From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents
- 1 Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
- 2 warnings for Funnypop12
- 3 24.63.203.132 "Content Dispute"
- 4 MOS (writing about fiction)
- 5 Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
- 6 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CNBC anchors who have never held even a moderately high position in the financial field
- 7 What's up, doc?
- 8 Jesse Barrera
- 9 Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
- 10 Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
- 11 Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
- 12 AfD nomination of University Business
- 13 Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
- 14 Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
- 15 Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
- 16 Unblock of 63.3.19.1 / 2 / 129 / 130
- 17 Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
- 18 Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
- 19 Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
- 20 Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
- 21 Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
- 22 WP:RFA/Danny
|
[edit] Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] warnings for Funnypop12
Funnypop12 was indeed warned about his repeated deletes to Muhammad. Look nearer the top of his talk page. The issue was discussed at length a couple months ago and it was decided that the images would stay. He deleted the images again a couple hours ago. This time (and last time) he has a new canard: that the pictures are really of Persian kings, for which he offers no evidence. He refuses to engage in any sort of conversation. -- Frotz661 20:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- AIV is for simple vandalism, disagreeing about whether or not an image should be in an article is a content dispute. I see no evidence that Funnypop12 is acting in bad faith, he just disagrees with you. If you can't reach a concensus that everyone agrees to stick to, try making an RFC. --Tango 21:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 24.63.203.132 "Content Dispute"
You deleted my request for a ban for 24.63.203.132 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) because you see it as a content dispute, and I apologize if I am in the wrong, but you don't realize the context in which I ask for this ban.
This person has been repetitively reverting my edits to continue to put their incorrect information on the page, and have ignored all of my attempts to have a civil discussion with them. I have left comments in the talk page, on his talk page, in the comment for editing the article, and within the article itself as hidden comments in the lines the person is editing. I put a "dispute" tag at the top of the page, but the person also deleted that. This edit war has been going on for at least two weeks.
I would gladly accept my error if the person would prove me wrong by citing facts, but because the person chooses to make no contact with me, I believe he/she is either trying to harass me (considering the way he/she reverts the pages) or has problems understanding that they should discuss disputes on wikipedia. Either way, I don't want this incorrect information left on the page, but I don't want to break the same revert rules this person is breaking. What am I supposed to do? Miriam The Bat 23:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- AIV is for vandalism, and it's only vandalism if it is in bad faith. This could easily be someone that just doesn't understand about discussion, as you say. If you have proof that the information he's adding is wrong, I suggest going to WP:AN/I. You can give a full explanation there, and someone might block him for being disruptive (which it looks like he is, even if it isn't vandalism). I've only logged on for a second to check something else, though, so don't have time to do it myself. --Tango 10:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MOS (writing about fiction)
In the past you have participated in discussion about this guideline, or voted in it's acceptence. There is currently a discussion about a partial rewrite of this guideline. The discussion could benefit from some more input. Thank you for your contributions. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You speedied a page up on AFD; wanna close it out? I would, but I started the discussion. -- Merope 21:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. I tried to close it, but someone beat me too it after 2 edit conflicts... --Tango 21:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thought you'd forgotten. My bad. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't even know the AfD existed until Merope pointed it out, so thanks for your help! --Tango 21:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What's up, doc?
