User talk:Morven/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Archives: User talk:Morven/archive1

Contents

[edit] Unable to notify you

In your role as an Administrator, I need your help with Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SEWilco blocked from commenting on William M. Connolley, which forbids me from issuing to you and other Wikipedians a notification required by anti-spam procedures. (SEWilco 04:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Re: CNW Class E-4

I've been going through my back issues of North Western Lines (CNWHS publication) and the books that I have. So far, I haven't found a definitive answer. Slambo (Speak) 11:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Mitsubishi F1M.jpg

Warning sign
This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mitsubishi F1M.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 15:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, this image seems to be masking a PD image of the same name on commons, although the commons version is of a wrecked plane, not quite so appealing. :-) Stan 20:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the only thing so far out of the ArbCom elections ...

... is to find another CJ Cherryh fan standing. Charles Matthews 22:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] D'oh!

Sorry about messing up your vote; I'm not great at reading the fine print. Good luck anyways- I'm sure you will be a splendid addition to the Arbitration Committee. Avogadro 22:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Concorde

You are right. The conversion is at ground level. However I think it helps.--BBird 11:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

Ground level -- If you have a better figure in "normal" units put it there. My pint (and edit) was that mach 2 means nothing for most people. mph or kph do have a meaning for non techs. Thanks.--BBird 10:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for your clean-up on Edsel! 15:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of commas after "e.g." and "i.e."

I noticed on the Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes page, you once reverted my correction of adding a comma after an "e.g.". According to most American manuals of style and professional journal style guides, the comma belongs both before and after them. The British usage is somewhat different (often no periods or commas afterwards) but that doesn't matter since Wikipedia uses American style by default. In any case, the current Wikipedia style guide suggests avoiding their use altogether. Jason Quinn 22:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been boiling mad for the last two years over that edit and I couldn't stand it no more! Seriously though, I just noticed it and I thought I'd let you know. I also used to think the comma didn't belong there. Regarding the American English thing, I agree with you. I know about the using the variant best suited for the article, and so on, and I just read the current manual of style and you are correct that there is no default. It's been a while since I looked, but I very clearly remember that at one point there was a preference for American English. Doesn't matter much now though. Have a good one. Jason Quinn 22:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

My condolences Congratulations on your election to the Arbcom! May it be as thrilling and fulfilling as you'd imagined. I sure am glad you made it to this esteemed position - better you than me! :) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


Congrats from me as well, and you'll be sure to hear from your local Signpost reporter soon... ;-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Well deserved congratulations! --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you all. Condolences and congratulations simultaneously appear to be appropriate; I'm trying to ignore that voice in my head whispering "Sucker" ... —Matthew Brown (T:C) 04:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks from Lulu

Storm clouds ... and silver linings Thank you for your support on my RfA.
Unfortunately, it failed to reach consensus. Nonetheless, it proved an opportunity to establish contacts and cooperation with many supportive editors, which will be beneficial to editing Wikipedia in the future. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (t @)

[edit] Bob McEwen

Greetings, Morven!
You voted to support my FAC for James Aubrey, for which I say thanks. I wonder if you would support my current candidate, Bob McEwen: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bob McEwen. PedanticallySpeaking 16:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rules

"As I told you on wikien-l, Wikipedia is not a game of rules. It is a project with a purpose. You seem to be confused about this, given your constant attempts to find a way around the wording of policy. You see, the wording of policy isn't what gets enforced, in actual fact. It's the spirit. Granted, we sometimes disagree on the spirit, and that's to be expected. But there is no way to get away with things on technicalities here, so please do yourself a favor and understand that."

