User talk:Pschemp/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Bicolor cat page

Pschemp, would you be able to either put up the "protected template" on the Bicolor cat page or unprotect the article altogether? I think that having it protected but without the template showing, we run a risk of forgetting to unprotect it eventually. Thanks in advance!--Ramdrake 14:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Its only sprotected, and um, anyone can put the template on. I just forgot. In the future, go ahead and do it, you won't hurt my feelings. Also, I watch any pages I protect, and there is a bot that lists them so it won't get forgotten about. pschemp | talk 15:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Not knowing, I assumed the wors was possible. Now I know. Thanks!--Ramdrake 18:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Nothing to apologize for. :)You can check WP:PP and see that its already listed. Its a very cool bot. pschemp | talk 21:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Abbie is Watching You

Image:Abbie majesty.jpg Teke 04:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

“U.S.” versus “United States”

Hi there:

I've got myself in something of a jam, and I'm hoping that you can help. In mid-February of this year, a number of articles which had the abbreviation “U.S.” in the title had that abbreviation expanded, so that, for example, U.S. presidential election, 1789 became United States presidential election, 1789 and U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit became United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. I have therefore come under the impression that the abbreviation “U.S.” should be avoided, both in article titles and in article text.

With this belief in hand, I am seeking to have the article U.S. state renamed to state (United States), but now I find that I need to justify my position that the abbreviation “U.S.” should be avoided, and I can't seem to find any support in the project pages. (This is where I got myself in a jam; I clearly did not do my homework before starting this process.) Could you tell me what motivated you to expand the abbreviation “U.S.” in that mass renaming of articles, and if it's applicable to this rename?

— DLJessup (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Per the Manual of style, acronyms should be avoided. However, there was a consesnsus that in the case of that one article, it was better to leave the abbreviation in since "United States state" sounds and looks awful. Your proposal is similarly awkward. While in general I support writing out the full name, in this case, it should be left, as it is just more logical. pschemp | talk 13:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was a spectacular own goal.<wry grin> I have trouble seeing how “state (United States)” is more awkward than “U.S. state”, much less as awkward as “United States state”, since it transforms into the single word “state” when the empty pipe link trick is used. In fact, there's an argument to be made that “U.S. state” is harmful, since it promotes people adding the “U.S.” when it's clear from context. Oh, well.

BTW, I have another favor to ask. Once my proposal is rejected for lack of consensus, could you please add a note to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) that mentions this exception to the general rule of avoiding acronyms? It may help head off headaches at U.S. state (and the maintainers of Georgia (U.S. state) will also probably thank you). I don't think I should be the one to do it, since I disagree with it. :-)

— DLJessup (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you disagree. I'll be happy to do that when the debate is done, thought the manual of syle is already slightly ambiguous about the whole thing. pschemp | talk 15:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Humans, Females, Women, and their Breasts

OK, Pschemp: Here is my incredibly petty yet extremely important beef/disagreement with you. First, my response to your point:

You're right. Not all breasts are human. But that fact is irrelevant, because the picture whose caption we are talking about is of a human's breasts.

Second, my argument:

  • Postulate A: All human females, with regard to breasts, can be divided into 'women' and 'young girls'.
  • Postulate B: With rare exceptions, all young girls have no breasts.
  • Postulate C: With rare exceptions, all women have breasts.
  • Conclusion I: Young girls are human females, but they do not have breasts.
  • Conclusion II: Women are human females, who posesses breasts.
  • Postulate D: In Wikipedia, brevity is good.
  • Postulate E: In Wikipedia, accuracy is good.
  • Conclusion III: Saying "woman" instead of "human female" with regard to "breasts" as described in conclusions I and II serves accuracy.
  • Conclusion IV: Saying "woman" instead of "human female" serves brevity.
  • Conclusion V: (Final)

The caption on the picture on the Breasts page should be "a pregnant woman's breasts" and should not be "a pregnant human female's breasts."--Zaorish 02:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Humans are animals. There is more than one type of animal. Therefore we should identify the species in the picture in the interest of being thorough. pschemp | talk 14:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This may be incorrect, but doesn't the term Woman only apply to human females. That is to say, that if you use the word woman are you not already identifying the species? 142.166.146.178 11:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The caption uses the world human female, not woman.pschemp | talk 11:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess I did not clarify exactly what I wanted to state.