[1], [2]. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your RFA happened to be at the top of the page when the first discussion about splitting RfAs into sections took place on WT:RFA, so I used yours as an example for my suggestion (which I think is finally being implemented in a slightly tidied up form). I barely knew who you were at the time, it was entirely chance. --Tango 15:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have seen the dates. I was only checking the Special:Whatlinkshere thing. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 12:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jesse Barrera
Thank you very much for reversing my erroneous speedy delete request on Jesse Barrera. I did not realize that there was a separate page for this band. Had I realized, I would not have added the tag. Thank you again for helping me out. --Commodorepants 21:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. --Tango 00:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of University Business
An editor has nominated University Business, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University Business and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. --Eastmain 02:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unblock of 63.3.19.1 / 2 / 129 / 130
I understand you're trying to give the IP user that's been harassing me the "benefit of the doubt". But I think it's extraordinarily unfair to me. I've been trying my best to be a good contributor here, but it seems my incentive to even make edits dwindles when someone's given the leeway that this user has. If you need proof that those 4 IPs are connected (the same user), I can show you. The fact is, the user threatened my life and on top of that has vandalized/defaced pages on a consistent basis, despite numerous warnings. Please reconsider this. --Ubiq 02:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I unblocked the IP address because I felt it looked like a dynamic address, ie. one that is used by different people at different times. The fact that the person harassing you has used 4 different, very similar, addresses is evidence of that. I think blocking those 4 addresses is more likely to block innocent users than they are likely to block the person harassing you. It looks like they are addresses that are assigned at random by the ISP whenever someone logs on, so the only way we could stop the user that's been harassing you would be a block of the entire range (we could softblock the range, allowing registered users to continue to edit, so it is an option, but not an ideal one). The address I unblocked has made 3 edits since I unblocked it about a week ago - only one of those edits looks like vandalism to me, and even that wasn't particularly malicious vandalism (I don't think any of the edits were particularly helpful, but that doesn't make them vandalism). Is the harassment continuing? If so, from what addresses? I think for now the best option is 24 hour blocks on any address that is used by this person. If it continues much longer, we can consider a range block. I understand that it is very frustrating to be harassed like this and the person not be stopped, but because of the way the internet works it is often very difficult to stop one person without stopping lots of innocent people as well. Please let me know about any further harassment, and I'll see what I can do, but I really don't think long blocks of these addresses will help. --Tango 17:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your concern. My other annoyance, as seen on my usertalk page with Cool Hand Luke, is that anon IP users are given this kind of lenient treatment because of the fact that other users could be using the same IP. In a sense, they're allowed to hide behind the fact that they haven't registered. To me, this policy can/should be changed. I don't see why (assuming there actually are a few different users on this IP), the innocent one couldn't just register an account.
-
- The user has not bothered me since the death threat, but had bothered/harassed me for quite a while before this, both on my usertalk page and on the Ann Coulter talk page. I attempted to get some intervention/help on multiple occasions, and the death threat seemed to be the "last straw". If you could link me to the unblock request for the user, I'd greatly appreciate it. I'm open to the fact that there could be a few different users editing from it, but I see no reason to believe that every vandal exhibits vandalistic behavior all the time. It's possible the user could like the Simpsons a lot, and want to add quotes for the show, and that the user likes [a political pundit] so much that he/she is willing to threaten another user's life into stopping editing of that article. In a case like this, I don't believe any amount of contribution would justify allowing that user to stay. But I digress, this is probably essay-worthy stuff I shouldn't be complaining to you about. If the user harasses me again (anywhere on here), I'll come to you. My wikiblood is on your hands, so to speak. j/k, regards. --Ubiq 08:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- If the harassment does continue, then I can block the address range and force any innocent users to register, but it's a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that we allow anonymous editing where possible, so I'd rather be optimistic and assume the abusive user has stopped until shown otherwise. Just let me know if my optimism ends up being misplaced. --Tango 13:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Two recent edits were made to my user talk from the same editor who you unbanned. This time under a pretty wide IP range. The edits can be found here and here. The references to "getting closer" are amusing, but not too settling. The 209.244.43.x is a pretty large range, and most of the IPs in it have some vandalism or another. Let me know what you can do about this. (I'll keep this page watchlisted) --Ubiq 16:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Thanks for letting me know. I've softblocked the new range for a month - I've allowed account creation, and registered editing, just anonymous editing is blocked, so the collateral damage is minimal. He seems to be persistent, so we'll have to take the risk of losing some valuable anon edits. Let me know if he either comes back after the month is up, or comes back from a different IP range. --Tango 18:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- The user came back under a slightly different IP: 209.244.42.140 and made edits to my talk page here. It seems only some of the IPs in the range have vandalized wikipedia. The user seems to have a lot of IPs just lying around. It makes me wonder how he/she could change them so easily. I don't know a lot about dynamic IPs but I'm guessing they just cycle through a bunch of them. I wish there was a way to find out all the IPs a user has edited under. It would make this process a lot easier. --Ubiq 20:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've blocked that range too... It might be worth trying to find an abuse address for his ISP and report him. I'm not sure they are particularly helpful with this kind of thing, though... --Tango 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:RFA/Danny
I'd normally respond over there but in this case I thought it would be throwing petrol on a fire. Anyway, in response to this comment, I would hope we can dismiss the opinions of over 50 people. A set number of opposers (which remains static over time) over which the result will be "no consensus" would result in, over time, every discussion resulting in "no consensus" on a project like Wikipedia (which is still growing fast). – Steel 22:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
