User talk:MastCell/Archive 11

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 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 →

Contents

Thank you.

I appreciate your promptness in semi-protecting Brandon Teena. Hopefully now we'll have a breather! Cheers, Kasreyn 21:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected Page

You recently posted a message on the Copernicus talk page in reference to my asking for an admin to help with an edit. I tried to initiate a discussion previously about my concern with how a certain portion of the document was worded, and I received no response. I'm just not sure what to do about reaching a consensus if their is no one with which to reach one. Guldenat 18:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Ceausescu

It's not really an edit war, to be honest. It's just a known POV pusher pushing his POV (see history). I know that it was probably a generic template, but still, The More You Know... :) Will (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds about right. Looking at the history, it looked like the editor you mention was about to violate 3RR... in fact, I was considering blocking Animou temporarily as a repeat edit warrior, but since you'd requested protection, that seemed like the most... forgiving approach. MastCell Talk 22:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
To share an opinion with you, the guy should've been banned ages ago. He keeps violating policy and doesn't learn. (and he was blocked, as repeated POV pushing is vandalism). Will (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Egads... his block log is unpleasant reading. I've certainly seen his name around AN/I quite a bit. You might consider taking it to WP:CSN... it's hard to believe that he deserves many more chances. MastCell Talk 22:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

NCdave

I have agreed to assist and mentor User:NCdave. Of course, this is in conjunction with his WP:CSN topic ban. Let me know if you have comments. Thanks. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Good luck. MastCell Talk 16:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Daddy Yankee

Thanks for the protection on the Daddy Yankee article I requested, only unfortunately you protected it after the vandal reverted it (so now an incorrect version is protected). Please just take a few seconds to take a look at the page history and look at the reference used for him being shot, it doesn't mention him being 16 or coming from a studio, plus there are other POV comments added with no source. The last version I had up uses sources that you can immediately see (About the age, collaborations, etc). The vandalized version by TeePee references a site and not even a specific page, and the site makes no reference whatsoever to the content that he added. Since I made the protection request and am pointing out that the current version is noticeably sourced wrong, please take a second to revert the article back to the correct version while maintaining the protection, thanks. 65.0.104.36 19:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the referenced version for now, in accordance with WP:BLP. MastCell Talk 19:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Much appreciated. 65.0.104.36 20:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Block of User:Beh-nam

Note that User:Behnam is probably User:Beh-nam. Both of them seems to violate 3RR often. Block log of Behnam and Block log of Beh-nam . Just FYI...KarenAER 22:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've been looking at User's Talk page and Behnam is attempting to evade his recent block by using IP addresses, here are two that I came across 70.48.244.95 and 67.68.53.163. It is starting another edit-war on Template:Asian capitals, for something it has already been blocked several times. Does it realize or not that removing proper citations is considered vandalism?--Al Ruh 01:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
It's confirmed now that Beh-nam (talk · contribs) is using annon IPs to evade the 72 hours block. Major clue is signing its name at the end of a post while using annon IP 70.48.244.95. [1]--Al Ruh 20:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Wally (surname unknown)

Well I suppose you had to be there; for rock festival-goers, especially those of my age, Wally is just as much a reality as any urban legend, but also happens to have been a real person who entered into popular culture. It's a shame that the true story has never been told, and I was hoping that Wikipedia would become, through my personal experience, the authoritative source. It can be confirmed if I can locate a mathematician called Pete Draper who was with me at the time. I should point out that the last time I attended the [[Glastonbury Festival]], many years later, "Wally" was still being hopefully shouted about by others of my age group who were actually THERE. It's a rallying call for those who go back a long way, and arguably as valid a piece of rock festival culture as the brown acid & mudbaths of Woodstock. Wally is to the Isle of Wight Festival 1970 as Wavy Gravy is to Woodstock. Please email if you have a problem with this. Rodhullandemu 00:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted on the basis of failing to establish notability, by Wikipedia's particular definition of the term. As Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia, the content here needs to be verifiable. There are quite a few forums for personal reminiscence on the Internet, but Wikipedia is generally not one of them. On the other hand, if Wally indeed had the degree of cultural impact you impute to him, then it may be possible to dig up reliable secondary sources (for example, mention in newspapers or other such contemporaneous sources) which would resolve the questions about verifiability and notability. MastCell Talk 03:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So should I add correct derivation to Weeley_Festival & include link to http://www.ukrockfestivals.com/weeley-festival.html? ISTM that if Wally originated at the isle_of_wight_festival, as I remember it, that page is where he belongs. OTOH, the phenomenon is noted at both Weeley & IOW so perhaps both pages should refer to his own? Your advice would be welcome. Rodhullandemu 14:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right - since there's some coverage from the Weeley Festival, maybe it makes the most sense to mention him there. You could also include a mention at the IoW Festival. In terms of warranting his own page, it's a judgement call, but without more than a small mention in secondary sources, it's unlikely that an article on him could be expanded much. But if more sources turn up, perhaps it would work. MastCell Talk 19:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your revert on Kievan Rus'

