User talk:Pschemp/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Missing a template

Can you find out for me what happened to Template:IT giants? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That is very strange, and as far as I can tell, nothing has happened to it. The template has no history of deletion or removal from the pages it is transcluded into. If it was showing up as a redlink, there could have been an issue with the Wikipedia site or software, but I see the template normally and can't find anything odd. Let me know if still seems to be missing. pschemp | talk 04:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it seems to be back. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion on my talk page on vandalislm from school IP proxy

The thing is, what will most likely happen is that they will simply block Wikipedia, or ban students from using it. They're like that. So I'd rather not draw attention to it, if you see what I mean.

Thanks anyway, — Garykirk | talk! 08:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Beads

Gosh, thanks for noticing. I just made a couple minor changes and hoped I wouldn't step on any toes. I noticed that you had put a lot of work into the article, so good for you too :) I'm really inspired by what was done with that article after I traced its history. I'm hoping to do something similar with fused glass, which is still a pathetic little stub. Maybe if you have the time and interest you'd add something there as well? I'm hoping to add some images to it from my fused glass collection, but I haven't quite figured out how yet. Keep up your good work and I look forward to 'seeing' you around. Doc Tropics 03:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just checked your Usepage and noticed that you have Dichroic glass, cats, and a vandal-whacking stick. I have the first two, and hope to achieve the third here on WP once I know my way around better. Now I'm really looking forward to working with you :) Doc Tropics 03:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

AndTheCrowdGoesWild 14:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for unblocking my IP address. I wil try to make sure no-one else who uses this IP address vandalizes Wikipedia.

Re: Hurricane Devon

Thank you for alerting me to this. Unfortunately, he almost immediately resumed posting copyright violations and I was forced to re-block him. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. pschemp | talk 14:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Phat Bastard

You have recently auto-blocked the username User:Phat Bastard. He has contacted me asking to unblock him. I'm just starting a conversation and letting you know, and he can write more detail below this. — Omegatron 22:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on getting this fixed all day. He has had his username changed to User:PhatB, but the autoblock keeps getting applied to user PhatB, even when all of them are cleared. Because the username was changed, I can't go back and clear the original block on Phat Bastard since the account doesn't exist anymore. I've done everything I can think of to get this fixed, but the autoblock is stuck. Any help would be appreciated. pschemp | talk 22:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I don't know anything about autoblocking. Just forwarding the message from him. — Omegatron 01:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
We've been in touch by email before you posted, thanks anyway. pschemp | talk 05:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Came across this as an unblock request and could see that we weren't getting anywhere, I noticed the user was a renamed account so looking at the log of the original name [1] shows creation under the new name as well as the original block. So I've tried unblocking the original name and see if that clears the issue. --pgk(talk) 18:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I posted it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Autoblock stuck too.pschemp | talk 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Time for your vandal-stick

(edit conflict) How would you like to limber up, grab your vandal-whacking stick and visit White people? Don't take the history pages at face value; at least one user seems to have been retroactively changing comments and possibly signatures. At the risk of expressing a strong POV...the crap going on there is disgraceful. Please whack liberally and repeatedly :) Thanks in advance. --Doc Tropics 01:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting.

Isn't it interesting how people interpret things? When I posted a complaint about your admin actions, you were quick to remove it, even though you have an obligation to explain yourself. But when Nandesuka meddled on my talk page to post nasty little remarks on a matter he had nothing to do with and I removed them, you were quick to revert my removal. Gotta wonder how you manage to justify both of those actions equally. Anyhow, I'm sure you'll be true to form by immediately deleting this message, but I suspect the point has already been delivered. In the future, please don't bother editing my talk page: I will quite likely revert your changes on sight. Al 02:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like we're even then. pschemp | talk 05:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Not by a long shot. Al 06:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Tort reform

Thank you so much for restoring the article. If you can help monitor this for awhile, some of us would most appreciate it. I think there may be 'sockpuppets' reverting to an early article, that was POV. Those editors deleted properly referenced additions that were intended to define 'frivolous' which is a legal term, and to provide some balance.MollyBloom

Innappropriate username?

What are your thoughts on Ngapleaz (talk · contribs)'s username? OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Tobias

Sorry about that. I should have realized how it all would look to an uninvolved party. I've unblocked Tobias. Again, my apologies.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please HELP!!! on Tort Reform

Dali (the pro-tort reform advocate) and I and Gfwesq (anti-tort reform opinions) are collaborating on tort reform article. Dali is being reasonable and civil now. Gfwesq and I are as well. There is not an edit war. It is taking time to revamp the article, but we are working together. However, someone named Jarod wrote this:

::'Sorry to interrupt ' .,,but this last exchange got my dander up again. Dali, listen up. You seem okay (basically sane, sober, clean-shaven, etc), but you're completely and totally nuts. Why are you even having a conversation with these beautiful, amazing, flawlessly reasoned people? After all, isn't it clear that the TTP, since it was contracted by insurers, is hopelessly biased (as opposed to trial attorneys and their consultants, who have no vested financial interest in tort reform whatsoever, and therefore are free to quote studies as they please?) A slice of advice, my friend - this arguement is completely absurd. With a straight face, they are arguing that civil trial lawyers and their backers don't have any financial interest in enforcing strict caps on punitive damages and contingent fees, then in the next breath, say that insurers and their countless minions do. Ga-huhhh??? (Actually I don't know if they have a straight face. They may be giggling psychotically. In a bathtub full of tobacco money.) The point is, at least one has already admitted to being a trial lawyer, and therefore probably has more money then 6 rooms full of me and you. She argues for a living, and will argue, inanely and illogically, forever. Her condescension is emblematic of why we need tort reform. Trial lawyers have forgotten that all citizens in a free society create law. They just practice it. So stop being so sycophantic and start kicking some tail, buddy. A mildy special third grader could dissect the nonsense about "factoring in the value of life" (of course its an editorial comment Molly - are you even SERIOUS?)

