User talk:Ioeth/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents


For you information and comment

Hello - you might like to take the time to read this. I have no idea what Igorberger is trying to say but he is mentioning you and your doppelganger. It may be nothing but ....? --VS talk 02:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Probably has been sorted - a mistake (?) made by Igorberger... --VS talk 06:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A snippet of thanks.

Koji thanks you graciously for the Barnstar. He shall display it in his humble gnomish hut. And with that he shuffles off to continue doing the things WikiGnomes do. KojieroSaske (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Missouri Students Association

Is a local organization with no third party sourcing on the page. Is it eligible for deletion? Alatari (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Send it to WP:AFD if you like. In my opinion, I think it should be considered for deletion or merger into a higher level article. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
My model, of course, is the line from To Be or Not to Be, a Mel Brooks movie, where the egotistical protagonist, an actor, describes himself and his partner/wife as "world-famous all over Poland"! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
If I nominate all those student groups for deletion even if valid it may earn me serious WP political backlash. Alatari (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Be bold! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Up for helping with XPath?

I've undertaken a little project of my own here. It's the magical rollback with summary script, now in its first iteration. I've made the basic functionality work, but it puts links in funny places. And I'd like to use SimpleWindow and QuickForm from Twinkle and Friendly instead of the prompt() method. But one thing at a time.

I'm writing to ask you for help getting the links to behave. On history pages, they're quite fine; on contrib and diff pages, though, they're in the wrong place. Ideally, the links on diff and contrib pages would look like [rollback | w/summ] (or thereabouts; text subject to change). Do you have any tips from your Friendly experience that might help? Thanks! Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 07:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I could probably help you out with it, yeah, but it would be a lot easier if we communicated over IM. My IM contact info can be found on my userpage if you'd be willing. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
How's Google Talk with connecting to Jabber contacts? Do you know? I could also just use either my AIM or MSN account. When's a good time for you? Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 21:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Google Talk uses the same protocol as Jabber (XMPP), but you're connected to a different server, so you can't talk to Jabber users with your Google Talk account. I do have a Google Talk account too, but I don't publish it because it's the email address that I use too, and I don't want a bunch of spam flooding into the inbox. If you want to contact me on Google Talk, send me an email. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I figured that (the server thing). Well, I'm off to write an email, then. And while I'm here, I just noticed your twinklerollbackintegration.js script. It says to leave a message on your talk page for configuration details, so here I am! :) Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 22:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Neat! Well, go ahead and copy the import as well as the configuration array defined below it. That first parameter has a bunch of different options: "replace", "replaceall", "move", "TWonly" and "MWonly". "replace" replaces Twinkle's "[rollback]" link with the MediaWiki rollback link while preserving the look. "replaceall" will replace replace all of Twinkle's rollback links with a single MediaWiki rollback link. "move" will move the MediaWiki rollback link to before Twinkle's rollback links while matching the formatting. "TWonly" will hide the MediaWiki rollback link and "MWonly" will hide Twinke's rollback links. All of these settings only apply to diff and contrib pages. Setting that parameter to any other value will disable the functionality and those will work like normal. The other parameter is a boolean, true or false only, and if it's true, the vanarticle URL parameter will be added to the rolled back user's talk link on the MediaWiki rollback confirmation page. This parameter populates the article field in Twinkle's warn screen (as well as others). If you decide to use it, enjoy! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 04:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks cool! You know, perhaps there's an idea here. You mentioned possibly combining my summary script with this one in your email; what if I were to turn my script into a library, then implement what it currently does as an interface to that library, leaving it open for you to use in twinklerollbackintegration.js? It would enable a third config parameter: MWwithSummary (or whatever you decide, which would probably be better). What do you say? Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 04:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!

Dear Ioeth, my sincere thanks for your support and expression of confidence in me and my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to you all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 15:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Closing review

Hello, would you mind reviewing this [1] and a reaction to it [2]. I believe that Hexagon's closing was completely correct and in good faith because there is no vote for support except Mattheads. On the other hand I believe that the re-open is a disruptive action. Thank you. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 17:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Well done on your "vandalism" reverts (sarcasm). I'm not exactly sure why reverting edits that remove useful information from an article constitutes vandalism; maybe you and "Precious Roy" are "special friends" or something? Nathan86 (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't even know who Precious Roy is, but you seem to be missing his point on the talk page for that article. All contributions on Wikipedia must be sourced per WP:V. Simply providing a link to a PDF archive is not acceptable sourcing for information. You have to provide a link to the exact document that contains the information that you are trying to add. If you don't, the information can be removed, which I did. Please remember to assume good faith and maintain civility when you're leaving messages on talk pages. I don't really appreciate your tone or the implications you make in the message you left here. Thanks. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, I reverted your edits to enforce your block for your violation of WP:3RR, not because I feel one way or another about the content. When you are in a content dispute, nobody is automatically right. If your edits are reverted by other editors, and you continue to reinsert them without gaining consensus on the talk page, you violate 3RR; it's as simple as that. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know why Andy Beard was CSD and deleted?

User:Jehochman gave me okay to do the article! And Andy Beard is notable.

User:Igorberger/Andy_Beard Please take a look and tell me what I have done wrong. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We got the article back and have 5 days to improve it. I would appreciate if some senior editorscan pitch in to clean it up for notability. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I can use some help with Talk:Andy_Beard Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Also your input here would highly be appreciated. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Beard#Andy_Beard Igor Berger (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Would like another opinion

I've been having a disturbingly heated conversation with a certain Igor Berger, whom I see you've met in the thread above this one. I was wondering if you could take a look at his user page and the conversation and chime in with an objective commentary. I'm afraid my wikistress meter has gone from 1 to 3 in just the last couple hours. Thanks! Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 07:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And now I've been accused of trolling. Excuse me if I feel a little hurt... Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 08:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
PS: Oy, and now I'm dumping my problem into someone else's lap; very mature... :-/
Never mind, I found another admin while I was waiting. Delete if you like. :) Hope you had a good night! Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 11:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
No please do not delete, we are not into refactoring games here. Even when it is in WP:AGF Igor Berger (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, per WP:TPG, I have the freedom to remove whatever I like from my user talk page. I don't feel any pressing need to delete this thread, though, so it'll just get archived when the time comes. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 13:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. I did not know that you can delete stuff on a your own user page. I do not want to seem like I am WP:refactoring. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Simile?