You are correct in pointing out that I'm not new to Wikipedia, but it seems that you take as granted that someone familiar with Wikipedia is abusing multiple accounts if a new account is created. I've not been editing Ukrainian articles for a month or so; I abandoned my previous account. I noticed that something is not going right at Kievan Rus'. User:Alex Kov contributed a template, User:Irpen was repeatedly and inadequately removing the template, so I stepped in. I'm not User:Alex Kov. WP:SOCK lists the forbidden uses of sock puppets. Do you really see my actions as forbidden? If User:Irpen wrote in WP:ANI that there is "Harassment, sockpuppetry, POV-pushing, trolling" it does not mean that the reality is indeed as such. That particular user has problems to understand that his personal opinion does not represent "consensus", he can be wrong from time to time, and his judgment often is not shared by a majority of editors involved in the discussion.

Anyway, regardless of the issues mentioned above, I strongly disagree with your revert [2] on Kievan Rus'. I consider my contribution as constructive (it presents information in a better way by bringing in a template), and your revert as the one in violation of the core principle of Wikipedia, as being a project in which editors collectively contribute in creating, expanding, and improving a free online encyclopedia. --Zgoden 02:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As you are admittedly not a new editor, I'm sure you realize that creating a new account to jump into a very contentious issue and scold one of the participants is inappropriate. Your activities fit the profile of "obvious, disruptive sockpuppet" listed at WP:RFCU, and thus you were blocked. MastCell Talk 03:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding appropriate behavior

MastCell, I left a question for you on NCDave's thread and am curious about your answer: Do you actually think it is appropriate for an admin in conflict with an editor to decide when to close the thread and to ban the editor? It violates WP:block, but WP:BAN does not have a similar rule spelled out. You have obviously taken quite a bit of time to escalate and go through the process and procedures concerning NCDave- which is how it should be if you feel he is breaking rules. But when an admin in conflict with NCDave come in and bans him before he has even given his side of the story makes a mockery of the whole process. --Theblog 02:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the delay; I had purposely stopped watching that page, since it seemed to be devolving into an all-to-typical back-and-forth between myself and NCdave. As to your very reasonable question: closing the discussion is a bit arbitrary - it's typically done when there appears to be a consensus of uninvolved editors and a suitable number of them have weighed in. In this case, there appeared to be essentially unanimous support for the topic ban among uninvolved editors, so the close was, in my opinion, reasonable. Yes, I'd rather than Raul654 not have closed it, and waited for someone else to do so, for the reasons you mention, but I don't think there's been any travesty of justice - if you asked 100 more uninvolved, experienced Wikipedians, you'd probably get very similar responses to the proposal.
I don't object to NCdave pleading his case further, but in all honesty it's very unlikely to help him, at least so long as he continues his current approach to the situation. As you saw, there was a reasonable amount of support for an outright site-wide ban in the discussion, and had I pushed for that remedy (and had NCdave continued to defend himself by exhibiting the very sort of problematic behavior that led to the topic ban), it would likely have come to pass. I have seen a (small) number of productive edits from NCdave, on non-Milloy topics, and there is the kernel of a chance that he can learn to work within the expectations of on-wiki conduct, which is why I thought the Milloy-only ban was a more appropriate remedy. JodyB is a good mentor and I honestly hope it works out for him. But I can tell you, for what it's worth, that no matter who closed that discussion, the end result was going to be the same.
The block of Peroxisome was a different story. I'm conflicted about it, because on the one hand I would have preferred a more uninvolved admin to have intervened, but on the other hand I have seen nothing but negative conduct from that editor and it's extremely hard for me to believe that unblocking him will be of any benefit to Wikipedia. I'm glad the block is being reviewed, though, and it looks like there is a feeling that it should be shortened or lifted. MastCell Talk 03:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that its not likely that the NCDave outcome would have changed, however, I still think it is bad form. The outcome of Peroxisome, as of two or three days ago, was clear, yet he remains banned/blocked or whatever we call it. In fact, his CSN has already gone on longer than NCDave's was given. Its hard for me to see a decent reason why the two cases are treated differently. --Theblog 08:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree about resolving the Peroxisome thread, so I left a note last night asking an uninvolved admin to close it. It looks like he's been unblocked and is back to his usual behavior. MastCell Talk 19:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Murder, She Wrote

