'm still not sure what you are proposing. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm proposing we ask the community: is this it? One more and its a year, no questions asked? Can someone be his buddy for a time? etc. Basically, is there anything we can do to save the user and/or is he definitely at the last of his lives. Marskell 17:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Go for it. Make the section, and I'll sign on. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I will on the last day of his week block, assuming I don't forget. Marskell 19:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Thanks for letting me know; yes, feel free to list me. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything that I'm supposed to do? I've not been involved in one of these, so far as I remember. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure myself. :-). At first, I thought every party should create their own subsection, like mine, and I even created the headings for you other 3. Then Tony Sidaway, who was an arbcom clerk for a long time, took those blank sections away, saying everyone should create their own. If you have something to say, you should probably create your own section, but note that for now, this is supposed to be the time when the arbcom decides to take or not to take this case, so this really should be about that. If you have something about Betacommand that I haven't written, please do write it. (For example, as I recommended to Chris: "I think Betacommand is the salt of the earth and should be entrusted to the keys to the city; dismiss this case at once...") While your block of Bc was probably notable, I don't think it will make the difference to the arbcom taking or not taking the case, so if you just want to defend yourself, then you probably want to build your statement in a user subpage or something, then put it on the Evidence subpage if and when the case is accepted. (BTW, don't be scared because Tony thinks your block was spectacularly inappropriate or whatever he wrote - though he is an experienced clerk, so I'll trust his word for the procedural side, the impact of his statements on recent arbcom cases have been not quite what he might want them to be.) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm never sure if Tony's little splenetic outbursts are just because the venom has built up and needs to be released, or because he's trying to get back at me for past disagreements. No matter. I've left a short comment on the RfArb, just to justify my having a section. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommand

The Bot Approvals Group wants you to be aware of our discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group regarding Betacommand. Since you started the Request for arbitration for Betacommand, we wanted you to be aware that we've officially sanctioned Betacommand for his actions regarding bot activity by removing him from the BAG and forcing his bots to undergo another approvals process. This aspect includes regulating deletion scripts running on his main user account. We want to be sure that you've taken our opinions into account with regards to this issue, since we consider this issue to be closed. We also do not want to get involved in this process unless we are called as witnesses to the case. Could you perhaps provide a link to the approvals group page discussion so that everyone is aware of it? We may perhaps draft a statement for usage, but I thought you could work on that in the meantime. Thanks. -- RM 17:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I stuck that in the middle of my statement (chronologically): "As part of the fallout, he apparently lost Bot approval rights: Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group#Betacommand; Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Another bot deflagging" - is that good enough, or would you like me to do something more? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's probably fine for now. I'll most likely draft a separate statement in a few hours clarifying the issue. I should have paid closer attention to what you wrote, but I've never been involved with an ArbCom case before and didn't know much about it. -- RM 17:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TFA/R revamping

Please revisit proposal 2 at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/amendment proposal TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Canvassing is highly discouraged. Watch for me next month. I will nominate myself sometime next month. Even this might be considered canvassing by some. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand about canvassing, that's why I'm specifically asking to be notified. See Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly_notice. I'm making an unsolicited request. Come on, admit that it's probably a surprise to you that someone who doesn't like your proposal will want to support you for admin. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on CoI

Hi there, was hoping to tap into your experience. How would you suggest handling this? User:JRDaltonUser:Jrdalton appears to be the primary contributor to AgileCMMI and also Agile CMMI; also to Encapsulated Process Object; all quote the works of one Jeff Dalton and his website as sources. Assuming that the person and the user are the same, then there seems to be the appearance of a conflict of interest. I don't feel competent to judge the importance of this; would you mind taking a quick look please? Thanks --AndrewHowse 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)