Sorry for invoking your name. Nihil novi seemed to be getting a little nasty. Sorry you didn't see it that way. Can't for the life of me understand how you chose the word threatening. Who you tag and why is not something that I can control, nor can I use it as a threat. My only hope is that since you've involved yourself in the matter, you look at all of the parties and their activities impartially. Best, Dr. Dan (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was getting heated, indeed, but I don't think it was getting out of hand. I chose threatening because your message seemed to say "watch out or I'll sic Ioeth on you"; I probably could have chosen better, but I was being lazy at the time. Anyway, my whole point posting there was just to give everybody a reminder to stay cool, especially since FA nominations are for gathering consensus. An adage we had when I was studying computer science a while back comes to mind: keep it simple, stupid. There's nothing wrong with opposing an FA nomination, but going into a diatribe and then arguing about your point on the nomination page probably isn't the best place to voice those concerns, as many people seem to have done on that nom. Your opinion is still valid and still yours, even if someone wants to drag you into a pissing contest over it, so why bother, right? Eye in the sky out! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Keeping it cool is nice, keeping everyone civil is better, keeping it neutral should be the gold standard. Avoiding similes to cephalopods, crustaceans, on our part, or canines ("sic em") on yours, might even demonstrate a degree of impartiality, which seems to be lacking. Referring to my remarks as a diatribe is an insult. Inserting yourself into this mess and explaining your choice of words as being the result of "laziness" is troubling to read. I have made an effort to not violate your warning. It would be nice to see this universally applied to all parties. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

About Category:Wikipedia help

I am sorry. Honestly I do not know why I put that up. Guess I was experementing with it. I always need help and I always give help. I saw some users using it. Also I was a bit tired from the Andy Beard article. Thanks for taking down [[Category:Wikipedia help]] Igor Berger (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries! I figured you were probably just playing around with it. It turned out to be pretty handy, actually, as I took a look at a couple of other user's pages that weren't using the colon trick when trying to link to the category, so I was able to fix them up too. Cheers! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 03:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Some developments

Hello Ioeth, I hope you well. Today I noticed that same old problems continues in regards of Digwuren case editing restrictions, namely contributor who was informed about such restrictions, continues to follow exact pattern of behavior like accusation of vandalism towards established editor. Such practice is identical to previuos one, which resulted restriction notification back then and it is evident that particular contributor refuses to follow good editing practice. I fear that such systematical edits will fuel more heat if no prevention is taken. Also I am not sure, should I fill a report on reinforcement board or just contact uninvolved admin (like i did now). I hope you will resolved these issues. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's only an automated edit summary from having clicked a Twinkle button. From what I can tell from reading the associated talk page, Halibutt's claim that Karolina Proniewska is Samogitian nobility versus Lithuanian nobility is backed up by sources. I can't see a valid counter-claim on the talk page by any of the other editors to that article. This really looks like a simple content dispute at the moment, and in these cases I'm looking for more blatant violations than that. Also, the established editor that you are referring to was also put on formal notice of the general restriction. Anyway, I'm trying to assume good faith here and at this time I don't really see anything related to that article by any involved editors that warrants issuing a block. Thanks for the report, though. You can feel free to post here or at WP:AE in the future. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the answer. Just small comment, it is completely irrelevant then attack against opponent occurred and offensive would not vanish because it looks like a simple content dispute, especially then subject was asked to drop such "labeling" practice in the past. This is just my general insight. Thanks again, we will see how situation will develop in future. All the best, M.K. (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Since you wrote back and still seem to be somewhat concerned, I went ahead and brought the issue up with Halibutt. Hopefully it's just a simple misunderstanding that can be avoided in the future. Cheers! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope that these issues can be avoided in the future too. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Oh, thank you, it is a surprise :) ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the real surprise was that I couldn't find any evidence of you having received a barnstar ever before! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This is my first one :) ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
It is long overdue, then. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I've expressed my thoughts on that issue here. Sciurinæ (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I commented it here [3] and here [4]. Very sad ... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC and WP:Civil

Hi - FAC has had some civility issues I think... I would much appreciate knowing how to improve this aspect of FAC. - I have personally defended the comments of Matthead in the Pisudski FAC - who similarly to the comments of Nihil Novi - 'were more akin to similies than equations'. Thanks for reading this comment, please respond in my talk page.
--Kiyarrllston 17:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
PS:you commented on the Pilsudski FAC regarding the "accusation of uncivility" by Dr Dan

re: Socratic Barnstar

Thank you for the barnstar and your kind words. It was an excellent surprise to find on my talk page, and very encouraging to someone who's still relatively new! Thanks again, Kafka Liz (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My comments at Talk:Iași-Chișinău Offensive

I've had people telling me I'm being uncivil, but not actually pointing out in exactly which way that is being interpreted. I see you are a programmer, so before you point to this, be kind enough to be specific, or don't bother me since I'm actually trying to write.--mrg3105mrg3105 06:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this: "(look at the pages of these users) Biruitorul (very Rumanian), AdrianTM obviously not without Rumanian POV, Turgidson has a "Romanian Barnstar of National Merit", Eurocopter tigre is Rumanian, Roamataa another Rumanian". Grouping those editors together in a message where you are trying to discredit them can be interpreted as uncivil at the least and racist at the best. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 07:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
In actual fact this was to show the preponderance of national representation on the 'vote' opposing the move! I was only pointing out what is openly displayed on user pages, and that is their nationality. Only one opposer was not a Rumanian. Does that not sound like a 'vote' that was conducted from a distinctly selective POV to you? On the other hand those who supported the move come from diverse backgrounds, and contributed arguments that were based on logic, evidence and Wikipedia policies. It is their own grouping for the purpose of the 'vote' that made the participation so conspicuous! In fact in Australia we have a word for this when employed to influence voting outcomes called Branch stacking. Do you really think that being a Wikipedia:Administrator gives you the right to judge people? You are all of 24 years old, and have not really lived yet to be in that position. Before you judge me, examine evidence, talk to every participant, and try to understand perspective (from those that have it) rather then issue notices and warning. Above all, whatever you do in Wikipedia or your life, be a part of the solution, not the problem. Unless you can constructively contribute in a practical way to this important issue, please do not bother me again. I am not impressed by administrators. I would be far more impressed by your history articles that enrich en-Wiki.--mrg3105mrg3105 08:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand

I don't understand the lack of action against this blatant vandal. How can 8 consecutive warnings without being blocked not be enough? Angrymansr (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The last warning before the one VoABot II left today was in mid-December. The policy for blocking IP vandals is that activity and warnings must be recent. Recent for warnings is usually the past couple of days and recent for activity must be within a couple of hours. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, we try not to block IP address prematurely as it has a potential to cause collateral damage. If the IP vandalizes again I will be more inclined to block, but right now, there isn't enough reason to do so within policy.  :-\ Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand, but must correct one thing you said. The warning the bot left was not from today but January 9th. No warning was issued for today's vandalism as I figured that this IP has received enough warnings to justify blocking. Thanks for your help. Angrymansr (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup, my bad! It said "9" and I read "19" instead. Keep up the good work! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback integration

Could I have some general info on User:Ioeth/twinklerollbackintegration.js? I'd like to know the configuration options, and also whether I need to uninstall part of Twinkle to avoid getting duplicate links. It looks useful, but I don't want to clutter up the interface too much. Thanks, Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 18:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's designed to work with Twinkle, so if you don't have Twinkle installed it would mess up. Anyway, details for the configuration can be found at the bottom of this thread. Let me know if you have any questions! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, this looks like a helpful script to use. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 18:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dryamaka and Amsterdam (city), New York redux

I regret to report that this user has initiated another cat-and-mouse game regarding the subject article. This time he is deleting a "notable" link to Todd Cetnar. --Orlady (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Premature. I discovered that he has posted on the talk page. --Orlady (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ashleano has returned

User User:Ashleano, who you had sternly warned about linkspam a few months ago has returned to spam us again. Please have a look if you would be so kind. --Oskay (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for using Wikipedia for advertising or promotional purposes. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons image location

You appear to be the deleting admin of Image:BOA Atlanta 1.jpg and Image:BOA Atlanta 2.jpg, under CSD I8 (image exists on commons). However, the images aren't under those particular names on commons, and your deletion summary doesn't specify their new locations. Any idea where the images ended up? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My bad! Looks like the first one is commons:Image:Bank of America Atlanta 1.jpg and the second is commons:Image:Bank of America Atlanta 2.jpg. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. Just making sure they're categorized properly on commons... they appear to be. And the (more) logical filenames are wonderful :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bagelboi

Blocking an anonymous editor after only two edits might be a little quick on the trigger. I might have tried another {{Test}}, {{Test2}}, {{Test-self}}, {{Uw-test1}} before going the block route. Just something to consider...Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Redvers sent me an email about it as well. I usually try to err on the side of good faith, but I think I just had a slight lapse. I went ahead and unblocked, removed the block notification, and added a welcome message to the user's talk page. Thanks for the heads-up! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem! Keep up the good work! Kingturtle (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:LRTNow

Can you tell me why you blocked this user? He has requested unblock so he can change it, and I was about to unblock him for the change, but I noticed the name he wanted to change to was similar. What am I missing -- what's the problem with this username? - Revolving Bugbear 21:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

LRTNow is a group name that stands for "Light Rail Transport Now". They're a community group that supports light rail transport initiatives, and although they do not have a website, the user account seems to be contributing only to light rail topics, which is what lead me to make the decision to block. If you feel that the block was unfounded, that's fine, but I would urge the user to create a username that is unrelated to their POV bias. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, now that I understand the block, I don't have a problem with it. (He wants to change it, by the way, to LRT Ryder, which seems just as inappropriate to me.) I will tell him I will unblock him provided that he changes it to something unrelated to light rail.
Thanks. - Revolving Bugbear 21:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem; I heartily agree. Thanks for taking care of the request, and please let me know if there's anything else I can do for you! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Musicbot

Here, you welcomed a user after blocking him indefinitely. Why? WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 22:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked the user because their username was in violation of WP:U; specifically that it implies that the account is automated or a bot of some form. I welcomed the user after blocking them to try to mitigate the risk of scaring them away with the block. They hadn't made any non-constructive edits (actually I don't think they made any edits), so I had no reason to believe that the username choice was due to anything but inexperience on their part. Is there something else that you think I should do for this user? Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No, there isn't. I just thought it was bizarre that you should welcome him after blocking him. I reported his username. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It is a bit bizarre, I know, but I just want to make sure that when I make a valid username block that I don't scare someone away just because they aren't familiar with Wikipedia policy. If you aren't aware, there's actually a welcome message template that you can leave on a user's talk page that has a violating username that will welcome them and urge them to change their username. Check it out, it's at {{uw-username}} and you can use it by putting {{subst:uw-username}}~~~~ at the top of the user's talk page! Cheers, and keep up the good work! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I see, I might use that, cheers! WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 22:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi Ioeth. Thank you for your message! Actually, the settlement for the introduction sentence occured end of November 2007, and therefore amply post-dates the Talk-Page discussions there had been about this sentence. A compromise sentence was thus found between Elonka and me in that formal mediation, after something like 2 months of discussion, and she specifically said that she finally accepted "A Franco-Mongol alliance,<refs> or at least attempts to form such an alliance,<refs> was the objective of...". Let me remind that the mediation was started at her request, and I accepted to follow her in this long negociation. What she is trying to do now is to forget this agreement and go back to an earlier unformal list of comments on a Talk Page to push her original point "only attempts at an alliance". Morally, not keeping one's word is a huge issue, and I am afraid it is not very correct by Wikipedia standards either. Personnally, I feel betrayed. What do you think? Could you help? Best regards. PHG (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Loeth. Here is the text of Elonka's agreement for the introduction sentence at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive#The mediation is here:

A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, was the objective of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade. PHG 06:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I like that version.  :) --Elonka 07:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Concluded with agreement on the following opening sentence:

A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, was the objective of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.