Can you tell me why the Murder, She Wrote: The Complete Sixth Season article was deleted and why I was not informed of it going to be deleted. Dell9300 09:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Another editor tagged the article for proposed deletion. As there was no objection registered within 5 days, the article was deleted. However, if you want to contest it, then I can undelete it. It will probably be sent to WP:AfD for discussion. I'm sorry you weren't notified; etiquette is to notify an article's creator when tagging it for proposed deletion, but apparently the editor who did the tagging failed to do so. If you want me to undelete the article, let me know. MastCell Talk 03:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes I would like it if you could undelete the article. Thank you. Dell9300 20:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

FAC of Oxidative phosphorylation

Hi there MastCell, if you have some time over the next few days, I'd be grateful for any comments or feedback at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxidative phosphorylation‎. All the best Tim Vickers 00:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of oxidative phosphorylation. I'll take a look at it over the next few days. Thanks for the note. MastCell Talk 00:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wally, IOW etc

Your reply to TimVickers noted: your non-reply to previous queries also noted. Not meaning to be critical, but I'm pretty new here & want to contribute. How can I find my way if I have no responses to my queries? if you're into biochemistry rather than rock festivals can you forward query to a more appropriate editor? Thanks Rodhullandemu 02:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry; it's the weekend, the weather is nice, and I'm not spending much time on Wikipedia. Forgive me for first responding to more straightforward issues before tackling your comment. I'll respond in your above thread. MastCell Talk 03:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence

There seems to be an edit war going on in Race and Intelligence. Please take a look and see if it merits a few days of protection. Brusegadi 20:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Another admin thought protecting was right. Thanks, Brusegadi 21:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Status Quo 1+9+8+2

Thanks for informing me about the Status Quo page 1+9+8+2. I have now made changes to the page, I have written a little bit more information about the album itself, right before the track listings. Also mentioning that original drummer John Coghlan was not on the specific album. I have now also included a "Links" section on to the page, linking to a website named StarPulse, which had Status Quo discography and a page about the album in question, 1+9+8+2. I have also put in a link to the official Status Quo website. Plus, I have removed the deletion notice from the page, and stated the changes I made to the page on the picture edit summary. So I hope these changes have proved successful, thanks for letting me know. EndlessWires, 09:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC).

Blocked user

Hi,

I see that you blocked User:Guivon for being sockpuppet of user:Purger (a.k.a user:Velebit a.k.a. User:GiorgioOrsini a.k.a Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Velebit).

Is there any chance to block IP addresses 64.18.16.251 (talk · contribs) and 71.252.83.230 (talk · contribs).

Page User:64.18.16.251 indicates that this IP address is blocked indefinitely, but it isn't, as you can see from it's block log. I beleive it would be very usefull to block the IP address 64.18.16.251 permamently since not one contribution from that address was in good will.

I have been triing to stop this vandal for 2 years and I know very well how he operates. He has one permanent IP address (64.18.16.251) while most of the other contributions are done from IP range 4.249.0.0/16 (mostly 4.249.0.0/24, 4.249.3.0/24, 4.249.6.0/24, 4.249.9.0/24 and 4.249.3.93/24). Lately, he also did some contributions from 71.252.83.230 (talk · contribs), so maybe we could block this address too?

Is there any chance to make this blocks?