Now watch this magic trick. I'm serious watch... In about forty-five seconds, what I just wrote is going to be interrupted at least four times, and will include howling appeals to censor me, claims that I'm a Republican operative or a child and at least one sentence with a subtext of I know much more about everything than you. It's their livelihood their fighting for. I get it - even respect it - but that respect is not mutual my friend. This is why you must stop sitting on the fence and fight. Love, Jarod--65.135.43.33 02:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a call for fighting and warring, and anything but civil (not to mention atrributing things to me or Gfwesq that nobody said). Please read my response. I fear that this is a troll, or a vandal that will completely undo any attempts at collaboration.jgwlaw 02:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nyíregyháza

Hi,

Can you tell me why did you put this article into the category Archaeological sites in Hungary? [2] I live 90 kms from this city and I've never heard it mentioned as archaeologically important. Of course it is in Central Europe where archaeological artifacts can be found everywhere if one digs deep enough, but then we could put all the articles of the 3000+ Hungarian towns in this category :) – Alensha 寫 词 14:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No I cannot. I did about 1000 catgorizations at the time, there are bound to be mistakes. Feel free to fix it. pschemp | talk 15:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. – Alensha 寫 词 16:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Mass reversion of my edits--Guinnog 21:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry I was unaware of the policy about not piping links where posible. I have to say that I find your mass reversion of my edits somewhat wrongheaded. Where (as in this case) a redirect has been adopted, there is usually good reason. A Space Shuttle is a generic term which includes the Shuttle Buran as well as possibly future vehicles. The Space Shuttle program describes the US version. My edits were intended yo improve the encyclopedia by using more neutral language. Also, reverts should generally be restricted to fixing vandalism. I do hope we can work together on a fix we are both happy with; the present situation is not optimal though and needs to be fixed. --Guinnog 20:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be fixed. Anyone is allowed to fix anything that needs to be fixed. Since all the redirects are corrected now, I consider the issue closed. pschemp | talk 20:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Very well. --Guinnog 21:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in my RfA!

Thanks for voting!
Hello Pschemp/Archive 5, and thanks for your support in my recent RfA. I'm pleased to announce that it passed with a final tally of (96/0/0). I was overwhelmed by all of the nice comments and votes of confidence from everyone. I see that you've been busy with your mop and bucket; don't hesitate let me know if you need a hand or support with anything! Thanks again, and see you around! OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, new barnstar!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For hitting the 10,000 EDIT mark! (That's a lot of edits!) ~Kylu 02:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


Sadly, I have to sleep sometime, otherwise I might be right up there with you. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 02:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Let sensation...

While Dada-esque, this response is also deeply incivil. I'd ask that you reconsider the stance that you appear to have taken on this. Any statement, however wrong-minded, is best answered with a simple, concise, polite rebuttal. Fingers in ears "Nha nha can't hear you" is unbecoming. - brenneman {L} 08:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well your interpretation of civil and mine are different then. I'm just typing nonsense with no hidden meaning and no deeper agenda. I can't dictate how you interpreted that. It is just my way of saying I've given up trying to explain things logically, as it doesn't seem to matter. I'm not putting my fingers in my ears, sorry you think that. Random strings of nonsense being considered incivil is a bit absurd, but that's just my opinion. Not much that can be done about this, so enjoy. pschemp | talk 17:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty easy to interpret this as a post-modern raspberry. It says clearly that you don't consider whatever the other argument is to be worth responding to. It's beneath your notice, in effect. Even simply saying "I've given up trying to explain things logically" would have been preferable. I'm still not clear on why you felt it appropiate to respond in this manner, but I'll move on. Thanks. - brenneman {L} 04:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Tobias Conradi

Hi there! I've noticed that you extended Tobias's block and labeled User:Hauke as a sockpuppet etc. (moved to WP:ANI)

I've put this up on WP:ANI. All further responses will go there. pschemp | talk 16:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that; I was hesitant to do it myself, but it certainly was the right thing to do.
The reason for this note, however, is Tobias's user page. Do you think you could unprotect it now that he has access to his talk? I think there is no reason to keep it protected now—he can't edit it while being blocked anyway and I think I was able to explain him that editing from anonymous IPs while being blocked is unacceptable no matter how deserved or undeserved he thinks his block is. The final decision is, of course, up to you. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. pschemp | talk 18:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

False accusations

Do you care to explain your false accusations on my talk page? I suggest that you explain yourself and remove them immediately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DeeBee (talk • contribs) .

HRE's RFA

I understand your point of making your recent edits, but there is no consensus yet to delist/stop his RFA. NSLE 02:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please join the admin channel. It doesn't matter if HRE is dead, has been hacked or is perperuating a hoax. The RFA would be closed in any of those circustances. pschemp | talk 02:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm banned from the admin channel. NSLE 02:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Danny has wieghed in on the situation and specified the RFA be stopped. Please respect this. pschemp | talk 02:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Without a post on Wikipedia, I cannot take that as binding. Please request he post this announcement on wiki? NSLE 02:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: He's just posted asking me to stop reverting, which I will, but there has not yet been any specific announcement about the RFA needing to be stopped. NSLE 02:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
This [3] pretty clearly is an announcement.pschemp | talk 04:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: HRE's RFA

I did not make any changes relevant to the death hoax or directly relevant to the outcome of the RFA, I merely responded to comments that presented my non-vote in a negative manner which it wasn't meant in. The protection serves the purpose of keeping the page free of further hoax edits - my edit does not detract from that, it merely keeps my comments free of misinterpretation. --Joy [shallot] 18:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