The rules don't precede the game; the game precedes the rules. That is to say that the invention and development of rules becomes necessary to play the game—and playing the game means fulfulling the purpose. This is why I tire of the "nomic" complaints. They miss the point entirely. It would indeed be wonderful if operating based on the spirit of the rules was fully workable, but as you yourself point out, interpretations differ. That is why conflicts naturally come to center on the letter rather than the spirit: because, while the letter involves questions of interpretation as well, it is much easier to keep things stable and cohesive when you're concerned with the letter. In fact, it wouldn't be very inaccurate to say that the root of our general conflicts today are based on this spirit business: the rules become nonfunctional because nobody can agree on what the rules are, and everything becomes a question of who is most assertive and influential, because it's those people who are best able to make their interpretations "stick" in practice. Process and policy become "games" themselves, devoid of real meaning, existing to be manipulated by the most powerful members of the community. The idea should never be to sacrifice the letter in favor of the spirit; rather they should be made compatible, and we should always be looking to make them more compatible. You follow the letter, and if the letter is at some point deemed to be different from the spirit, then you see if you can get the people who were behind the spirit to begin with—the community—to agree to a change in the letter. That's constructive evolution within a stable framework. The letter governs and the spirit guides. You're just starting off as an arbitrator; it would be good for you to see this right off the bat. If you've got the wrong theoretical basis for what you're doing, every step you take is a step away from the goal. Maybe you should've taken that turn a few miles back. Everyking 08:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the letter and spirit of policy should be made as compatible as possible. The better they're written down, the easier they are to grasp, especially for newcomers.
However, written policy cannot and will not provide a specific rule for every possible situation. Policy that detailed would make it impossible to follow policy in a different way, by having a ruleset impossible to comprehend; and worse, such over-bureaucracy would drive away valuable contributors.
Thus, much of Wikipedia written policy will be general. You (general you, not you specifically) are expected to be able to apply general rules to specific behavior. Especially, arguments that there is not specific policy prohibiting something that is clearly prohibited under general policy do not fly. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 09:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links on phpBB

Hi, Morven. Since you took part in the discussion over external links at vBulletin, I think you might be of help in a similar (but much uglier) conflict over links to unofficial phpBB Web sites on its article. Your comment would be appreciated. æle ✆ 21:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Signpost interview

Hello, Morven/archive2. I hope you don't mind taking a few minutes out of your busy Arbitration schedule to answer a few questions for the Wikipedia Signpost.

  1. How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
  2. What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
  3. What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
  4. What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
  5. What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint three Arbitrators (JamesF., Jayjg, Fred Bauder)? Do you support this?
  6. After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
  7. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
  8. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
  9. What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?
  10. Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
  11. If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why?
  12. Is there anything else you would like to mention?

Congrats on your recent selection. By no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of the questions; though we'd appreciate it if you did. An article featuring your responses will be published on Monday. Thanks a lot, and don't hesistate to ask me if you have any questions at all! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bavarian S 2/6

Hello! I've seen that you're translating my German article about this locomotive. If you don't understand something, please don't hesitate to ask me! Regards, FritzG 02:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I answered on my talk page! --FritzG 14:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KUCI

To answer your question, yes. I'm the seventh entry on this list.evrik 14:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Say hello to Kevin for me.evrik 19:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

With your vote of support, the Bob McEwen article was made a featured article this morning. Thanks for your vote. PedanticallySpeaking 16:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dyslexic agnostic and T-man

I thought you should be aware of the latest developments: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Evidence#Fourth asserion. Dyslexic agnostic 16:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I HAVE HAD IT WITH CONSTANT ATTACKS BY T-MAN. The arbitration is just a further opportunity to attack and attack and attack, a relentless illegible onslaught. PLEASE JUST MAKE IT STOP! Dyslexic agnostic 05:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replacing images on ViP subpages

You're replacing the images on ViP subpages for particular vandals with the CVU image. Any reason? It just seemed odd when I noticed you doing it. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 16:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

? Hmm... No real reason. Was just bored --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please review a motion in my case

Thank You. Zeq 18:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CheckUser

Hi! You're now a CheckUser. As a CheckUser, you should subscribe the checkuser-l mailing list. Datrio told me to tell you this, but I don't actually know where you'll find that mailing list (my guest is at the mailing list main page). If you don't find it, ask one of the other Checkusers… =) ~~

[edit] Obvious Sockpuppety

We can all see that, from your interview for the recent Signpost article that you are an blantant sockpuppet of Mackensen. :-) The proof:

1. How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?

Mackensen (MC): I'm honored that the community granted me that opportunity and I hope that I won't let them down. I said right after the election that I was in a state of shock and it still seems a little unreal.
Morven (MO): It would be fair to say I was thoroughly shocked that I got so much support. I never expected that; hoped for it, of course. I'm still feels a little unreal.

3. What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?

MC: In both cases, that I'm not taking it personally.
MO: That in both cases I hope I exceed expectations.

In all seriousness though, congratulations on your election to the Arbitration Committee, and I wish you good luck and godspeed with all the work you wil no doubt face there. Regards, Bratschetalk | Esperanza 05:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is any one paying attention ?