Zaorish stated

The caption on the picture on the Breasts page should be "a pregnant woman's breasts" and should not be "a pregnant human female's breasts."

Since the word Woman refers only to human females it makes your point of specifying the species moot, as it already specifies the species by using the word woman. 142.166.146.178 12:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

DOS

Well, yes, at least DOS gives you the security that the computer isn't thinking any more quickly than you are. Single user vs. single task, there's a certain balance of the forces in that. By comparison, modern operating systems just confuse users by completing your work before you even thought of doing it! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

*grin* pschemp | talk 15:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Escarbot

Hello,

Would you please unblock my bot User:Escarbot?

I am sorry I could not contact you before and correct the mistake made on réveillon, but when the bot is blocked, the IP address is blocked also and I cannot use my own account.

The incorrect links added by the bot on réveillon are not due to a bug in the bot, but to the fact that there were bad link on other wikis, e.g. fr:Réveillon (Orne) that were propagated by the bot.

I have removed these bad links in all languages (I hope).

I seems for me rather counter-productive to block the bot for a single wrong modification, since it prevents me from correcting the problem. Just tell me on my talk page fr:Discussion Utilisateur:Vargenau and I will correct it.

Regards,

Vargenau 19:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

unblocked. It may be unproductive, but since its a bot, it has a lot of potential for damage. sorry, I prefer to be safe. pschemp | talk 13:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Vargenau 18:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog's RfA

Hi Pschemp, thanks for your comment on Guinnog's RfA. Even though its an oppose, I think its valuable for the candidate to hear. I downloaded Guinnog's edit history and ran it through some analysis software. Of the 10341 edits he's made to articles, 4193 (or about 40%) were done using AWB. This means he has around 6000 non-AWB article edits, and they're across a wide range of topics. I'd count this as a substantial contribution to the main task of creating an encyclopedia. We certainly have a lot of current excellent admins who don't have anything like the breadth and depth of Guinnog's contribution to article space.

Of course as his nominator I am hopelessly biased in his favor :-) But I thought it worth looking at the record. All the best, Gwernol 19:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Your block of User:212.158.254.22

Thanks for that. I've never been called a motherfucker before! To be scrupulously fair, their last edit which I reverted ([1]) was, it seems, factually correct. It was the abusive edit summary I took exception to. Other than that, it does seem to be a vandal and WP:POINT account only ("It took well over 5 hours for my vandalism to be discovered. Me 1, Wikipedia 0!"). Well done for the block. --Guinnog 22:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

block of 212.158.254.22

[2] noticed you indeffed this IP; why? is it an open proxy? WP:BLOCK states not to indef IP's unless they're open proxies or school IPs. »ctails! =hello?=« 23:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm quite familiar with the policy. If you think I'm abusing my admin tools, please file an RFC. pschemp | talk 23:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
mmm... going through the contribs it seems justified. My apologies, »ctails! =hello?=« 23:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
How did I do on my first adminhat wearing? Teke(talk) 04:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Great. It is an IP only block though, so the user is free to register and account and edit constructively, not should there be any collateral damage to real contributors editing with that IP. As always, should something come up in the future, the block can be reviewed. Good job. pschemp | talk 04:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Quick thanks for your username blocks earlier. Appreciated. -- Samir धर्म 09:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Kiffa beads

Dear Pschemp

After having added (quite a lot of) information to your text on Kiffa beads, I thought to use this opportunity to contact you. This is my first attempt at contributing to Wikipedia, and I do hope that I've gotten the basics right. I realize that there is more to do to the text, such as activating links, and page layout. I would greatly appreciate assistance in this regard, not knowing how this works. Am I to do this, or the administrators? I would also like to suggest replacing the image you uploaded with an image (or several?) of my own? I recognize said image ....