OFFICE means no edits. pschemp | talk 18:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATobias_Conradi&diff=62237688&oldid=62236617

best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 2006-07-05 20:19

Posted by me per Tobias's email request.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Explain

How you know this is not the same person please, and why my comments were removed from the Rfa.--MONGO 11:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I emailed you, and I know its not becasue I ran across that username coincidence months ago and know Samsara personally, and he has told me it isn't the same person. It would have been much more polite of you to make a private email inquiry rather than post such nonsense which could hurt an innocent editor. pschemp | talk 11:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I had doubts myself, but wanted clarification...that was all. There are plenty of editors there that are also wikipedians and not all of them are banned from wikipedia. Same is the case for wikipediareview. I am a strong advocate against on or off wiki harassment, so I thought my question a valid one and in the right forum. You might know this editor, but I don't.--MONGO 12:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, the correct thing to do, before posting such a potentially damaging item would have been to confirm it with a private note, especially if you had doubts. That's called Assuming Good Faith. pschemp | talk 12:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Look, he can say anything he wants in an email to me, if he even bothered to respond. He'll end up dealing with a lot more than my comment once he is an admin and you're well aware of that. Regardless, I do trust your comments and that you have discussed the matter with him and that they are not the same person. I didn't go and oppose him outright with the links, just made a comment...lighten up.--MONGO 12:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're right, that was not the place to ask such an obviously erroneous question and was borderline disruptive. Best wishes!--MONGO 06:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Tobias Conradi again

I have been holding a dialog with Conradi on his page, and it seems to be productive, for the moment at least. He has some comments directly to you that he wants to make sure you read. I'm the second person he has asked to post them here on your talk page, and I'm going to decline to him to do so. However, I will post a link to them from his talk page. Read it or don't, your choice. - TexasAndroid 18:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching his page. I offered to reduce his block days ago if he apologizes for using sockpuppets, but he seems to be ignoring that and the fact that his original block was for offensive statements, such as, "Remove nonsense you asshole." Please make sure you read the posting on WP:ANI if you want to become involved in this. pschemp | talk 20:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
i wrote "remove nonsense" because the text was free of context and i was accused of vandalism. I said "you asshole", (for the first time in WP) because he blocked me for I don't know what and reinserted on my own talk stuff I had deleted. The initial block was not for the asshole, don't spread these wrong stuff around. You have read ANI and should know better. The initial block was for Bad Eisenkappel where he with strong lack of knowledge assumed the "bad" stands for englsish bad, but it is in fact german Bad = bath. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I already knew that bad means bath in German. pschemp | talk 04:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
never contested this and if, I would be sorry for my mistake. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Today's Star shines upon...


...my dear Pschemp,
always making our days brighter and happier with her humour and her shiny spirit, gentle and kind, and yet strong and proud...
Your friendship is so valuable to me, that I cherish it as the great treasure it is, for such gifts are rare and precious indeed.
A great hug from your friend,
Phaedriel


Improper speedy keep

Please read Wikipedia:Speedy keep. --SPUI (T - C) 16:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If you don't agree, take it to DRV. pschemp | talk 16:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

please remove your false allegations and unblock Hauke and Chrisjj2

you have been told several times that User:Hauke and User:Chrisjj2 are not socks of User:Tobias Conradi. Please fix your mistakes. [4] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read all of this on your talk page, there is no need to repeat it here. If I thought it was a mistake, I would have fixed it already. As such, the checkuser supports that they are meatpuppets, as do the contributions. I will not argue about this. If you want them unblocked, ask someone else to do it. pschemp | talk 04:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
the above comment has been changed significantly at 2006-07-11 00:05 by User:Pschemp [5] please don't do this, since it could confuse readers. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Chris is from UK, Hauke from Rostock. So I doubt they use my Deutsche Telekom Berlin IP range. What were the details of the checkuser? Who performed it? Where could I request a new one? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
you may respond at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tobias Conradi Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
These users can speak for themselves. pschemp | talk 21:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
They can't easily because you blocked them. And you protected their talk pages. And when Hauke emailed you he is a real person you said he can register under a new name. Tobias Conradi (Talk)
who performed the checkuser, that you once claimed supports sockpuppetry and you now claim supports meatpuppetry? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Award


The banner of the Rouge Admin, awarded by Lar

GIFs nominated for deletion

Hello! I'm glad to see that you've taken this issue to the proper forum (instead of simply deleting the images again). I've voted to delete all but Image:Red-x.gif, and I hope that you'll reconsider this particular nomination (given the fact that the PNG equivalent is identical in appearance and 37 bytes larger in size).

I realize that Omniplex unilaterally created a bunch of poor-quality GIF replacements, but this isn't one of them. It was created through discussion, and it shouldn't be lumped together with the other images.

Thanks for your consideration. —David Levy 14:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Rfa comments

I would like to point out that my oppose comment on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Samsara had nothing to do with ED, as I outlined in my reasoning there (as did CrazyRussian). Please do not tar everyone who opposes with the same brush, which you appeared to do with your comments about "the people opposing" and their "lack of assuming good faith". As it stands, that is quite harsh, but I assume you really meant "people opposing based on ED", and if that assumption is correct, I would appreciate it if you either clarified it appropriately on that page (or removed it, as a bolded "don't oppose per X" comment over the entire oppose section looks somewhat inappropiate, don't you think?), otherwise it could appear that you are accusing everyone who opposes of bad faith, regardless of reasoning, which I'm sure you didn't mean to do. Regards, MartinRe 16:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think people are smart enough to realize that your comments are unrelated. I certainly did. pschemp | talk 16:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Image licensing for Pixel23 images in Joshua Tree article