I made motions, presented evidence but it seems no on is paying any attention. Indeed, now the article had to be protected again because edit wars are continuing by other parties. [1] ArbCom should realize that the process is totaly broke. Protection does not cause "dialogue". Banning does not cause NPOV. I seriously suggest you come up with a different process for such articles. Some proposals were made in the ArbCom case. Sincerely, Zeq 04:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi,

Just wanted to thank you for doing the checkuser on User:Kingjeff and the other suspected sockpuppets on WikiProject Football. Hopefully we can get the voting thing back to normal now. Cheers, CTOAGN (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MilkMan

How exactly did you come across proof of those accounts being the MM vandals? I can see no connexion, especially since they don't exactly mention "milk". 68.39.174.238 18:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Correction, "Farm Fresh Milk" was pretty obvious, the rest I still have no idea on though... 68.39.174.238 18:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
CheckUser evidence, common editing patterns on some of them. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 18:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It takes two to tango

It is clear by now that you have voted in an ArbCom case without bothering to look at the evidence.

Your only source for the decision was what Fred Bauder ( a self edmiting anti-Zionist) had to say about the case. This after he refused to recuse himself from a case he had a strong bias about.

Here is some of the evidence (which are on the case) that you choose to ignore:

User Zero was as much a party to edit wars as the people you voted to ban. Zero is continuing this edit war all over Wikipedia articles that deal with palestine/israel and the conflict:

I made an suggestion to discuss this, in a a civilized way, cause i think that with Fred leading you , you have not got to the bottom of the issue. Still wiling to do that. So far there was no reply. Not very civilized.

Zeq 17:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page name for temperature articles

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 22:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three weeks of admin tools

Today three weeks have passed since I was granted access to the administrator toolbox. During this time I have made use of it in the following way:

  • Protections and unprotections: 1
  • Blocks and unblocks: 4
  • Deletions and restorations: 69
  • Rollbacks: 246

I've found that the rollback tool is much more useful than I'd thought for vandalism patrol. In fact it makes that task so easy that I've been doing it more than before. On the other hand I've been surprised by how little the blocking tool is needed. Having done a significant amount of vandalism patrol I have still only blocked one solitary vandal. The great majority of addresses which send out a vandal edit do so only once. Those who do it more often usually stop after a warning or two. Only rarely is a block actually needed and in those cases someone usually beats me to it.

As a side note I haven't retired from writing articles either. I'm still hoping to bring Freyr up to featured status but even though I've already performed more edits on it than on Hrafnkels saga back in the day, a lot of work remains to be done. Community expectations for featured articles have gone up and so have my own ambitions. I'm currently waiting for a couple of books I ordered to arrive and then I may be able to make the final push.

I'm trying my best to live up to the trust you showed in me by supporting my RFA. If ever you feel uncertain whether I'm using the admin tools in the best interests of the project, let me know. I am at any time willing to relinquish the mop and reapply for it to address concerns people have and ensure that I'm not using the admin tools without being trusted to do so. Haukur 22:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Important WikiProject Automobiles Discussion

Hello! As a Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles member, I just thought you might want to input your opinions on an important discussion we're currently having about whether articles regarding similar vehicles should be merged into one or split by brand. If you would like to comment or read further, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Articles of Similar Vehicles. Thank you in advance for your thoughts and feedback. Airline 23:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Police State possible sock puppetry

Thanks. Ben Aveling 15:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dirty Socks

I think that User:Trollwatcher and User:John1838 are identical, and may be Gio/Balinda/etc. working to evade your block. Also, User:Kecik resurfaced as soon as you initiated the block. Thanks for anything you can do to help, and for all you've already done. KHM03 20:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DA

I have expressed some concerns at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision which you may wish to take a look at. Thanks. Dyslexic agnostic 20:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zero

Here is some more proofs that Zero continue edit wars in the last 48 hours including removal of well sourced material .


This maybe of value:

  • [7] it is clear that Zero is using wikipedia against this directive in his case from 2004:
  • "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".


Zeq 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T-Man ban

I also want to state that I think a six-month ban of T-Man is highly excessive, and further it is beyond the jurisdiction of this body at this time. His current one-month ban should be left, after which he is of course subject to scrutiny, and I hope would not conduct further personal attacks. A six-month ban all at once is unfair. I thought this was MY arbitration (see my name in the title: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision?) It would be procedurally unfair to ban T-man without him having the opportunity to defend himself; he didn't know he faced sanction at all in these proceedings! His comments were dedicated to showing why I should be banned or restricted. I think it is very important that this ban NOT be put in place, since T-man is entitled to make answer and defence. Dyslexic agnostic 01:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution

As a retalvly new user at Wikipedia I have only came accross this page Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes in part of your decision in my ArbCom case.