-- tariqabjotu 19:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PHG (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I don't know why I thought it was back in September rather than November. I've taken a look at the links now and I'll see what I can do. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Still, previous mediation doesn't trump current talk page consensus, which was only between you and Elonka. Saying that the above version is the one that should be in the article seems to be ignoring other users' input on the talk page, since it looks like consensus is not with that version. Furthermore, your latest article creations seem to have come under much scrutiny from the community, and I would encourage you not to create any more forks before consensus is reached at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. Given around a half-dozen of your latest contributions are up for AFD, it's pretty obvious that these "executive decisions" that you have been making are becoming increasingly disruptive. You have had a long history of quality contributions to Wikipedia, and I hate to see that fact becoming more and more overshadowed by the current situation. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ioeth, I hate to bother you with this again, but since you've got an idea of what's going on in the issue, I was hoping for an outside opinion. Recently I've become more involved in the talk page discussions and even reverted the article once, so I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to consider using any tools in the situation. The gist is this:

PHG's behavior continues to become increasingly disruptive. He's now created a slow moving revert war with 3 other editors and is wikilawyering in great amounts on the talk page in an attempt to advocate for his preferred version. He's canvassed editors who've been in previous disputes with his opponents, editors who voted to keep one of his POV forks [5] [6] [7] [8] and invited in an editor who's already under ArbCom restrictions in the subject area[9] in an attempt to bolster his side of the debate. I've also recently discovered that he's been using misleading edit summaries and his "reverts" have also included the addition of more than 40 new paragraphs of highly disputed information (the unsupportable pov he's been pushing for four months now) and enough quotations and summaries from supposed sources to bring the number of total article notes to 401 (example). In total, he's managed to sneak in another 50k worth of absolute crap (for comparison's sake, his original preferred version was 147k and the rewrite he keeps reverting is only 80k). See this for more details. Not to mention he's created scads of POV forks in further attempts to keep "his" OR somewhere (detailed here). You may also want to see this for a refresher on the background issues as well.

I'd like to see the other editors who are discussing on the talk page and trying to improve the article get a chance at it and if I weren't involved, I'd consider blocking him for this continued disruption. Could you take a gander and see what your feeling is on the issue? Shell babelfish 21:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG has been blocked for 24 hours for his continued disruption of the collaborative environment at Franco-Mongol alliance. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

National Suicide Prevention Lifeline

Hi Loeth, I wrote an article about the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline under a different username that has now been blocked. This article was almost immediately deleted and I'm confused. The Lifeline is a free 24-hour national public service in the United States for people who are in crisis or suicidal. I saw other charities and non-profits listed and I tried to emulate those articles. I would really like the Lifeline to be on Wiki to help those in need. Please advise. Thanks, ALehner (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, ALehner. Unfortunately nonprofit service organizations are not exempt from Wikipedia's policy on spam. Your username was blocked because it matched the name of the organization that you created an article for, which makes it promotional, even if you didn't mean for it to be so. No worries, though, as you are still welcome to contribute to Wikipedia. If you wish to recreate the article with your new username you will have to make sure that it complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, of which some important ones are WP:N, WP:V, WP:SOURCES, and WP:NPOV. You should be aware that the conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages you from creating or editing subjects to which you are directly related, which appears to be the case here. If you have any other questions or need any help, feel free to leave another message here! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Loeth, I will do my best to keep with the NPOV policy especially. My plan is to create a acceptable stub for people to then build on.ALehner (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Illigitimate ban

Could you please explain (a) who you are and (b) why you "banned" me. Sarah777 (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw, you may not be especially bright I suspect, but regarding your charge of "aggressive biased editing" - I didn't do any editing - agressive, biasewd or anything else. Sarah777 (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:PHG

Hi. For what it's worth, I'm not sure blocking this editor was a good call. Maybe this should go to arbitration before any blocks are handed out. I understand this editor has been frustrating for folks to work with but I also see that there was a lack of consensus about this article extending beyond just this one person. I'd like to ask you to consider ending PHG's block.

Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, A. B. Kudos on your RFA succeeding...I saw that Rudget co-nominated you, which I think is neat, because I co-nominated him! Anyway, as far as my block on PHG goes, I don't feel that it is unwarranted right now. While I referenced multiple types of poor behavior on his part, the block was due to the fact that I had previously warned him about edit warring at Franco-Mongol alliance here. Despite this, in the past few days, he has been engaging in a slow-revert war with other editors of the article. During this period, he has also taken it upon himself to re-add previously removed POV information into the article (which was removed per talk page consensus) under the guise of reverting. I think that it should be noted that PHG is the only person reverting other editor's changes, which matches the consensus that I gather from the talk page. To me, this is clearly disruptive behavior. Coupled with the fact that he has recently created multiple POV forks of the article that were AFD'd, I do feel that this block is warranted to protect Wikipedia, and is in no-way a cool-down block. I have been following the activities regarding that article and related subjects for about a month now, and do feel confident that I have a good neutral grasp of what is going on. If you still feel differently, please let me know your reasons and I will certainly take them into consideration. Thanks! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 02:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like you've got a handle on it. Thanks for responding. --A. B. (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Agha Nader