Hi Pschemp, I've updated all the license tags on the JT images. Yes, I am Jim Harper, and had that line on the images since this is the name I would like attributed should anyone reuse the images anywhere. I've also added a line to this effect on my user page. I'll work on updating my other images over the wknd, and may investigate moving them all to wikicommons as you suggest. Pixel23 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks so much! that is really helpful of you. :) pschemp | talk 20:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I just realized that those images were removed from the JT and have been orphaned, so it wasn't a question of the license, it was a question of whether they should even be on WP. I've reverted all the changes I made to the images, and have reinstated the deletion tag you added. I assume that with this tag on the images they'll all be automagically deleted by the system in a few days? Anything I need to do to get them off WP? If I want to delete the other images I've posted to WP, can I just add that delete tag to them and they'll get removed?Pixel23 21:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If properly tagged, orphan images will be deleted in due time, at least 5 days after tagging. Looking at Image:Joshua tree yucca flower emerging2.jpg for example, you've tagged it as having no source. But it HAD a source, at least at one point... you were claiming to be Jim Harper and that you uploaded the images that you took, as user Pixel23... I guess if you're repudiating that claim then yes they're unsourced. But why? these images seem really nice and it would be nice to see them used in articles. Typically if you HAD credited the source, once they are uploaded they would not be deleted just because someone wanted them to be. I upload my images under user Lar, but with that same CCSA (with attribution required) license, and require attribution to be to my real name... why not do that, they're lovely images. ++Lar: t/c 23:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
They were part of the Joshua Tree National Park article, but pschemp removed them as being part of a gallery which she said are not allowed on WP. Since she's an admin, I figure her changes are final. She also left me a note on my talk page telling me I should move my images to the commons since I shouldn't be filling up the WP servers with images. I didn't realize I was misusing WP with these contributions, so I'll just remove what I've posted from their articles, and I guess they'll be deleted in a few days.Pixel23 01:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Its not that we don't want your contributions, its just that they are more useful and accessable to people if you put them on commons. There is already a link on the Joshua Tree article to the gallery there. I would have moved the pics myself if it had been clear at the time who was the author. Don't take this personally, but we have to be very careful to make sure copyright violations aren't happening, so its needs to be absolutely clear where media comes from. If you want to take your toys and go home, fine. But your pics are nice and would be greatly appreciated on commons, and they can be linked to Wikipedia from there. None of this means you aren't appreciated as a contributor, it just means with the right setup, your contributions can actually make more impact.pschemp | talk 05:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
An article that size probably does not need a gallery of 20-30 images embedded within the article. But putting them all on commons, creating a gallery there, and then linking to the gallery from the article would be perfectly fine. Many of the images have potential uses in other articles (gold mining, the plant types, etc). It is true that pschemp is an admin, yes, and she's right about the gallery overweighting the article, but that doesn't mean that you should therefore cause them all to be deleted. At least not in my opinion and I'm an admin as well. As for Commons vs the english WP, it's not a matter of "filling up the servers" its that if the images are on commons it is much easier for ALL language Wikipedias to use them, not just the english one. We strongly prefer free licensed images such as these to be on commons for that reason. which is what Pschemp explained. It's all the same HW underneath so HW space is not the central issue. Hope that helps. Feel free to continue this discussion on my talk page if you want, unless Pschemp would rather it stay here. ++Lar: t/c 02:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
There is already a link to the commons gallery on the article. All that needs to be done is to upload the pics to commons, add them to the Category:Joshua Tree National Park and then delete the duplicates here. pschemp | talk 05:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Biopharmaceutical is the Science Collaboration of the Week

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Week, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is Carbon.
You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please justify revert on Ubuntu (Linux distribution)

Hi, you recently reverted 2 edits from me on this article. The first of these edits was a rollback of an unjustified rv by User:Samsara. In other words, it seems that you were endorsing an unjustified revert and reverting a couple more minor changes I did. About 6 days later, I still can't find any justification either on my Talk page or on the article's. Would you mind justifying this revert at the place you wish?--Chealer 01:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Essjay

Um... Why did you remove the link? That was kind of the point of the message. Shouldn't you at least let Essjay remove it himself, if he doesn't like it? Λυδαcιτγ 19:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Because I'm fairly certain Essjay wouldn't like it. I know him well. If he wants it back, he'll fix it.pschemp | talk 22:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. Saying that in the edit summary would have been nice, but no big deal. See you around. Λυδαcιτγ 01:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Pointing that put in the edit summary would have drawn unneccessary attention to it, hence I did not do it. I do however, appreciate that this was your attempt at humour. pschemp | talk 15:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please explain username block of User:Fokker lover

I am wondering why you permblocked User:Fokker lover. I created this username for the purpose of contributing content related to the Fokker aircraft company. I know there may be a humorous similar-sounding word, but it does not seem fair to block a valid username created for a valid purpose just because that username sounds somewhat like an inappropriate word. I hope you will reconsider. Thanks. I am curious 17:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It is unclear to me why you are unwilling to explain this block when I have provided a reasonable explanation for the username. I am curious 13:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
You yourself have explained this by admitting there is a humourous similar sounding word, and username policy is that we don't allow usernames that may be offensive. Since the lack of that one particular usename has not kept you from editing, there is no reason to reverse the decision. pschemp | talk 15:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand your position. Hopefully my new username is sufficiently unambiguous. The Fokker F27 Friendship is a fine airplane 16:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It is perfect. :) pschemp | talk 16:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Solanum elaeagnifolium or carolinense?