It is enfortunate that I was not ware of this page before cause it would have allowed me ways to seeq what i have ben looking for in the case of Artcle Palestinia_Exodus which is ways to get wider participations and mediators.

I have noticed that ArbCom is mentioned only as "last resort"

Therefor I would like to make a motion to suspend the ArbCom case and to first ensure the dispute over this article goes through all the steps mention in the Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes policy. If I am not mistaken it is actually a pre-condition to any ArbCom case.

Thank You. Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  • As I have mentioned many times I would not mind voluntarlity banning myself from this article once a mechanism to make it NPOV is found.

Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sock puppets

You need to review WP:SOCK. For a sys admin you have no excuse for making the mistake that a shared IP means the same "user" - just a shared network - a huge difference. Your thoughtless comments caused another admin to put sock allegations on User:TheShriek front page which thankfully have been removed. I only found out when another user informed me. There is a huge mess on these pages which I have been drawn into for no good reason other than what seems to be blinding ignorance of the basics of networking and even wikipedias own rules regarding multiple accounts.

Make no mistake - our editing/voting patterns NEVER gave any reason to suspect sockpuppetry (as we have different views and edit independently) - the only reason my husbands account came under suspicion is that at some point he agreed with a user that the "entrenched" editors on the pages have issues with. I spent yesterday evening and most of this morning explaining my private life to all to try to explain my apparent "duplicity". An unexpected and distressing situation as I suddenly found my credibility and integrity under serious questioning. The bad feeling this has caused and the upset of having to suspend editing the article to "justify" myself has made me question the point in this whole exercise. When making comments in the public domain you need to be very clear of your facts before you make accusations - it is not fair to make off the cuff comments and then leave other people with a mess to sort out. I started out in this project in good faith and whatever the other editors may say I feel degraded by having to explain to them all why I was not trying to "fiddle" the system.

In future get the facts and be sure of the rules before making a judgement - real people are on the end of these accounts. If the only way to survive is to toughen up and not care what the other editors think then this whole project is doomed. SOPHIA 00:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - you've gone some way to restoring my faith in wikipedia - no mean feat after the day I've had. SOPHIA 01:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have left messages on User:William M. Connolley asking him to review WP:SOCK as he does not seem to understand it. He's treating me like a hysterial nuisance and has shown no empathy for the mess he caused. I've asked User:Sceptre also to leave a message (he deleted my RFC about this - I don't think I got the protocol right) and he again is acting like I'm making something out of nothing.

Other than follow this through I've stopped editing but I'm really copncerned that he could cause someone else to have the day I did chasing "sock" accusations round various talk pages refuting them (I did have one user help me - there are some good guys in this place).

I'm very angry about his arrogant attitude - all I want is for him to get the rules straight - he obviously doesn't know them and he doesn't seem to care. This does not recommend him as the sort of person suitable to be an admin - having been on the sharp end of his "judgement" I don't want him to do it to someone else.

I really appreciated your appology and empathy - everyone makes mistakes but it's how we deal with them that marks us out. SOPHIA 21:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

From his reply it looks like he missed your point completely (I liked his references to my "clearing" - he seems to think I brought this all on myself). It's all mute anyway as I won't be editing under that ID for a long long time (if ever) - but thanks for your help with this.
It's worth carefully checking the evidence for each account if the same group asks for a check user again. Apart from agreeing with Gio and reverting a couple of times - TheShriek hadn't been around for a few weeks so had played no part in the events that led up to the request to check Gio. This is the same group that would revert Early Christianity to a stub (or near stub) rather than see Gio's info stand (I in no way support Gio's editing technique but he has got some interesting stuff to contribute). That's why SOPHIA won't edit - it's not a nice place on those pages at the moment so there is no point.
Thanks for your help with William M. Connolley - even if pointless! SOPHIA 09:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of interurbans

My worry was that the title would be obscure to anyoen who didn't already know what it was about (like me), as the term "interurban" is both local and oddly formed (being an adjective used as a noun, so it looks as though something's missing). I shan't re-move it, but perhaps we could raise the issue for discussion via Wikipedia:Requested moves? --Phronima 23:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply (and sorry for my delay; I don't edit every day). My reasoning was in part that, as the summary calls them "interurban railway systems", the title should correspond. Still, as I say, I'm not so committed to this that I'd want to fight over it. --Phronima 12:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4-6-0