--Ante Perkovic 09:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

64.18.16.251 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) is currently serving a 6-month block, which is the longest that we usually block IP addresses for (it will expire in October). The other IP has only made 1 edit in the last few days, so I don't think I can block it based on that, particularly if it may be a dynamic IP. I'd recommend requesting semi-protection if this vandal is targeting a specific page or small group of pages. As to the other IP's, a range block is pretty strong medicine, so I'd rather see if we can handle it with reverting or semi-protection first. MastCell Talk 17:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

You are being recruited by the Money and Politics Task Force, a collaborative project committed to ensuring that links between government officials and private-sector resources are accurately displayed in relevant entries. Join us!

Cyrusc 15:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Manfred Frank article deletion

Hi MastCell,

You should undelete the article on Manfred Frank. The article is little more than a stub, and the information is mostly from his webpage, but he really is the world's leading authority on Schelling and the philosophy of German romanticism, and his original work is widely published and translated. Perhaps an Afd with contributions from philosophy-minded editors would be appropriate, don't you think? 271828182 17:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the article and talk page at your request. MastCell Talk 18:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

.41 Action Express article deletion

I recently did a bunch of work on .41 Action Express trying to fill it out as a worthy Firearms Project article. It's part of an ongoing effort the better connect firearms to cartridges, etc. More work is planned on it, it's even on the firearms project todo list. Cross-referencing the various cartridges and firearms is an ongoing effort. Can you reconsider the deletion? Thanks. Arthurrh 05:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to chime in, I agree with Arthurrh. IMO this article should be restored. The .41 Action Express is notable if only in the fact that it was a round for one of the first dual-caliber pistols (the Jericho 941). It was a very unique cartridge. Please reconsider deletion. Thanks a bunch. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 05:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was deleted under the proposed deletion process, so if you'd like I can undelete it based on your request. I'll restore the article; good luck with the article-improvement drive. MastCell Talk 14:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Arthurrh 16:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for your message, and I am just saying hello to you; and Good luck I am here in the Phlippines. It is very enlightening to once in a while receive messages from admins and members on how to improve wikipedia.

--Florentino floro 05:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Users editing only talk pages

Hi,

Is there a policy related to users who contribute solely to talk pages. Could WP:BATTLE or WP:FORUM be aplied?

I ask this because there is one person who doesn't see the difference between wikipedia and forum.

See those contributions:

--Ante Perkovic 11:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd consider using the warning templates {{uw-chat1}} through {{uw-chat4}}. If he gets to uw-chat4 and is still violating the talk page guidelines, then I have occasionally considered a short-term anon-only block. MastCell Talk 21:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Jim62sch

Thanks - yeah, if it gets reverted again I probably will. I reverted in the first place as it was another admin who originally removed it, and it does seems unduly like soapboxing to me, however much I agree with it :) ELIMINATORJR 18:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just not comfortable with self-appointed policing of others' userspace. If something strikes us as inappropriate or polemical, it's best to go to WP:MfD or WP:AN to get some feedback before removing it. Otherwise it just pisses everyone off. Expressing an opinion shared by a large proportion of the U.S. (to say nothing of international) population doesn't strike me as overly polemical, and is certainly within the precedents of material allowed in userspace. MastCell Talk 18:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Green108 SSP

You closed the SSP case as depending on the result of the RFCU test. The RFCU has come back as "inconclusive" which kind of leaves things at a dead-end and I am not sure if the contribs evidence has been evaluated. I possibly made a mistake in filing the RFCU request and only realised after that it might (a) not be appropriate where an obvious SPA is involved and (b) from observing logged-out edits and the absence of the suspected sockpuppeteer when the suspected sockpuppet showed up, a possible ISP switch was involved and (c) it was duplication.