In addition, I have edited a short paragraph pertaining to Millefiori beads (in your "Bead" text). The paragraph concerning Chevron beads could also be improved?

Looking forward to "meeting" you.

Best, EvelynS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EvelynS (talk • contribs).


Many thanks Pschemp! EvelynS 06:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}

Taurus876

I don't know if you saw this on the Incidents board but in addition to creating identical basically empty articles, it would also seem that he is copying his "legitimate articles" word for word from the US Mint site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Spanish_Trail_half_dollar
http://www.usmint.gov/kids/index.cfm?fileContents=coinNews/cotm/2001/08.cfm

I'm not sure what needs to be done about this. Bobby 19:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at it. Thanks for the heads up. pschemp | talk 22:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

I think WP:DENY is a good principle. I think we should get rid of most of the vandal-forensic paraphernalia. But my reasoning is that we shouldn't keep things that might encourage vandals but serve no other real purpose except to satisfy the wiki-criminologists and fanatical taggers (some of whom have turned out to be vandals). I have, and have never had, any desire to delete anything at all that might genuinely be of actual use. If I've given that impression, then it is not the one I wanted to give, and I'm sorry. I'm just continually asking people to make a real case for the utility of stuff, and normally being met with vague replies like 'to keep records of the vandals'.

LTA pages for current vandals should, naturally, stay - except where the vandal is so bloody obvious (page movers and 'poop' inserters) that he gets shot on sight without needing to be identified. I will not be deleting any LTAs anyway - I voted for the deletion of WOW, but that's certainly not useful. As ever, if we are in doubt, we should keep. I spent my first six months here in vandal fighting - I've often defended vandal fighters against 'cabal' criticism, I'm the last person to want to make life difficult.

So far, all I've done is delete userpages from nil-edit trolling username accounts and nominate the 'impostor' categories on CFD. If I do delete anything that you are clear is of actual use, then feel free to restore. I never delete anything twice in any case.

You keep assuming that I'm involved in "a coordinated effort to eventually get rid of all vandal pages and categories". I've denied that already, let me deny it again. I'm uninterested in making WP:DENY some 'policy' that overrides common sense and reasonable discussion. Where reasonable people (like yourself) testify that something is actually service a purpose, then I'll always support keeping it. I don't believe in overarching policies and processes anyway, I'm far too pragmatic for that sort of stuff.

Anyway, I hope that helps clear up things. Yes, I will continue to push the debate forward. But if you are clear on what needs kept, I'll certainly support that. --Doc 02:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Pornography

You are quick! I should set it all up in my sandbox first, rather than doing successive edits on the live page.

I was in the process of retitling, but you beat me to it, and probably did a better job that I would have.

Atom 21:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

ANI / Japanese cities

Thanks for trying to revert it all. However, I'm afraid a lot of the articles may have been lost. For example Toyama City redirect to Toyama, Toyama like it should, but the original article is GONE. Is there any way to recover them from the archives somewhere?--Endroit 04:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Its there now. Seems someone else tried to fix it but didn't. I'll check the rest. pschemp | talk 04:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I just saw that you completed the whole thing. It must have been such a tedious work, and I really appreciate the hard work. Everything seems OK now. Thank you very much, Pschemp.--Endroit 05:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

SCOTM

You voted for Oxygen and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month!
Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

NCurse work 05:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For your helpful efforts to explain article basics on User_talk:EvelynS. That was very thoughtful of you ++Lar: t/c 06:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

User writing systems

Sorry if I didn't read carefully before. It seems there's no disagreement between us at all, so that's fine! Andrew Dalby 18:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Block