Thanks for responding. I read your comments before in the talk page page. However, I can't agree. The one thing every picture on the page has in common is the wheel arrangement. What people need to see is the different bodies and styles of the locomotives. While I do agree that the pictures are rather dark, they are of different engine styles to the european ones which are the only ones left if they are removed. I was also going to see if the pictures can be lightened to show the wheels better, but even if not, they are useful. Sandpiper 21:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I came at this from doing something else, and as often happens you get a bit of a pile up of things you are trying to sort out. So I havn't got back to trying to work on the pics yet. I think you might find a problem in that all old pictures will be black and white, unfortunate that the engines in the pictures seem to be painted black anyway. Also, modern pictures are illustrating actual engines which have survived and are still around to go and see. There are probably few enough of them that the article should list every one.
Now, apart from that, I had thought to add something about a UK 4-6-0 to the article, only I find there are maybe 20 other articles about UK 4-6-0 engines. I am not clear how all that lot could sensibly be added to an article which right now just talks about US engines. It feels as though the US stuff might need to be taken out and placed in separate article(s), then the 4-6-0 reorganised to give a brief mention to each type, US and UK (and presumably elsewhere too). Turn a page on wiki, and open another cataloging can of worms...Sandpiper 22:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we are getting too many cooks here. I have put the pictures back in amongst the text and tried to spread things around again, see what you think. Pictues now are one done by me and one by lordkinbote. But I agree, this only needs enough pictures to illustrate general types and more pics should go in separated articles for each particular class. But at the moment I don't think there are separated articles for these US locos? And, of course, yes, it doesn't say much about those in the UK which do have articles. Sandpiper 23:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please be a little more polite with tagging gfdl-self images.

You need to be more specific about which language you find "biting." I believe all my posts to be polite and helpful. Point me to one so I can read it again and take corrective action -Thanks Nv8200p talk 20:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urgent CheckUser request

Please see WP:RCU regarding User:Bowlhover. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I know the privacy policy won't allow you to post an IP address onsite; I've emailed Jimbo, Danny, & Brad Patrick on the situation, could you forward the IP to those three so they can take the appropriate action (since you've already run the checkuser, it will save them having to run another one). Essjay Talk • Contact 09:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks; Danny & Brad were involved a week or so ago when there was another suicide scare, so they were my first thought when I saw that note go up on AN. Thanks for your help. Essjay Talk • Contact 09:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Check User:Geo Swan

Thanks for the advice I don't need. You really need to restrain User:Geo Swan whenever someone attempts to write the truth about this war in Iraq. This user attacks anyone (including those who have been to Iraq) who disagrees with him.-Ariele 14:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RCU request

Could you, if you have time, check on Netoholic's request here? I would very much like to be exonerated on his claims of sockpuppetry. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hey, thanks for this. Shouldn't Altau be blocked? --Khoikhoi 01:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Generally I just do the CheckUser and move on to something else, on the basis that there's only five or so people who can do Checkuser and hundreds of admins who can block. I'll take a look at it, though. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked User:Altau and left a message for User:-Inanna- about block evasion. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --Khoikhoi 02:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFCU

I can't by your comment at WP:RFCU if you preformed the CheckUser or not for Amazon10x. Did you? Moe ε 01:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did. No ties to other users were found. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, thanks! Moe ε 03:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFCU request

Could you do the checkuser request listed for Cellophane? Thanks.--Urthogie 11:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RCU

I am leaving this message to all 10 people at Special/checkuser list. Therefore forgive me for its being impersonal. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for CheckUser#cleanup needed. Your response and/or actions there would be very much appreciated. Thanks! --Irpen 23:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About that Railroad...

Thank you for catching my OOPS. I did omit the words "scenic mountain" which gives the Mount Lowe Railway the distinction of being the only scenic mountain, electric traction railway ever built. Magi Media 13:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

I do a slide show presentation of it that consists of 140 photos all from the Pasadena Museum.

[edit] Date links

Hi Morven,

You know of me through my work on units and you may have also seen me dealing with dates. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. I would appreciate your view. bobblewik 20:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] checkuser?