Hi! As I saw here,you asked to report you if Agha Nader's behavior continued on Personal Attacks toUser:Arcayne.Now I find him doing the same with me: [10] (Judging about editors instead of the edits and calling me " The editors who add unsourced material like that do not belong at Wikipedia"...)
I want to ask does my case is a different one or can I include it under Arcayne's case.Thankyou,--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that Agha Nader is accusing me of personal attacks on his talk page, as well as giving me a hard time when I am trying to explain some things to him. Y5nthon5a (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the person who added the unsourced nonsense "Churchill used for any mischievous person" in the Iranian folklore article when I said "The editors who add unsourced material like that do not belong at Wikipedia. They blatantly ignore WP:V and WP:OR." You may also want to take a look at [11] for background. As for Y5nthon5a, I think it can all be summed up by his comment "I agree it was a dumb argument. I just like DJ Khaled A lot" [12]. Perhaps the "hard time" he refers to is my insistence that his claims be sourced [13].--Agha Nader (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys; sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with Agha Nader on this one, though. I've reviewed both of the talk pages that were brought to my attention, and while the conversations do appear to be quite heated, I don't see any instances of anybody stepping over the line. The policies that Agha Nader was referring to are foundations of Wikipedia, and so his commentary is accurate. In some of the above cases, Agha Nader's conduct is exemplary, especially when compared to that of some of the other editors; he stayed quite cool. In any of the above instances, I don't think anybody's comments went beyond what you would expect in any mildly heated discussion on Wikipedia. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your input Ioeth. I will continue to follow your advice and respect WP:CIV and WP:NPA.--Agha Nader (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting official warning

I tried to ask a certain editor to behave nicely and informed him of the ArbCom on EE topics, but he blanked my message, called it crap and in general did not look very friendly. Although I have encountered this user only at one article, rarely have I seen such incivility and refusal to back down. I am not sure if putting him on official sanction is merited just yet, but certainly I'd like to ask you to consider either this or at the very least restoration of my message to his post page (which was an official civility warning by an admin, after all). Thanks, PS. I looked at that user's talk page history and he has a habit of blanking out other warnings or posts questioning his behaviour ([14]) and has been warned about incivility before ([15]).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 09:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not been uncivil to anyone and your post on my talk page was entirely out of order, wrong, and a clear Conflict of Interest given the subject you're upset about. I have merely stated facts about subjects (not individuals) which you find unpallatable. I'm sorry but thats life - on and off Wikipedia. One more thing: we are all entitled to blank our Talk Pages. David Lauder (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I've reviewed the situation and I don't really see anything that David has done that I would consider over the line, which is what I'm looking for before deciding to issue a formal notice. Some of his comments or edit summaries do appear to be generally unfriendly or mildly hostile, but nothing I wouldn't expect in a heated discussion anyway. Removing messages from your own talk page is acceptable, but it's not really necessary to call them "crap" when you do so; Piotrus was only trying to help, after all, and he did so in a plesant manner. I's probably best for everybody here to just remember to stay cool since we're all working to the same end. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Noted. I would point out that I am not feeling particularly unfriendly towards anyone and my comments related to subjects/issues, not a particular editor. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I would see nothing wrong with calling an aggressive message on my talkpage "crap". Some Admins have no sense of perspective on these issues. Sarah777 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Response from In Retro

Hello Ioeth.

I'm just getting around to all my talk notes/messages now.

If entries have in any way been of offence, my apologies. In Retro Magazine is not currently supported by advertising -- it is a form of alternative media, and inserted listings/links were placed only among those made by other media as well. Specifically, the sites that references/links were posted to were listings of the media pertinent to those cities... where media listings were already present.

Our regional magazine/media legitimately qualifies as being part of those listings. This is not advertising - but a fair balance of information. This is not spam, but rather showing the world that alternatives do exist aside from the typical mainstream media. I believe this information was wrongfully removed. Advertising is not my intent. If you read the articles in the magazine, you'll see that nothing is being sold. It is merely a medium of information. Is Wikipedia not a place where people go to learn about what exists – and by blocking relevant information is it tampering with truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nduffy (talk • contribs) 17:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia isn't the place to spam links to your magazine. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, even if those links were added to "show the world alternatives". Even if it's not your intent, it is considered to be advertising by Wikipedia policy (see WP:SPAM and WP:SOAP). External links on Wikipedia must be restricted to those that are most meritable, accessible and relevant to the article; i.e., they should be most often used as cited reliable sources. I have again reverted the links that you have added, and unfortunately if you continue to add them in this manner, I'll be forced to add your site to the spam blacklist which means the MediaWiki software won't allow anybody to add links to it again. If you have any questions, please reply here. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes after your message, like this: ~~~~. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, just an addition, it is Ioeth with an I not an L :) The Helpful One (Talk) (Contribs) (Review) 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably a good thing to note. User:Loeth is kind of mental, if you know what I mean. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't care to argue. I have no further desire to made additions any further additions to Wikipedia at this time. The Wikipedia titles I added the magazine to were "Media of Ontario" -- again, this is a category I believe I belong to, but you believe otherwise -- this title on Wikipedia IS a listing of the different media. I don't know how it can be deemed otherwise. It is not an article -- but a listing, evident in the title itself. Nonetheless, you win. Again, I meant no harm. Cheers. ND.

Re:Re: Porsche Challenge

If you could, please take another look at the article... User:Venion/Porsche challenge Venion (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there are still no sources cited to back the article up. Without those, I doubt that the article would survive long in the mainspace. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Arthur

I'm 99% sure it's a banned user, and, well, have you seen the IP's contributions? Will (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have, and while they are poor, they seem to have stopped making them. I don't know anything about User:Arthur Ellis, so I'm ill equipped to make a judgment about whether it's an IP sockpuppet or not, which is why I suggest reporting it at WP:ANI. Hopefully there it will get some eyes that are familiar with the situation on it. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiSpecs.org

Ioeth, why are we in such a hurry to close AfD?

I wanted to comment but you closed it.

Anyway I was trying to help the guy, being that is is a Wikimedia!