Hi. The fate of the world doesn't depend on this, but I saw your impressive picture of Solanum carolinense or Carolina horsenettle and wondered whether it's really Solanum elaeagnifolium. Both are found in Texas, which is as far east as elaeagnifolium gets (sorry, actually Kansas). Here are the differences, according to Intermountain Flora by Arthur Cronquist et al.:

carolinense: Usually some leaves are at least 4 cm wide
elaeagnifolium: Leaves are rarely even 3 cm wide

car: leaves often have indentations more than halfway to the midrib
el: leaves have shallowly waved edges, indentations rarely halfway to the midrib

car: downy hairs don't hide the surfaces of the leaves and stems
el: downy hairs are dense, pressed down, and hide the surfaces

The other picture in the article and the ones at [6] and [7] show the leaves of carolinense. [8] has some good ones of elaeagnifolium. I don't think the flowers are as reliable as the leaves, but the flowers in your picture look right for elaeagnifolium too. See what you think. —JerryFriedman 01:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

hmm could be. I'll check. Thanks :) pschemp | talk 01:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I looked at the leaves and I think you are right. They aren't very silvery on my specimens, which is why I initially thought carolinense, but the size suggests elaeagnifolim. I'll get the titile changed. Thanks so much for looking at this. An actually, now we have a new article. yeah!  :) pschemp | talk 02:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
In fact, as you may know by now, I've started silverleaf nightshade (I was going to use a picture from my yard, but yours is probably better than the ones I've taken), so please let me know the new name of the image or edit the taxobox. And thanks for looking into this. —JerryFriedman 23:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Never mind.  :-) —JerryFriedman 23:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why was I blocked

What about my TripleH777 username went against Wikipedia rules? I'm dumbfounded, and I think being blocked was wrong and against Wikipedia policy. I feel that my rights have been violated.

Usernames that are potentially offensive are not encouraged. IF you can't figure out why I'm sorry. I have unblocked your IP to allow you to pick a new username. pschemp | talk 21:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Here, have a nice big WikiHug!

Kylu has given you a Super Meow-Powered WikiHug!
Okay, so that might be just a bit silly, but Kylu really would like you to know that you're an awfully cool person. n.n <3

User:Kylu/sig 04:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Does the meow-powering help? Second the coolness sentiment. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The meow-powering is needed! You wouldn't want me leaving a nuclear-powered template on someone's page, right? Could be dangerous! ~Kylu (u|t) 03:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocking

You know, that is happening more and more frequently to me on Wikipedia. I wonder if I am reaching old age or something? You are right, I didn't check the logs, primarily because I thought ClockworkSoul was in the process of reverting. Not to worry, the indefinite block should stay. --HappyCamper 15:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I think actually you are losing out to the bots that report vandalism, so don't worry about getting old. It is not your fault :) pschemp | talk 15:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You know, your username sounds very familiar, although I don't think we've interacted too much. You must have been around before me. These bots are quite something. And popups? I've never tried those, I have no idea what they hype is all about. lol...anyway, I'll see you around. And do drop by the reference desk once in a while? :-) --HappyCamper 15:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:POPUPS ... javascript that implements mouseover windows to preview edits and, if needed, revert, edit, etc... Very handy. Try it? :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Edinburgh crystal

Whoa - give me a chance - I am just starting to form the website - dates and events are not copyright - can we discuss please? TerriersFan 01:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, copyright violation cannot sit on wikipedia for any length of time for legal reasons. Write the article first somewhere else making sure nothing is plagerized, then post it. There is an unlimited amount of time for that. pschemp | talk 01:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Which parts are copyright - dates of change of companies names are plain facts - are they ok? TerriersFan 01:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Dates are fine, but the text of the article was in some place word for word taken from the website. Just rearraging a few words is not enough to satisfy US copyright law, which the wikimedia foundation operates under. Thanks . pschemp | talk 02:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm recasting the article on the Temp page. When I'm done can you look at it please to check all is in order - I just want to get this thing right. TerriersFan 02:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem that is absolutely the correct thing to do. pschemp | talk 02:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, perhaps you would be good enough to look at the Temp page, please? The only thing from the website now are the dates and changes of name and ownership which is purely factual. All the creative stuff is gone. If its OK, what do I do next to get control of the article? TerriersFan 02:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks good, I cleared the notice and put the information up. Thank you for working so hard on this. pschemp | talk 03:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem and thanks for your help. TerriersFan 03:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Bead

Remember to move Talk:Decorative bead back to Bead, too. --Rory096 18:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Its messy, but its done. pschemp | talk 19:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Trailing.

Don't know if it causes a problem, but I notice some of your recent IP unblocks seem to have a trailing . [9] --pgk(talk) 20:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Pgk, I have no idea what a trailing is. Explain? pschemp | talk 20:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your time

Dear Pschemp/Archive 5,
Thank you very much for your contributions to my recent RfA. I am pleased to announce that it passed with a tally of 72/11/1, and I am now an administrator. Although you did not choose to support the request, I can assure you that I have taken your advice to heart and will be a better administrator for it. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the tools, but please let me know if there are any admin jobs I can do to help you, now or in the future. —Cuiviénen 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