Hi, would it be possible for you to run a checkuser on Nameme (talk • contribs) and see if it matches up with deleted user Get-back-world-respect (talk • contribs)? I have reason to believe that Nameme is really GBWR avoiding a block and making controversial changes through a sock to avoid further warnings. I'm also being harassed on my talk page by the user. I'm not asking that you take any action: if there's any action to be taken I'll bring it up to arbcom or RfC or AN, or something else. But I'd like to know if they're the same person before I take any action that may make me look like a fool. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire!

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Licorne

Could you have a look at the suggestions in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Licorne/Evidence#Licorne_has_been_using_IP_sock_puppets? It would probably help the case if someone did an early checkuser before the logs expire.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 17:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:infobox SG rail

Eh, any changes should be made to template:infobox rail then. I'm not familiar with what has been changed - can you do it? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser backlog

With Diva being ill it looks like Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser is filling up. Is it time to create more admins with this privilege? I've mentioned this to a couple of other checkuser priv'd people as well. — ciphergoth 09:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I've been doing a fair amount of this recently but the workload is heavy. The problem with restricting this to the arbcom is that the arbcom are already busy. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought the ArbCom had the power to appoint checkusers? Maybe appoint a few long-standing editors who are generally well trusted? Forgive me if I have the wrong end of the stick. — ciphergoth 20:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
We are not unanimous as to who should be trusted, and whether this would be supported by the community of users/administrators. Change in such matters happens necessarily slowly. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Could you do a checkuser on me and IP user that was requested here:[8] The IP user isn't me and was blocked as my alledged sockpuppet(without checking IP by the admin who did this). The user I am in dispute with constantly alledges that is my sockpuppet, I would like this to be checked because it will confirm he is not, and the allegations are unfounded. Also the request has been there for a bit of time. Thank you. --Molobo 11:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Matthew. I notice that you seem to spend a lot of time on Checkuser, and I do appreciate that, as I'm sure it's a thankless task.

[edit] Checkuser - I think a request could be withdrawn at this stage

There is a request here which has gone unanswered for quite some time. The request was made by Tom harrison, but I added to it later.

The problem started when a new user Giovanni33 (talk • contribs) made big changes to the Christianity article — the kind of changes that would need consensus. They were reverted, and he reverted back, again and again and again. We didn't report him, because he was new, but he kept going long after he had been made aware of the rules — five times a day, six times a day, eleven times a day. Finally, he was reported, and blocked. But new users, with red user pages, began to appear, say they agreed with him, and revert to his version. They followed him to other pages, and voted with him. We asked for a check of Giovanni and the four redlinked users who agreed with him and voted with him, and you discovered that BelindaGong (talk • contribs) (another massive 3RR warrior, who was repeatedly warned rather than reported at the beginning) was Giovanni33. You found no sockpuppetry from MikaM (talk • contribs), or Kecik (talk • contribs), and you found that TheShriek (talk • contribs) was SOPHIA (talk • contribs). SOPHIA then said TheShriek was her husband, which we all accepted without question, and Giovanni said that Belinda was his wife. On looking at their contributions, I saw absolutely no indication of anything shabby or underhand in SOPHIA and TheShriek. They hadn't said they were married (why should they?) but, unlike Giovanni and Belinda, they hadn't actively pretended they didn't know each other. They had not reverted to each other's versions: in fact they hadn't reverted at all. Nor had they voted together. Belinda's first edit was a revert to Giovanni's version, and she (if indeed she is a separate person) followed him around to revert to his version on different articles, agree with him on the talk pages, say that there was consensus for his version, and vote for whatever he voted for. A look at her contributions will show that that was her purpose on Wikipedia.

The same could be said for MikaM and Kecik, but since you found no IP connection between them (and neither did Fred Bauder), I accept that. I still think there is a connection, even if the edits come from different computers. Giovanni's favourite mannerism was a lowercase "hehe" after a full stop, (e.g. "The only reason for suppressing this is that Christians don't like talking about their origins. hehe") and MikaM used that as well. Both users seemed to have no contributions other than agreeing with Giovanni, voting for Giovanni's version, and reverting to Giovanni's version, on various pages.

After you announced that Giovanni33 = BelindaGong, they were both blocked for 24 hours, as they had taken over three reverts between them. (They generally took over three each, anyway.) Then Freethinker99 (talk • contribs) turned up at the Christianity talk page, said he was new but had read the talk page and agreed with Giovanni, and then reverted to Giovanni's version. Then Giovanni answered a question on his talk page, forgetting that he was logged on as Freethinker.[9] He tried to remove the evidence, but it was too late; we had already seen it.[10] Freethinker was blocked as well, and Giovanni's block was increased.