Excuse me, but you just blocked my anonymous IP address (I rarely log in), citing vandalism as the reason. Care to explain? In probably all my edits, I have made one count of vandalism. If I was blocked because of it, I would like to point out that:

  1. On a userpage and not an article, therefore not severe.
  2. A stupid joke which was hardly disruptive to anything.

Come on, I'm hardly Willy on Wheels. --AdamM 23:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Its only a 24 hours block. Vandalism is vandalism. Move on, stop making stupid jokes. It isn't constructive. pschemp | talk 00:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Neither is overreacting. It's irritating when I want to correct a spelling mistake or something equally WikiGnome-like, and then get reminded I'm blocked. I got enough of that at school when sharing an IP with several immature classmates. Can't you concentrate on real vandals rather than wasting time? And as for the 'only 24 hours', it'll still go on my permanent block log and make other admins think I'm a nuisance rather than a productive contributor.
Now you've got my blood boiling. I feel like going into a rant about the self-importance of the 'Anti-Vandal Leagues' and whatever, but I'll spare it. --AdamM 01:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be editing my talk page just fine, so you aren't really blocked. Your registered account works just fine so what's the problem? pschemp | talk 01:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a matter of principle! --AdamM 01:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies / Fair Enough

You're right in that my "debate" with John on the CVU MfD was becoming all-consuming, was bordering on the personal level, and was beginning to disrupt the flow of the MfD itself. I apologize for my part in causing any such disruption, and -- for my blood pressure, if for nothing else -- I'll agree to stay off the page until it runs its course. That said, I am somewhat hurt by your suggestion that "everyone is tired" of my contributions and/or that they are "adding nothing to the debate." By most accounts my arguments have been the entire debate on behalf of the "Delete" side of the coin. As before, I apologize for losing my temper and for being the least bit disruptive. But I would argue that my "disruption" of that argument was the result of getting constantly badgered and baited into it by the other user in question. I know and realize I should have been the better man and not responded on the page. But no one else was arguing back, so I felt compelled to defend myself. At this point I'm rambling, but the point is, I'm backing off, and I'm sorry if you were offended or annoyed. Dr Chatterjee 00:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

PIE! :D

Administrative Pie Slice
Here's some administrative apple pie! Ryūlóng 03:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Kyereh Mireku

I have plans to bring the page to DRV; my personal views are that WP:CHILD has not reached full community support and that pages that concern it are not eligible for speedy deletion. In any sense, I suggested an MfD for the page in one of my AN/I posts, which I offer as a suggestion if you choose to undelete the page. Thanks. ~ PseudoSudo 14:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I will not undelete. I think that removing the information was the right thing to do no matter if the policy is fully formed or not. pschemp | talk 14:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:User ipa-0

I had not realised, when I deleted this, that there had been no tag on the template itself. In the circumstances, I suggest that you should please restore it and call for a fresh vote. Is that OK?--Runcorn 20:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: Please notify User:CBDunkerson.--Runcorn 20:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
An oversight on my part but nothing malicious. If he wants it undeleted it should be listed on DRV, not just reverse the outcome without consensus. pschemp | talk 21:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Listed at WP:DRV. --CBD 22:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (third nomination)

Rustag just made a comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (third nomination) recommending deletion. Based on his contributions, it's quite obvious that this account was created as a sockpuppet for the sole purpose of influencing the outcome of this MFD nomination. However, since I'm not allowed to edit Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (third nomination), I can't note Rustag's comment as such. Could you place a comment below Rustag's comment noting this situation? Thanks. John254 05:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