My Opinion

I'm quite entitled to my opinion, whether others agree with it or not. However, accusations of inattention because you don't agree with my opinion are unwelcome and will be removed. pschemp | talk 19:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp, I agree that you're entitled to your opinion, and to act on it. You are not, however, entitled to an exemption from criticism, and it strikes me as very poor form to remove criticism of your administrative actions from your talk page, characterizing it in your edit summary as "trolling". I believe that Alienus is very sincere in his belief that you made a mistake, and that he would be doing Wikipedia a disservice if he did not point it out to you. You aren't obligated to agree with his criticism, but deleting it as you would delete vandalism looks very bad. Please understand that I am not commenting here on your review of Tony's block, just on your removal of posts from this page. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Note first that the trolling comment was in regard to user:Romarin reverting my edits, not user:Alienus. I'm quite aware of how my actions may appear, however I frankly don't care. All I did was remove an unblock notice. I don't deserve rants accusing me of not wanting to admit a "mistake" (there was no mistake, I stand by my action) and I consider his notes personal attacks and unwarranted accusations and as such have removed them. Sincerity doesn't put something back three times in a row after being asked not to. Pointing out his opinion once was sufficient, the repeat insertions pushed that into bad faith for me. Had he left me alone I might have reconsidered, but not now. There is a difference between criticism and false accusations, and this crossed the line for me. Besides, anyone who wants to read them can see them in the edit history.pschemp | talk 20:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess I would agree that you don't "deserve" rants of whatever kind... I think it's inappropriate for admins to remove criticism that they could simply reply to with a brief "I stand by my actions", but you're certainly "entitled" to disagree. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, we can agree to disagree, that's fine.pschemp | talk 21:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
May I also add that having done your job in real life I would never have acted as you did in the face of polite criticism from a user. This is all part of the admin job and so is learning to politely explain your reasons. The comments were only replaced as other editors obviously felt you were missing the point as you had not replied. Protecting your talk page to stop others commenting on your actions seems to me a poor use of the admin tools. I'm afraid you do have things to learn over this incident and your responses so far do not indicate that you have. Sophia 06:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't polite criticism. If you think it was you are sadly mistaken. The page was protected for all of 2 minutes while I took the time to try to understand why I was being subjected to such false accusations. User:Alienus has a pattern of these attacks and covers them with pretty words so he can claim they are innocent. If you would like to be naieve about his actions, you are welcome to be. pschemp | talk 06:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
And reading your talk page there seems to be a pattern of questionable blocks. I was writing in good faith about one incident - should I take this more seriously in the light of other comments here? Sophia 07:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
All of which were username blocks done according to WP:USERNAME and follow that policy to the letter. (Oh yes, except the one where the sock proved himself to be a sock while promising not to use them.) I would sincerely hope you aren't accusing me of "questionable" actions, as that wouldn't be in good faith. Nice try to discredit me on a completely unrelated subject though. pschemp | talk 14:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Given that you gave Alienus a barnstar (apparently) for resisting a perfectly legitimate and widely supported block perhaps not, as your judgement may not be 100%... ++Lar: t/c 11:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I was illustrating that a cursory glance can give an incorrect impression - not commenting on the blocks themselves. And Al got the Barnstar for being civil whilst resisting the block - not resisting it - as he's struggled with that in the past. Are Barnstars subject to admin approval now or have you just further proven my point about cursory glances? I will leave this be now I can see whatever I was trying to do is not being taken in the spririt with which it was meant. Sophia 14:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. Whether Alienus was actually being civil or not would be a matter of interpretation, I guess. My interpretation may well vary from yours, since I think you're misinterpreting what he said on Pschemp's page as being "civil", and misinterpreting Pschemp's actions as well. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please Unblock Me

Hello, My account was recently blocked because i share the name of someone with an offensive username. I don't know if there's anything you can do, but it would be very appreciated if you could help. CP9Zebra 02:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the autoblock has been removed obviously since you can edit my page. Automatically blocking shared IPs is a feature of the software so it can't be changed. In the future, if it happens again, put {{unblock}} with the full text of the block message including the IP and someone will come by and remove the autoblock. pschemp | talk 02:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your block of user:Cooldude02

Your permanent block of Cooldude02 does not seem to be within wikipedia guidelines. This user had a reasonably long history of productive edits with no vandalism. The pagemove you called "distruptive" was supported by a reasoned argument. Even if proper pagemove etiquette was not followed here, it is unclear how a mere breach of etiquette, apparantly resulting from a good faith belief that a more general page for bead is a good idea, is deserving of more than a temporary block, especially when the user in question has a history of constructive edits. Although I can see that you suspect this user of being a sockpuppet of me (which is not true, cooldude02 is my roommate's account), there is no blanket per se prohibtion on sockpuppets per wikipedia guidelines, only specific rules saying what sockpuppets cannot do (eg rig AFD votes). In short, it is unclear to me how your permablock of cooldude02 is in any way in line with wikipedia guidelines. I would appreciate a response. Interestingstuffadder 23:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Using a sockpuppet to rig a move discussion is the same thing. It was done in bad faith.pschemp | talk 02:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, this is not a sockpuppet. It is my roommate's username. I told him the situation and he made the move. Regardless of all that, it is unclear how this was an attempt to "rig" a move discussion as there is no wikipedia requirement of a certain period of debate before a move, only an etiquette note that such a discussion is desirable -- it is unclear how a breach of etiquette that directly violates no wikipedia policy is legitimate grounds for the permanent block of a user with a history of good faith edits and no warnings. Moreover, as this is an established user account with no past warnings, it is unclear how a permanent block is justified. Even if this is "vandalism" (which I do not concede), wouldn't the appropriate course of action (particularly for a user with a history of good faith edits) be a warning or, at most, a short term block? Going a step firther, assuming Cooldude02 is a sock of me(which he is not, but you seem determined to believe he is), I have close to a thousand good faith edits (and have reverted quite a bit of vandalism), have never received a vandalism warning, and have even been given a barnstar by another user. This, even if myself and Cooldude02 are considered a single account, this is a first offense in an otherwise constructive wikipedia "career". It is unclear how such a first offense justifies a permanent block. Thank you in advance. Interestingstuffadder 03:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The relevent portion from WP:SOCK - This policy in a nutshell:"Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block; nor ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone." - You actually have admitted to violating this in your previous statements. Why shouldn't I add you to the block? The policy also states, "Admins should block indefinitely any sock-puppet accounts used in violation of this policy, and may block the main account at their discretion." So none of my actions have been out of line. The edit pattern indicates a sock, the grammar and timing indicate a sock, the opinion indicates a sock, the unjustified actions indicate a sock and I'm quite sure a checkuser would indicate a sock. You have already demonstrated several bad faith actions on the matter, giving me no reason to believe the "roommate" story. Argue all you want, I'm not changing my mind.pschemp | talk 04:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand your position. I only hope that you do not block this main interestingstuffadder account, as it has been a long term constructive contributor. I do disagree with your characterization of my actions as "bad faith" -- although you may not agree with my position on the "bead" issue, you must concede that, at the least, this position is rational and has a more than conceivable good-faith justification. I sincerely believe a pagemove would be appropriate, although I apologize if I have been overly aggressive in pursuing it. You are entitled to not believe my "roommate story", but it is very much the truth. I only hope that in the future we can maintain a spirit of civility. My only real complaint with regard to our interaction re: "bead" is that you seem (and I do not intent this as a personal attack in any way, shape, or form) to have been predisposed towards assuming bad faith and have been at least mildly unpleasant toward me. I firmly believe that a spirit of friendly collegiality is important as we work together to build this encyclopedia, regardless of what disagreements we may encounter. I may not be an administrator and some of my edits may be controversial, but that does not mean I don't deserve to be treated with kindness, decency, and respect. Interestingstuffadder 05:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You haven't been blocked, and won't as long as you stop using socks. pschemp | talk 05:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I have not used socks up to this time and I will commit to not using them in the future. Interestingstuffadder 05:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC) This comment was actually left by Justinpwilsonadvocate - Mm, socks tripping over themselves. FCYTravis 06:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
At no point have those two accounts edited the same article. Again, I absolutely commit not to use multiple accounts inappropriately or participated in the same vote / other activity -- I get the message and want to continue my long career of productive edits of interestingstuffadder. Interestingstuffadder 12:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your indef of User:¬