If you look here and especially here, you'll see that the problem is ongoing.

On Saturday, Giovanni didn't edit at all. On Sunday, two "brand new" editors RTS (talk • contribs), and NPOV77 (talk • contribs), appeared, and reverted to Giovanni's version. The first reverted eight times, despite numerous warnings. When he was blocked, the second appeared, and immediately reverted. I blocked the second as a sockpuppet, and was given considerable support on AN/I, even though I am involved with the article. I had refrained from blocking the first one, and had spent considerable time welcoming him, and explaining the rules to him, even though I was absolutely convinced he was a Giovanni sockpuppet. It just got too much when yet another one appeared! My guess is that a checkuser would not find a connection between those two new users and Giovanni, so I haven't asked for one. He knows, to his cost, that IP addresses can be checked, and wouldn't run that risk again. I think that since Giovanni didn't edit at all on Saturday, he may be away from home, and may have taken advantage of having a different IP (hotel room, perhaps) to make nine reverts, knowing that he'd be blocked if he went beyond three in his own identity. It's only speculation, but he has a record of sockpuppetry, and others agree with me.

We also have a problem with Trollwatcher (talk • contribs), and John1838 (talk • contribs), who reregistered as J1838 (talk • contribs), after his user page was deleted as an attack page. (It was full of criticism for the older editors on Christianity who were frightening away the new editors.) They, as brand new users, started supporting Giovanni, and doing nothing else.

I think the request for checkuser can be withdrawn from Freeethinker99, as his accidental signing under the wrong name gave us the evidence that we needed, and he then said he knew Giovanni, and Giovanni was at his house. Also, the MikaM and Kecik requests may not have been proper, as we were asking for IP information. Unregistered users reverted to their version when they were running out of reverts, and we wondered were they the same, especially since we knew that MikaM had edited from a similar IP before. I understand, however, that you might not wish to identify an IP, and in any case, they were both blocked shortly arter that request was made, for 3RR in their own names, and they haven't edited much (if at all) since. So if you want to archive that request without fulfilling it, that's okay with me.

Thanks. AnnH ♫ 13:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cool Cat socking?

User:Fadix has come to me suggesting that Karabekir (talk • contribs), who is messing with Armenian Genocide articles, may be a sock of Cool Cat. --Tony Sidaway 00:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh never mind. Fadix went to Fred Bauder and Fred checked. It was strongly negative. --Tony Sidaway 04:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
See [11] — ciphergoth 15:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for articles to work on?

Hello, Morven. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. Also, please tell me how to make suggestions better and whether you'd be okay with suggestions put directly on your talk page. Leave SuggestBot feedback here. Thanks. -- SuggestBot 14:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm an admin now!!

Thanks for voting on my RFA and helping me become an admin. The final tally was 108-0-1 (putting me on the WP:100 list). I hope to do my best in upholding the integrity of Wikipedia. Thanks again, Gator (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RCU—anybody home?

Is anyone currently working WP:RCU? As I type this, the backlog is at 88 requests. RadioKirk talk to me 13:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for review of CheckUser by Jayjg

Hello, could you please review this [12] CheckUser conclusion by User:Jayjg when you have a chance? I can understand confusing three people travelling together as sockpuppets. Even if we hadn't been sharing a laptop we would have been behind the same wireless routers at hotels and cafes, but we are now in three different locations and this should be easily verifiable. User:Jayjg has refused to confirm this. TIA, —Adityanath 20:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

Congrats on the new job! Hope it works out well for you. RivGuySC 21:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:82.42.237.114

Morven, this user Promises To Be Good, so I'm going to unblock him/them for a test run. If the vandalism starts up again, my feelings won't be hurt if you reinstate the block. Joyous | Talk 00:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll be watching, too. Thanks. Joyous | Talk 00:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CheckUser Assistance

Hello, I feel I need some assistance. A user placed my userid in for a CheckUser here Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#PoolGuy_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_and_GoldToeMarionette_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29. I am not a very advanced user of Wikipedia, however after reading the green box at the top of Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser there appears to be no reason for User:Jayjg to complete the investigation.

I am not sure if I have any Wikipedia Rights, however I feel as if they have been violated. I could understand if I had been acting to violate Wikipedia Policy, however I have not been, contrary to whatever the user who filed for the CheckUser wrote.