  • Delete unless the owner can make it notable real fast. If not let them build it in a sandbox first and try again latter. Igor Berger (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I closed the AFD because it's a pretty clear-cut case of promotion, so I closed it per WP:CSD#G11. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. The username matched the name of the website that he was writing an article about, and he also added it to the List of wikis article. The user's username has been blocked as well since it is promotional. After they create a new username, you're still welcome to help them out, and the best way to do that might be to encourage them to create the article in their userspace first so that they can work on it without risking it being speedily deleted again. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I already told the guy to built it in his sandbox. I just think we should be a little bit human sided when dealing with newcomers. But I understand how spammy he must look. Remember I have SEO background so I can see if this guy is black hat or not, and I did not see him being black hat, but just not knowing how to do it white hat! No problem..:) Igor Berger (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you completely; I didn't think for a second that he was intentionally posting promotional material to Wikipedia, but with the combination of the username and multiple insertions of material, we have to consider it as such. Even though it is probably discouraging to have your article deleted, your edits reverted, and your username blocked all in one shot, it's just what I have to do to protect Wikipedia in some cases. I think the best way to approach situations like this if you're not an administrator is to fill the user in on what will most likely happen and encourage them to take steps to fix the problems before they come to administrator attention. For instance, with usernames that are likely to be blocked, but make good faith contributions, you can use {{uw-username}} on the user's talk page to both welcome them and let them know that their username is inappropriate. If the user had changed their username before I had come along, I probably wouldn't have blocked them in this case, although I might have deleted the article under WP:CSD#A7 still. To help with that, though, you could offer to move the article into the user's userspace and then request deletion of the remaining redirect with {{csd-r2}}. Anyway, those are just some ideas on how you can really help good faith editors in cases like this. Cheers, and keep up the good work! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Will try to help newcomers best I can at the same time no mercy for vandals! Igor Berger (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If (MSI album)

Whoops, looks like my semi-pp overrode your full-prot. Sorry, didn't realise you were doing that. Do you want to make it full again or see how it goes? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm glad it did! I was trying to use twinkle to put a pp template up, but hit the wrong button and wound up full protecting it. Didn't mean to do that! I think semi should probably be fine for that article. Keep up the good work! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll watch it & if it starts up again I'll make it full. Album's not released until end of April so there's no great loss. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of my essay

User:Igorberger/Social engineering (Internet) I would like to move it to main space as an essay after I have proofread it and fixed the syntax a bit. Igor Berger (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a new tool for you Batman. When someone complains why you deleted their article tell them WP:AGF and WP:NOT#Democracy. Also ask them if they claiming WP:SEI. That should do the trick..:) Igor Berger (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of username block

You username-blocked this person: User talk:Beautifulangrymusic. Pourquoi? I don't see anything wrong with the name per-se... Could you elaborate on their talk page so others can see the reasoning. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No problemo, done here. Let me know if you need anything else! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
GOtcha. All is clear. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yoshi525 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Ioeth, the above guy or gal has appealed against your recent block, which you made whilst citing WP:SPAM violations. It's clear that that is indeed true, but at the same time, the individiual has also showed some hope in their contributions: e.g., he or she made no further attempts to insert spam links, or make unverified claims, after their last warning.

In the hope you have no objection, I have shortened the block to a period of 8 hours. Feel free to start a discussion on my talk page, that user's talk page (I'll be watching it), or alternatively shoot me an email.

All the best,
Anthøny 21:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, all looks good to me; thanks for taking care of that. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I guess I should note that it looks like the user is familiar with using sockpuppets, since it appears that the links they were adding (as well as some others) were also being spammed by TonyMcnam (talk · contribs) and 86.9.138.53 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS). Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That is worrying :) I'll look into it, unless you haven't already? Anthøny 22:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, to me it looks like the three are all the same person and are all SPAs, and the other account and IP were used to facilitate the same types of edits as well as covertly edit war. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I concur—they're all blocked, so there shouldn't be too many worries from that end of the field. I'll tag, and keep an eye out for any more suspicious activity ;) Cheers, Anthøny 22:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good; I'm definitely concerned about Yoshi525's past editing pattern, especially with these apparent sockpuppets, so I'll try to keep an eye out too. It'll be interesting to see if Yoshi is autoblocked after your block expires, since I blocked the above IP for 2 weeks, heh. Probably not though, since I did anons only. On a sidenote, you appear to be on IRC, but aren't responding. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Now it appears that this has made it to WP:ANI here. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've commented there ;) Anthøny 17:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:62.60.123.90

Thank you for blocking this user, the vandalism went beyond a joke in the end Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 16:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

204.234.17.51 Vandalism

Hello, I noticed that you put a 24 hour block on the said IP. There have been numerous vandalism coming from the IP. This IP's host is strongbad.esu10.k12.ne.us which is a school IP. I attend the school that it's set for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/204.234.17.51

There are the contributions from the IP, many are vandalism.

I really believe a softblock should be considered.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeroxysm (talk • contribs) 19:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is softblocked; only anonymous users are blocked from editing. Is there something else you'd like me to do? Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh wait, wrong month, nevermind! You can make future reports to WP:AIV if your monitoring the contributions from that IP address.  :-) Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thank you. Thanks for the tip too, wasn't exactly sure where to report this kind of thing. --Zeroxysm (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Keep up the good work! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well

I will let it go. I will no longer edit WP:AE to replace the refactoring. I do wish that people would recognize that they can simply file another complaint against me if they have one. Their complaints about my civility have nothing to do with Martin's disruptive editing. These two users have been harassing me for a few months now, and no administrator has done anything about it. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I can understand where you're coming from. The two messages at AE seem to be pretty minor on the grand scale of things, though. However, if you do have definitive instances of harassment you'd like me to look at, I'll be more than happy to. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dlabtot

Instances of wikistalking/forumshopping:

Instances of uncivil baiting:

Ad hominem dismissal of my comments:

Oblique personal attacks:

I could continue, but what's the point? This user has been on my case since just about the moment he arrived at Wikipedia. That he was suspected of being a sockpuppet of User:Nrcprm2026 is of note. That user has been placing socks at Wikipedia to disrupt for some time now and although the checkuser confirmed that this user is not editing from the same IP, I'm not convinced that this is not the same user. He is interested in depleted uranium obviously and has an extreme vendetta against me (just like User:Nrcprm2026). This user especially makes Wikipedia a very uncomfortable place for me as he follows me wherever I go.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll let the facts speak for themselves. Not just on the question of whether the characterizations of the diffs above are accurate, but also on the question of sockpuppetry, where I would urge you to examine Nrcprm2026 as well as Nondistinguished, Fraudulent Ideas, Velikovsky, and Mainstream astronomy. Dlabtot (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
...and Joshuaschroeder! -- Levine2112 discuss 07:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Findings

I've looked over both of your contribution histories and a fairly large sample of your edits, and I just don't see anything that's worth acting on at this point. SA, just because you're engaged in a disagreement with someone who's interested in the same topics as you does not mean that they're Wiki-stalking you. Dlabtot, I'm fairly sure the sockpuppetry issue with SA has been fully dealt with and I really don't see how changing those talk pages to redirects is any kind of offense. I think the fact of the matter here is that you're both acting childish (edit warring at WP:AE for goodness sake!) and that if you really tick each other off as much as it appears, it might be best for you to try to avoid each other for a bit. If either of you feel differently than this, I would urge you to file a report at WP:AE (bring better "evidence" than what you gave above, though) or create a request for comment or arbitration. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Analysis tool?