imho if a Wikipedian with the name of User:£ is allowed to exist, then ¬ is also a valid username. Sure, neither can be typed with a standard US keyboard, but both can be typed by my keyboard layout (US International), and both have alt codes. I'd like to know more reason for your block. Thanks. ~Chris (e) 02:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

see WP:USERNAME I can't catch everything, doesn't mean we should let everyone else slide though by default. The account had no edits, its easy enough to pick a new name.pschemp | talk 02:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
reason understood. ~Chris (e) 03:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock

Thanks for unblocking my IP, 129.33.1.37. I thank you and a guy that I work with here who also edits anonymously, though not with vandalism, thanks you too. Editing Wikipedia helps pass the hours in the clean room.  :-) Dismas|(talk) 05:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock

Thanks for unblocking my IP. I'm becoming really annoyed with this other user who shares the same IP continually vandalising pages. Sorry to have bothered you. Thankyou Lofty 06:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Like always, I'm unblocked! Hehe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.45.4 (talk • contribs)

User: 71.250.45.4

Damn, I see why this guy's always blocked. When can my IP change so I can get away from this guy? Trosk 19:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page.pschemp | talk 11:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Publicola

I was just wondering if you would be willing to offer more of an explanation for the refusal to unblock this user. After looking at the diffs myself, I think that the 3RR report was made in bad-faith, and, if at all, barely qualifies as a 3RR violation. I'm not criticizing your not unblocking, just looking for more of an explanation (as is the user). Thanks, Chuck(contrib) 08:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Admins don't just overturn blocks without discussing it with the blocking admin first, so even if I agreed with you, all I could do would to be to leave a note on the blocking admin's talk page disagreeing with the block. You can do the same thing. In fact, such action as to unblock without discussion would be against the blocking policy. pschemp | talk 11:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Request to mediate

I believe that your response to my request for an explanation of how my insertion of a totallydisputed tag could be construed as "undoing the actions of another editor," with only, "block is justified, no unblock," and "you violated the policy" after my repeated request for an explanation of my recent 3RR block constitutes either complicity in a violation of WP:3RR, or an abuse of admin responsibilities, or both, which I dispute and would like to resolve.

I will be asking for dispute resolution on the following questions:

  1. Should a 3RR block occur after an editor chooses to insert a dispute tag instead of reverting, when reverting would violate 3RR, inserting the dispute tag returns the article to a previous version, and the dispute tag in question has never been removed except through reverts?
  2. Would such a block be within the letter of WP:3RR which states that reverting "means undoing the actions of another editor"? Why or why not?
  3. Would such a block be within the spirit of WP:3RR? Why or why not?

I understand that you have already refused mediation, and I ask that you please reconsider. Publicola 17:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still refuse, as I am a bystander with no interest in the debate. All I do is monitor unblock requests. As I was not the original blocker, I have nothing to add to the mediation. I will not join the debate over the details of the block since I did not place the original block, and couldn't unblock you anyway, you need to talk to the blocking admin for the details of the reasons. If mediation decides that the blocking was incorrect, fine, but I decline to participate as this was not a case of an "unambiguous error" where action on my part was called for.pschemp | talk 17:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. You ceased to become a bystander with no interest in the debate when you deactivated my unblock request, twice, and with less than ten words of explanation which I believe are contrary to the letter and spirit of WP:3RR. When you exercise your rights as an admin to deactivate unblock requests, then please do so responsibly, and not in a manner which forments further ill-will within the project. I had hoped that you would agree to mediation. I will take no action for at least a few days to allow us all some perspective, and again ask that you reconsider. Publicola 18:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
No. This was not a case of "unambiguous error" where I could override policy. I'm sorry you don't find my explanation sufficient, but I have repeatedly expanded it here and noted that I could do nothing. Not only that, no other admin could either. You were only blocked for 24 hours. By the time a massive debate had been engaged in, your block would have expired anyway. I have absolutely no interest in this case, and will not participate as my participation will in no way affect the outcome of the merits of the original block.pschemp | talk 18:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am very upset about your false accusation of copyright violation at Banu Qaynuqa. How did you miss the fact that I wasn't the one who inserted the text you thought was copyrighted? This seems a lot like retribution to me, whether it was or not. I hope you will do the right thing and reverse the actions you took based on the false claim. Publicola 19:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF and allow me to check before posting rants. I did read the diff wrong, I am sorry. However, that doesn't change the fact that all the editors in the article are edit warring, and you are one of them. pschemp | talk 19:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User: 71.250.45.4

Why isn't this guy on the vandal alert thing? Trosk 19:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

He is. pschemp | talk 19:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? I don't see him. Trosk 20:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not all vandal listing are on WP pages.pschemp | talk 20:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia and JE.com

I think you misrepresent the nature of copyright law in your posts regarding the propriety of utilizing text and links to JE.com.