I would appreciate it if you would review this and comment back to me. Thank you. GoldToeMarionette 04:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Copy of Message at User talk:Mushroom

I am the wife of User:Danny B., as he advised the Wikipedia Welcomer User:Wiki alf and we log in from the same office computer. We don’t contribute all that often and so it came as quite a surprise to Danny to find himself blocked by you and this message on his user page:

This user is a sock puppet of Ted Wilkes, as established by Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006#Ted Wilkes (talk • contribs) and related accounts,

Because you provided no explantion for your actions on his talk page, it took me some time to track it down. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [13] you wrote:

"See this request for CheckUser: Ted Wilkes, Danny B. and Karl Schalike are the same person." Mushroom (Talk) 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I note that this statement by you was posted immediately after Danny complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [14] about vandalism by Onefortyone which you did nothing about.

However, at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 User:Sam Korn who did the checking said only:

"Ted Wilkes, Danny B. and Karl Schalike appear likely to be the same."

Your action appears to have been based on a message left on your talk page by User:Onefortyone [15], someone on probation who I see has been banned by User:Stifle from editing certain articles for a time as result of his repeated violations of his probation and someone that numerous others have complained about. (User:MrDarcy, User:Arniep, User:Lochdale, User:Func, User:DropDeadGorgias and if I looked a little further, I'm swure I would find plenty more).

Mushroom, I think it is right to assume that a Wikipedia:Administrator has the responsibility for stating facts, not making quick guesses to spin there own version of what User:Sam Korn who did the checking said. Your rush to judgment has forced me to do a lot of searching all over Wikipedia for no reason. I will unblock my husband and place copies of this message on the talk page of each member of the Arbitration Committee.

Just for the record, because my husband has an interest, I am the one who pointed him to the non-encyclopedic material being pushed by User:Onefortyone after I came across a nonsensical contradiction in on of the articles he edited. I also come from a small city with one of the highest number of writers per capita in Canada and where Wikipedia has a high profile and where I know from the local newspaper(s) and business/social associations that there are a number of Wikipedia editors. - Cynthia B. 19:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, Cynthia B. is identical with User:Ted Wilkes alias multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:JillandJack. Both Cynthia B. and DW/JillandJack or Ted Wilkes contributed to the following articles: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22],etc. This suggests that DW alias Ted Wilkes has created many more sockpuppets, as DW did in the past. Onefortyone 23:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Societal Attitudes Towards Homosexuality

Matthew,

The article "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is being used, not for the benefit of the reader, but to promote the agenda of a well-organized group of gay advocates. I can provide you with many examples if you would like. I have gone through all of the proper channels to raise a red flag about this.

The first item on the "workshop" page is a request to "remove the article" [23]. But, so far, that option has not been added to the "proposed remedies" section of the "requests for arbitration" page [24].

I hope that you will seriously consider adding this remedy to "proposed remedies" section, as that is the only remedy that will actually correct the problem.

Best Regards, Lou franklin 03:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agapetos Arbitration

I'm sorry to spam your talk page, but this seemed serious enough to directly put on your talk page. I have evidence that AiG has actively had employees push their POV on the AiG page and possibly on related pages. I have added a new evidence section in the Agapetos arbitration to that effect, explaining the evidence. Due to the very serious nature of this accusation and its possible implications for Wikipedia, I decided to directly alert all of the ArbCom members. JoshuaZ 01:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ retracted this in evidence because it was erroneous, but failed to mention it on your talk page. agapetos_angel 07:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


That's highly inaccurate. I qualified the evidence in question. The user wasn't an employee but was specifically asked by an employee. See my evidence section and Standon's for details, and Agapetos, please don't put words in my mouth. JoshuaZ 18:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retractable hardtop / Coupe convertible debate

You said on Retractable hardtop's talk page that you were in support of "Retractable hardtop" over "Coupe convertible". Does this mean that you support the merger over all? I just wanted to make sure that you were in support of it before I added your name to the voting tally. Thanks, zappa


[edit] Train images

Sorry, I'm being sloppy with editing comments. Shouldn't do this when I'm tired. Images being removed are listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. The uploader claims free use on the images, but they are clearly from copyrighted web sites which makes the images copyright violations. -Nv8200p talk 21:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right again. I make so many minor edits that I go into autopilot and click that check box and don't add edit summaries. I'll come back to clean up at WP:PUI later when I'm awake -Apologies Nv8200p talk 21:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/r/User_talk%7EMorven_archive2_55ec.html"