Can you please advise where to go from here since it is taking a lot of time and energy of a few editors to try and contain the situation, as you can probably see from the contribs of these users and the attention they are attracting on their talk pages. Thanks and regards Bksimonb 20:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As the accounts have not been used in an overlapping fashion (it looks like Green108 stopped editing Aug 21, and the other account didn't start for a few days after that), so I'm not sure there's a clear WP:SOCK violation here. If they start tag-teaming, that would be different. You may want to get other outside editors involved if they're being disruptive, via a request for comment or other form of dispute resolution. MastCell Talk 20:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi MastCell. Thanks for responding and looking into this. We already have some neutral outside editors recently involved in the BKWSU article who have responded to rfcs, tags or just dropped by; Rumiton, Reneeholle, IPSOS, Sethie, GlassFET and Andries. All of these users have received aggressive reactions to their attempts to edit the article and had their changes reverted by one or both of the two accounts in question. We do have some consensus on this.
I have filed checkuser requests in the past since the article is under arbcom probation and there is a banned user we suspect has used several SPAs to come back. Some checks have been positive, some negative. I don't normally dispute the results. However in this case the similarities between the way these two accounts...
  • taunt
  • edit war
  • react adversely to the use of {{fact}} tags
  • revert
  • discredit all editors known to be members of the BKWSU for being part of a PR conspiracy
  • discredit uninvolved editors for not knowing the subject or having read the books
  • push POV into the article
  • misuse references in a POV way
  • pronounce themselves always right
  • not accept the burden of proof for providing citations, expecting others to go read the books —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bksimonb (talk • contribs) 12:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
...etc, is just too uncanny.
A rfc/u is certainly on the cards however not being able to link the two accounts means that the present incarnation is not accountable to all the misdeeds, blocks and warnings of the past and the previous incarnation just needs to wait until it is blown over before reappearing. Also I imagine the intense disruptiveness of these accounts should result in longer lasting sanctions against Green108 this time since he has already been found to have used sockpuppets recently. And to have evaded the week-long block.
With this in mind, is there anything we can do to salvage the SSP now? Thanks & regards Bksimonb 12:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: the Harvest discography.

Thank you for your time spent in reviewing and closing the Afd. I'm glad to see the information on Harvest being represented in a manner acceptable to Wikipedia. Thank you for clarifying a grey area for me and others. Jamie L.talk 21:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure... I'm not the final word on it, but it did appear from that AfD that consensus was generally in favor of not having a separate discography article, and covering the album names in the main article. But as you say, it's a gray area, and consistency, unfortunately, is not one of Wikipedia's strong suits. MastCell Talk 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I'm writing to let you know that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat has been resolved and archived. Thanks for participating. Bigglove 23:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson

Chris is asking for review of my second block. The three hour block yesterday was discussed at AN/I, but he didn't stop such behaviour, and I re-blocked him for incivility today for 24 hours. You might like to relook your reasons. Maxim(talk) 18:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. MastCell Talk 18:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky Sunday

Hi. RE: sneaky sunday. I think the fact that it is a project from collective soul adds signifigance. Yes?BrianMathews 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, if there are some reliable secondary sources that can be produced to assert its notability... MastCell Talk 20:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Block of 75.62.232.106

You blocked 75.62.232.106 (talk · contribs). This IP registered an account Mdebow (talk · contribs) after two warnings and continued spamming there. After the account got an indefblock, he continued spamming from his IP address again, for which you blocked him for 24 hours. I would say that 24 hours is way too lenient. Han-Kwang (t) 20:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I was confused by the timestamps on the Talk page. He did not edit from the IP address after the second warning. Never mind this message. Han-Kwang (t) 20:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Networked information economy

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Networked information economy. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - Smashville 00:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up. I've commented there. MastCell Talk 02:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Chopin Theatre - what to do to get page relisted

Dear MastCell, I would like very much to improve on original article for Chopin Theatre which is now deleted. I had made some improvements and also requested such to be reviewed; but I must have done something incorrectly since the deletion has happened. I enjoy the Wikipedia service very much and would like Chopin Theatre to be included on it. I would very much appreciate any help to get it relisted. All best, Alexiad11 20:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it; the article was deleted via the proposed deletion process, so your request is enough for me to restore the article (at Chopin Theatre). It could definitely use some work, so feel free to keep improving it. Good luck and happy editing! MastCell Talk 23:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection templates

When you put a protection template on a page [3], if you use the syntax {{pp-dispute|expiry=1 week}} then the template will always display a date one week in the future. Syntax like {{pp-dispute|expiry=August 31, 2007}} is required so that the date will always be correct and so that the template will notice when the expiration date has passed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that... I probably should have known. MastCell Talk 23:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for WP:ONCOLOGY

I am trying to gauge what the interest would be for a WP:ONCOLOGY category. This would be under the broader auspices of WP:MED, along the lines of WP:RENAL and WP:Rads. It would address standards of care and best practices in surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, along with maintaining and editing cancer related articles.

If this is something you are interested in, please sign underneath the relevant section at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Oncology

Regards, Djma12 (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)