ANI

Excuse me? I said there is no picture of that, not that there was never a picture of anything there. Don't snap at me without doing homework of your own. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comment was rude, and implied that the picture was never there. Don't snap at the newbies. The user later did a much nicer and more polite explanation. pschemp | talk 21:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
There was no snapping. There was an explanation. There was no implication. WP:AGF. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It came across that way whether you meant it or not. Sorry if you disagree. and assume good faith yourself, i wasn't snapping at you. I was making a polite request. pschemp | talk 21:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You came across that way rather you wanted to or not, getting onto my talk page and telling me I did and thought things I neither did nor thought. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That may be so. At least I used the word please and will admit people interpret things differently than what I mean. Want to forget it or keep arguing? I'm up for either. pschemp | talk 21:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel the need to thank you for your kind words about my comment, even if I was perhaps a little opinionated on the responsibilities of a parent! So, well... Thank you! Nice to bump into you :) LinaMishima 11:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

normally i wouldn't, but

i removed the sprotect tag you added on the Steve Irwin article. it was only protected against page moves... thanks. :) -/- Warren 22:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Steve Irwin:

You recently protected[3] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 04:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please follow procedures when blocking users

You blocked User:62.206.85.61 earlier today. However you didn't notify the User on their talk page as per the established policy. Can you please do this, so as not to inconvenience other users? Thanks, Nfitz 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when dealing with massive vandalsim such as the Steve Irwin case, it isn't practical to tag every 24 hour block for vandalism in a situation like this. I'm quite familiar with the policy and it says "should" be tagged, not "must" be tagged. Go check the contribs of all the admins who are dealing with these articles, and I assure you they didn't tag every single block. I really don't see how this can inconvenience anyone so terribly, as anyone can check a block log and see the reason. Policy is there to help us, not to wikilawyer about. pschemp | talk 00:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
It's inconvenient, because I spotted just after, and was tagging the users page, with a warning. But did so AFTER you blocked him. Surely there's a script or something that can be used to both block and tag the users page at the same time ... there are enough other scripts that do similiar things. Nfitz 02:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't use scripts. I'm sorry if it messed up your warning system, but that's hardly a reason. This kind of vandalsim doesn't occur every day, so you will just need to deal with a little inconvenience. It was a huge inconvenience to me to have to keep reverting and blocking the vandals. pschemp | talk 02:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
AFAIUI "should" in the guidance, means you should do this. And if people are complaining about your actions, you should change your ways. Not sure what's so complicated here ... Nfitz 23:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Nothing is. Guidance means in exceptional circumstances exceptions can be made. That's what I did. Please move on. There is no "way" to change. I'm not going to change anything because I didn't do anything wrong. Steve Irwin isn't going to die again, so your nitpicking complaining about one block is pointless and silly. Go do something useful. pschemp | talk 23:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what's so exceptional about these circumstances. Someone vandalised a page, you blocked him outside the normal procedures. I'm fine with the block, I just am frustrated you didn't put the information on the user's talk page, as per the normal practice. Don't see what any of this has to do with Steve Irwin. We have procedures for a reason; asking people to follow them, isn't being silly. Why do you think you are above it all? Nfitz 15:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment If you look at [4] you might have a better idea of why pschemp made the mistake she did. Worse things happen at sea, as they say. Let it go. --Guinnog 15:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

From the looks of that, there is a pattern there. It looks like no text was added to the talk pages of most of those users who were blocked. In a few cases, the users don't even have any (remaining) contributions, so there isn't any way to figure out why they were blocked. I certainly think the work is commendable ... but it doesn't follow due process. Either follow the process, or change the process. Nfitz 16:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Overdoing it?