Is this tool hosted on a private server or on the Wikimedia tool server? I have need of this for a Checkuser investigation. Lawrence § t/e 14:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's hosted on the tool server. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
How do I get access? Lawrence § t/e 14:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Check your email. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Working Group login

Hi Ioeth, just letting you know I've sent an email (via the English Wikipedia email function) to you with details about your Working Group wiki login details. Be sure to change your password once you log in, for security reasons! If there's any problems with the login (passwords, username not working, or anything), fire me an email and I'll try and sort them out for you. Looking forward to working with you as a fellow group member! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, Daniel. I'm looking forward to working with you too! Cheers! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

St. Barnabas Church, Upper Marlboro, Maryland peer review

I Matthew, I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the St. Barnabas Church, Upper Marlboro, Maryland and give us an honest peer review. The page has evolved quite a bit in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maryland some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. Several of us have worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/St. Barnabas Church, Upper Marlboro, Maryland/archive1 Toddst1 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Greg Mesaros

You spoiled me the fun of tagging every single sentence in the article with {{fact}} or {{doubtful}} :( -- lucasbfr talk 20:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sutherland Institute Final Revisions

loeth,

can you take another look at the entry. i'd really like to post it and hope that i've been able to clean it to the point that it is a "real" entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ljswim/Sandbox.

thanks Ljswim (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ljswim, it looks pretty good. I rearranged it just a little bit so that the article has a lead section and bolded the title in the first sentence. Looks like you should be able to move it into the mainspace whenever you're ready. If you're not sure how to do that, just visit WP:MOVE. Cheers! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
loeth, many thanks on the edits. I appreciate your time and help! Ljswim (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

OtakuOmaha

Why did you delete that article relating to an anime convention, I don't see you deleting other conventions like Anime Detour, Sogen Con, etc... The template used for OtakuOmaha was even the same as those because I copied another con's page into OtakuOmaha and changed it to have the appropriate information, so why may I ask was it deleted exactly? I know you siad "blatant advertising" but what made it blatant advertisement as compared to any other con? TVR Enthusiast (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a really good question. Looking back in the history, I can't find any good reason why I would have deleted that, especially with that template CSD reason that didn't apply. I've restored the article and give you my apologies for the inconvenience! Cheers! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of 301 STUDIOS article

Regarding deletion of entry 301 STUDIOS, what exactly did you view as promotion? Everything included in article was objective and was still in the process of being edited.

6fold (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also ask that you restore the content and allow the entry. Please put personal opinions aside.

6fold (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It was definitely not objective; the entire article was written like an advertisement. On top of that, the "references" provided predominately linked to social networking websites, which are not acceptable reliable sources. The article also did not assert the notability of the company. I'm sorry, but it just didn't meet the criteria for inclusion. If you want to continue working on the article to see if you can get it to a point where it's acceptable, please do so in your userspace at User:6fold/Sandbox. If you recreate it there, you can get opinions and help from other users on how to improve it before moving it back into the mainspace. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the response however. I saw no differences in the text content of the article compared to an existing article on the independent label Rhymesayers. The "references" you refer to were to give insight into who the artists on the label are and additional editorial media references were in the process of being added. The article will be recreated.

6fold (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, this isn't a battle. I indicated to you what was wrong with the article in the state that it was in and instructed you as to how you could work to improve it. Instead you came back here to throw it in my face, but no matter; as I said before, this isn't a battle and I don't hold grudges. I'm going to leave a welcome message on your talk page that has links to Wikipedia's core policies, and I highly suggest that you read and understand them before recreating the article, as meeting them is mandatory for an article to be included. If you need any help, feel free to ask and I will be happy to oblige, but please don't try to lecture me on subjects on which you are clearly uninformed. On a sidenote, and this is not a threat, based on your contribution history and your vehemence for creating this article, I think you might want to tone down the bullishness a bit or you are likely to be blocked for disruption, advertising, or both. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Loeth.

You response above: "If you need any help, feel free to ask and I will be happy to oblige, but please don't try to lecture me on subjects on which you are clearly uninformed." could go both ways. Before deletion, you could have approached me with your concerns. Honestly, you really didn't indicate what was wrong with the article, especially in comparison to other articles on independent record labels. Your note on why you deleted the article ("It just wasn't good enough, sorry.") didn't give much in the way of explanation either. Nothing in the text compared to other indie label articles was "promotional" or "spam".

Also, my contribution you reverted on the Atmosphere page wasn't vandalism either, it was a fact. Gives more insight on what a founding member of the group is up to now.

Have you any suggestions on how to better list artists on the label? I didn't really want to enter a bio on each, as that could get rather long-winded.