The Jewish Encyclopedia is in its entirety incorporated into the public domain. Thus while JE.com may claim a copyright over the material they publish, or claim other rights under purported "terms of use", those claims have no merit. JE.com may absolutely claim any rights available under law over original material that they publish on their site, but not over the text of articles taken wholesale from the original. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

By the same token, for example, if there were a website that reproduced verbatim A Midsummer Night's Dream, that text could be copied and pasted. The website owner cannot claim rights over a public domain work. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I understand that their claim may be spurious, but a simple way to not even have to deal with it is to use reference the original publication information instead. Yes, I'm being overly cautious, but when the solution is simple, why not? pschemp | talk 20:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I am opposed in principal to any action which might encourage spurious claims of ownership rights over public domain works, as JE.com claims. I do not think that timidity is the proper way to deal with such claims. I do, however, believe that the entire citation to the original should be given for purposes of clarity and good encyclopedic practice. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, I don't see it as timidity, as I do think their claim is out and out wrong. In fact, if we get the original info and have that alongside, it would *completely* nullify any possibility of them trying assert an even spurious claim. We all win. :)pschemp | talk 21:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

About my talk page

How long do you think I should have my talk page protected?--Pokipsy76 08:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I took care of it. NoSeptember 09:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you had looked at the note you would have seen that it was only to be protected as long as you were blocked.pschemp | talk 13:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith & other issues

  1. When I asked who are you to decide if the unblock request was to be denied I was really wanting to know what kind of authority did you represent while taking this decision, you taked it to be a "personal attack" also denying me the possibility to reply, you shouldn't do so as WP:AGF suggests.
  2. While removing the unblock template you should have left a commentary with an explanation in my talk page as you could read in the template itself
  3. What is the policy that allows you to protect a talk page when a user restores the unblock template?

--Pokipsy76 09:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that at least three admins looked at your block and agreed it was fair. You continued to argue, and the line "who are you to decide if the request is denied or not?" is extremely snarky. Any admin can review a block. Coming back after the fact and claiming you didn't mean it that way is not going to change my mind, it was incivil and personally directed at me. I agreed with the responses of the two other admins on the page, so no lengthy explanation was needed on my part, do not presume to tell me what I "should" do. Last, your responses and continual bad faith accusations of MONGO's actions and repeat insertion of the tag after you were told the block was fair, show that you are not prepared to assume good faith. Your block was only 24 hours, learn from it and move on. Last, from wikipedia's protection policy, "Users can edit their own User Talk pages, even while blocked. This is in order to allow appeals and discussion about blocks. However, if users abuse this feature, and continue with vandalism on their own User Talk pages, they can be protected from editing, thus disabling this one ability blocked users have at the time of blockage." Continual re-insertion of the tag in this case, with a quite incivil reason and attack on MONGO is vandalism and quite incivil. pschemp | talk 14:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. The fact that three admin looked at my block is pointless being two of the three involved in the content dispute and one of the trhree the author of the block.
  2. Interpreting "who are you to decide..." as a personal attack is in violation of AGF
  3. Even if you agreed with the comments the tag (not me) says that you should comment
  4. My accusation of user:MONGO did'nt need any bad faith assumption: even if MONGO was in good faith the block policy says that he shuoldn't have blocked me (as you could read from my quiting)
  5. are you suggesting that MONGO's (and yours) assuming bad faith on me is OK while my assuming bad faith on MONGO is not? On what grounds?
  6. If you read the polycy on vandalism you will realize that re-insertion of the tag does not belong to the category
--Pokipsy76 18:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I explained my actions politely. If you don't agree with them, file a complaint. I am not discussing this anymore. pschemp | talk 18:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
If you read the definition of "polite" you will discover that
Positive politeness: Seeks to establish a positive relationship between parties
that seems to be a bit different from what I can read above in your writings.--Pokipsy76 18:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Block

Why did you block User:FuglFøniks? ø is a common character in nordic languages. PickK 10:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Because this is the english wikipedia, not the nordic one. It is reasonable to expect people to use usernames that can easily be typed from english keyboards so communication can be facilitated and that's what our username policy expects. Many of our users are not able to type those characters.pschemp | talk 13:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason is ready to be blocked, then PickK 14:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It is unfortunate, but that user has contributions while the blocked one has none. I am not responsible for names that slip by, nor for policing the entire project. The "well you have to go get everyone now" arguement is silly, no one person can catch everything, nor are they expected to. pschemp | talk 14:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Advice

I'm still very upset at some of the things you have done, many if not most I haven't even had the chance to explain to you, yet. Frankly, I'm not willing to because based on what I've seen, I think there is a real risk that you may take retaliatory action against me. I've been reviewing your contributions, including your administrative actions and interactions with editors, and I've become even more upset. All I want to say to you right now is to offer this advice: Would you please think about your words written and actions spoken in an administrative capacity, and before you commit them, ask yourself these questions: Is this the most polite and friendly way to accomplish my goal? Is this going to help support a feeling of support and wikilove, or will this give rise to unnecessary ill-will and discouragement? Thank you. Publicola 22:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)