I know there's admin wars going on over Steve Irwin protection but seven hours is a bit much for a main article page, no? We've had less than 3 legitimate edits in the last two hours. I was planning on sitting here and babysitting it for a while. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry the last time splash unprotected we went back up to at least one penis a minute. We've done the calculations and checking and even if its reverted soon afterwards, hundreds of people see that image (in 2 minutes about 1920 people will see the penis picture) This vandalism to this article has already made the news, there is no point making it worse. No one is being harmed by the semi-protection. All the consesnsus I've seen says this needs to stay semied. Even Tony Sidaway agrees, and that's saying something. Additionally the foundation has been recieving a lot of complaints about the penises, and right now the feeling is that semi-protection is a lot less damaging than those images. pschemp | talk 01:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
We were talking about Steve Irwin. Now we're not allowed to unprotect any articles?! There was a grand total of 1 vandal at Stingray in 39 minutes of unprotection. Surely we can handle that rate?! If not, we've got bigger problems. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes we do. Its called OTRS and the foundation, so please stop. pschemp | talk 02:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I've stopped. FYI, I also unprotected Talk:Steve Irwin earlier but at least one anon has already used that to request a legitimate edit and there have only been 2 quasi-vandalisms in the last hour there. We need better vandal bots if 1 or 2 vandalisms per hour per article is too many to handle. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I never said anything about the talk pages, only the articles. In fact, I think they should be unprotected. If i had thouhgt removing the semiprot on the talk page was wrong I would have told you. pschemp | talk 02:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comment in the log "no consensus to unprotect" is wrong: there is a reigning consensus to have just about everything unprotected, and the notion that, anytime a page is protected, someone has to find a supermajority or other consensus to unprotect it is unprecedented. I'd urge a brief, light, gentle touch with protection, not implications that someone has to demonstrate supermajority to unprotect an article. (Particularly since they can just point at the 3 million or so accounts that go editing freely as support for their case.) Whining messages to OTRS don't count towards consensus, usually. -Splash - tk 14:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that common sense was what was needed here. Reports elsewhere show that while the Steve Irwin article was not protected it was getting so much vandalism that it was impossible to work with in any rational fashion. Rather than standing on what might be policy, it might be better to just ask whether it actually was a good thing that this article wasn't protected. In my view, it wasn't. ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


The Original Barnstar
For proving me right, here you go. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hauke and Chrisjj2

Given that these two were found not to be sockpuppets of Tobias shouldn't they be unblocked? We sometimes block people when we can't tell whether they are 'sock' or 'meat' puppets, but I can't recall ever seeing an indefinite block on a person just for doing something on behalf of a friend.

Also, while I'm here... I tried another alternate wording at WP:CSD which I would appreciate your thoughts on. Made some comments in regards to it on talk there. --CBD 21:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

First, they were determined to be IP's in different countries, but that doesn't prove they aren't sockpuppets, only makes it less likely. I find the springing of life of Hauke right after Tobias's block this week too coincidental to trust. Pgk reviewed that and agreed. Chrisjj2 sent me an email when this first happened saying he was leaving wikipedia and only created an account to request unblocking for Tobias, so I don't see much in unblocking that one either. I was ready to unblock Hauke, but this latest "coincidence" is too much. Tell you what though, you get Tobias to assume good faith about my actions and stop calling me a liar and I won't stand in the way of unblocking. pschemp | talk 22:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Since you're his friend why don't you try to get him to move on to something more productive."
He's blocked. There's not alot he can 'move on' to at the moment. Just let it drop and I expect he will also. --CBD 01:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
He's still screaming about it on his talk page. He hasn't let it drop. I let it drop for days and that did nothing, he's still bringing it up. I'm sorry, but he's being a ridiculous petulant child. He could stop bringing it up on his talk page. He could write a draft of an article. He could stop complaining. There is plenty for him to do that doesn't involve whining about me. pschemp | talk 01:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet categories at DRV

My apologies for the impersonal nature of this message, but since you participated in the recent Sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin discussion, I thought you might like to know that the categories are now at Deletion Review. This is not a solicitation of a specific response, as all participating users were notified, but your input would be appreciated. Thanks! - EurekaLott 00:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

For where I have offended, I'm genuinely sorry. I'm saying no more, because it is obviously not helpful. I'm out of the debate - as the wiki-issues now matter less to me that than the agro that it is causing to real people. I'm forgetting this whole thing; you can ignore me or forgive me, but I'm done struggling with this. --Doc 12:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

www.ripsteve.com

Hi. You pulled down www.ripsteve.com while we are trying to come to a concensus on whether the page is appropriate. Care to join the discussion on the Steve Irwin talk page. Robert Brockway 18:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Suspicious activity?