I don't hold grudges either. Have a good day. 6fold (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you'll check User:6fold/Sandbox you'll see that I've recreated the article for you. I've also overhauled it to cleanup the layout and organization as well as comply with the manual of style. You'll probably also notice that I've reworked the article quite a bit; I've removed some irrelevant content and references and refactored some of the sentences. It should now be a good starting point for you. The most important thing to do at this point is to find reliable sources that comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policy so that you can prove the notability of the organization. As for the Atmosphere (music group) article revert that I did, unsourced additions can be removed at any time because they do not meet the verifiability policy. Plus, going around and making additions only about one subject makes you look like a spammer, so it's better to wait until after 301 Studios has been shown to be notable before adding a bunch of references to it in other articles. Let me know if you need any more help with that article or if you get stuck and need to know how to move forward. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


Deletion Review for Image:Inuteropromo.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Inuteropromo.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ChrisB (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Apologies for the name confusion, but you gotta admit you look similar loeth and Ioeth (At least to me on my browser and using my skin). Anyways thanks for implementing discussed modifications, I am always astonished by your flexibility to implement suggestions and accept changes to one of the most used scripts on WP. Thanks and sorry! =) Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 16:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it happens all the time! This is probably one of the funniest comments I've ever gotten about it, which you might like. Let me know if you have any other requests or ideas you'd like to see implemented for Friendly, and thanks for the ones so far. Cheers! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid he has a point :D. Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

EE civility inquiry

With regards to this, I would appreciate it if you could look at edits of Christchurch (talk · contribs), in particular: [24], [25]. Arguments about "Polish nationalists" are common coming from him (another example, another...); do note that this is an old pattern, he has been asked not to do so as early as 2005. It appears his views has not changed and he is still ready to express them in discussion, which does not contribute to any positive atmosphere, I am afraid (if Christchurch appears in a Polish related discussion, it is almost certain he will accuse the Polish editors of nationalism...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember what I said about block-shopping, using past arbcom cases for that and using the civility tools in content conflicts? --Irpen 17:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
After examnining the diffs, I have more to add. First, they are collected over a vast time frame (there is one from 2006 even). Something in line with the complainant's habit to store diffs on his opponents for extensive period of time to use them at an opportune moment. Clicking at the diffs, I see the editor is indeed not trying to sugarcoat his opinions. Nothing on the level that requires intervention, though. Then there is this "fear" expressed about what the user might do. In Stalinist times, there was this interesting twist of the justice system. When the authorities needed to incriminate "treason" and could not find any actions, the person was accused of the "treasonous intentions" and sent to labor camps based on that. Also, one must remember how the various "warnings" are likely to be perceived. They may well antagonize the user and even provoke him to step overboard. Anyway, I see no sign of a need of intervention. --Irpen 18:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking at what was presented, I'm going to have to agree with Irpen here, that there is no need for any intervention at the moment. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't understand why Irpen, a user who has been found to be quite biased when it comes to my person, is discussing an issue completely unrelated to him on a page that is not his talk page. Second, I provided the older diffs to demonstrate a pattern; I am asking for a warning based on the diffs from the past day or so. If you would prefer, you can disregard further evidence I presented and just look at the recent diffs. As was noted before, accusations of nationalism are incivil and offensive, and that user was told so - yet he persists with such personal remarks.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, don't make me for an umpteenth time bring in the diffs on how that Arbcom decision, as well as particular finding, was commented on by this community. Also, please do not insinuate on what I have to your "person". I have no obsession about your or anyone else's "person" on wikipedia. You check my edits and I don't. This is the difference.
If there is the allegation of "a history of incivility," then we have to see each of those. For example, if you cite something from 2006, the duty to deal with it was back in 2006, and not now. To say, "This establishes the pattern" is to ignore all intervening edits. A greatest hits collection from anyone can make a person look saintly or devilish. This is just another reason why your off-wki dump of diffs on your content opponents is such an abusive approach. The compulsion to deal with "civility" is always present tense. I have to deal with disruption today, and not yesterday's.
Last but not least, the misuse of civility tools in content dispute is a plague of this project. When you have a content dispute, talk to your opponent about the dispute itself (not his person, his biases to your person and whatever.) There has been enough abuse of WP:AE (after elimination of PAIN, CSI and RFI due to their such misuse) as well as individual communication with admins as tools to turn the content disputes your way. This sometimes worked like magic. Get an admin place "a warning" on an editor's page or place him "on notice". This often provokes a very unfortunate response from the perplexed user and the spiral unwinds ending up to the block, which sends the spiral faster, possibly to a permaban. Enough is enough. --Irpen 20:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding us, Irpen, I simply wish we could agree that 1) Irpen does not discusses Piotrus and 2) vice versa. A thing as simple as that could be very helpful for both of us.
Regarding that user, he is not very active and finding out the diffs was simple - I just looked at the 50-100 of his edits to talk pages (there are no more than that many); found the 10% related to Poland, and found in them what I remembered - a pattern of accusation of Polish nationalism. Sure, knowing this pattern I would expect that the next one would not appear for a few weeks or months. But I also know that it's going to be there - and I would very much prefer for it not to be.
If a user who disagrees with me is also incivil, I see nothing wrong with trying to educate them. There is nothing in the policies - or common sense - that I should treat the users who disagree with me differently from others. To eliminate the possibility of bias, I usually ask others to review it. So far I am happy to see that the record, up to and including ArbComs that I have been involved with, is pretty clear: my behavior is acceptable, behavior of incivil editors is not. And if you are unhappy about that - perhaps you should work on your own behavior, not criticize that of others.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Same red herring, Piotrus. Again, there is plenty said elsewhere (not by me but by many respected editors) about "my own behavior" and your using an unrelated arbcom and your secret links-dump to achieve your goals.

If some here would just stop this quest to "win" all content disputes by eliminating their opponents, the whole climate in the EE area would have changed in one day. Unfortunately, it takes a change in personal ethics, achieving of which for an adult person is nearly impossible. But what is possible, and what I am trying to do, is to raise the awareness of the community of the danger of such method of conflict resolution and there is a small but steady progress. Elimination of three block-shopping boards was a big step in the right direction. I hope the change on the AE maintenance is also now within reach. --Irpen 21:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Doczilla's RfA

.: Oh, no! There goes To-ky-o! Admin Doczilla! :.

Doczilla's RfA

.: Oh, no! There goes To-ky-o! Admin Doczilla! :.

"Watching" pages -- notification?

Howdy, Ioeth. Is there a way to receive notification of watched pages? I've recently started getting pretty active in the Wikipedia community and have made edits to several pages I'd like to watch. I was wondering if there was a way to set up some sort of notification to get emailed whenever a change is made on my watchlist, instead of having to check back every so often. Thanks in advance! --P shadoh (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, P shadoh. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, there's no way to monitor your watchlist externally, whether it be by email or RSS feed. Sorry! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 13:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)