bot [[5]] added some bad words to page headers in Wikiversity. Claimed to be yours. Please, check!70.49.180.213 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

blocked as an imposter. pschemp | talk 02:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocks cleared

As a courtesy note, this is to notify you that I have unblocked users Hauke and Chrisjj2 previously permablocked by you. The unblocking is based on the results of this RFCU. Please let me know if you have any questions/comments/concerns.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that as I understand policy,if users are acting like sock or meatpuppets (or acting like the same user) it doesn't matter *what( the CU results are, if the action is circumventing a block, the other users are blockable as well. I think this unblock was incorrect. ++Lar: t/c 14:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oregon Trail Half Dollar Article

It would appear all those duplicate incomplete articles that Taurus876 did were deleted. It seems that the Oregon Trail half dollar article was a victim of inadvertant collateral damage and deleted with those by accident. Google cache Is there any way to restore it? Bobby 16:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There's an inquiry posted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion now. Bobby 20:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
All fixed. :-) Bobby 22:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Please do not disrupt wikipedia to prove a point as per WP:POINT and your edits here: [6] Thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That;s not point. I honestly beleive the article should remain deleted. pschemp | talk 01:12, 9 September 2006 Kelly and Tony made the point. (UTC)

Friendly advice

I think that CBD is reeling out an awful lot of rope, and I think the best thing you could do would be to avoid getting tangled in it. Cool down. There's no reason to respond to every comment on AN/I. Trust that your fellow admins can see what's going on and make smart decisions. Nandesuka 01:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. pschemp | talk 01:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

JFisher/JFisher77

is

See also:

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see also: User talk:Sl#My userpage.2FBabel-1
--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Irwin

Thanks for noticing and fixing the accidental reversion. It was certainly not my intention to revert anybody's comments. I note no edit conflict came up ?!?--Golden Wattle talk 00:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

meh, who knows, sometimes things just slip by. no problems. pschemp | talk 03:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

David L. Cook

Can you take a look at the David L. Cook talk page and give an opinion on the section titled "International Country Music charts"? User:Junebug52 (formerly User:Iamascorp) is placing yet another in a long string of hard-to-verify grand claims on the article, this time that Mr.Cook has the #1 record on the "International Country Music charts". However, a Google search seems to show that there is no such thing as an official "International country music charts" and his source link does not appear to be an official music industry chart compiler. wikipediatrix 04:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp,as I have explained to Wikipediatrix, these are legitimate industry charts. They are not derived by the Gospel Music Connection's owners as she claims, they are just the collectors of the data and displayers of what Christian Country Radio has reported to them. She is not an expert on these charts and cannot make claims such as "This source does not appear to be an official music industry chart compiler?" That is her personal opinion not fact based on the industry that utilizes this information. Christian music does not have a chart such as "Billboard" and each individual genre derives their own charts. After being in the music industry for over 27 years myself I can assure you as a historian and expert in the field that these charts are reviewed by radio and adhered to as the Bible of their genre. Unless Wikipediatrix can prove that these charts are not viable and used by the industry, I do not see where her argument is going to hold water on this issue. On the David L Cook talk page she based her argument in part because "Their web page looked amaturish?" That is not a factual argument but instead a personal opinion and should not be used for the bases of an edit or discounting of credibility. I can give a long list of industry web pages that look like they were done by children, however their information is like the manna from Heaven. A google search is not sufficient evidence for industry charts and the lack of hits does not and should not discount their reliability or authenticity. At Wikipedia, points of view (POV) are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. In The Globe and mail on february 20th 2006 at page A14 in the Section of Social Studies, sub-section A daily miscellany of Information, micheal Kesteron cited Harold Geneen in his Though du jour and stated:

"The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions."

Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POV's). Inherently, because of this, most articles at wikipedia are full of POV's. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy.Thank you Junebug52 8:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok please keep the arguments off my talk page. I haven't even decided if I'll look at this or not. pschemp | talk 16:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


xLAN / Xlan

Yeah, hi. I noticed that you rather quickly deleted the Xlan page. The question is: why? If certain European LAN parties can have their own pages on Wikipedia, then why not New Zealand's own xLAN? And please don't say it's the lack of notability - you could say the exact same thing about the other LAN events on Wikipedia, and xLAN happens to be the largest LAN event in New Zealand. Or did you just prefer that we construct it in Sandbox first before putting it up live? I look forward to your reply on the situation. 03:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Tacitus666 (talk • contribs).

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please sign your comment and give me a link to the exact page. pschemp | talk 03:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the page, Xlan, just had a 15-word definition and one link, and was orphaned (i.e. no links going to it; hard to verify as wikipedia does not include a time machine - big missing feature!). In the end, User:NMChico24 tagged the page with {{nocontext}}, which is a speedy delete tag. I suggest recreating the article, especially forging a stronger claim on notability - I'm sure if it had made a clear case for notability, people's bias would have been to expand it rather than delete. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay firstly, I did sign my previous comment. Why it appeared unsigned, I have absolutely no idea. Secondly, I do admit that I did not create the Xlan page. I merely suggested the idea of an article on the Xlan forums, and when I heard there was an article made, I immediately went to it, only to find a page of nothing and a history stating that pschemp speedy deleted it. Now I understand why. In time, the article may re-emerge as one worthy of this fine site. Laters. Tacitus666 | talk 11:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
It appeared unsigned becasue you accidentally typed 5 tildes, not 4, thus no name appeared, only a date. Not sure what you mean by I immediately went to it, since the article was tagged for deletion in JUNE and this is Spetember, but meh. Write a decent article that lays out why your group is notable and it won't get deleted. pschemp | talk 13:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher

I would hope your opinion is not diregarded for no diff. I just feel that i would need to see such diffs to get a feel for what you find a worry. As you implied with JoshuaZ, these things are always subjective. The only effect that not providing a diff has from my perspective is that i am less likely to reconsider my own opinion. Certainly i am not trying to change your own. David D. (Talk) 06:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed and since my objective is not to get people to reconsider their opinions, I don't have an issue with that. People need to go do their own research on a candidate anyway, not get spoonfed diffs from others. pschemp | talk 14:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I did do my research but did not see anything alarming. However, i don't typically hang out in the 'cess pit' (is that what you called it?) and don't plan to start now. I think your plan of not returning to the scene of the melodrama is a sound one. David D. (Talk) 17:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
That's all I ask for. I don't care if people come to other conclusions as I do, just that they go look and make a desicsion for themselves. For some reason, oppose votes are construed as attempts to defame and influence other voters, and that is not my purpose. pschemp | talk
I don't see oppose votes as defaming the candiadate. But needless to say one can't check every edit. In the past I have changed my mind based on input from others who have had a different perspective of the candaidate. I suppose that is influence, and your comments did peek my interest. But it is not your obligation to provide diffs, for sure. David D. (Talk) 20:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
No, i don't think you personally think that. The all too often rush to defend nominees from oppose votes by saying "give me diffs" and "prove it" makes me think that generally that is how they are interpreted. Its symptomatic of the issues I have with the whole RFA setup, but there doesn't seem to be anyway to fix it. pschemp | talk 20:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nascar 07

Could you unprotect Nascar 07, it has already been protected for many weeks, protections do not need to be that long. Lapinmies 19:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. pschemp | talk 19:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Vina

This user's requesting unblocking, and I see that this looks to be the relevant block log; was wondering if you had any input? Luna Santin 04:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked. The bot has changed IP addresses. pschemp | talk 04:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/s/c/User_talk%7EPschemp_Archive_7_e3d6.html"