User talk:Pschemp/Archive 9

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

Cork

Hi there. Things have now gone a little weird with Cork and Cork, Ireland. Can you review all the talk pages first before doing any further moves as Cork, the city should maybe be at Cork, County Cork (there's a dab page there) for consistency with other Irish cities. There's a lot of controversy over the whole area and there have been recent votes on the matter.- Alison✍ 01:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. the disambig page goes at cork. I put it there so the those of you fighting over this can now just fight over what to call the city article. I picked one of the names arbitrarily, so you can change that to whatever you want, I don't care what it is. However, the disambig page needs to stay where it is and it needed to go there immediately so the mess can be straightened out. Now you just have one thing to disagree about. pschemp | talk 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It's a lot better than it was but, well, this whole matter was already put to a vote twice now and been turned down. Having Cork as the dab page isn't the worst, I guess, but it's majorly undemocratic. I cannot move Cork, Ireland to Cork, County Cork as there's already a redir page (need to be an admin for that :) ) and this is more in keeping with WP:IMOS. If you look at what links to Cork, Ireland you can see it's already a mess of redirs due to confusion around the name. It's a bit of a hot issue, really. Thanks for stepping in, though - Alison✍ 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT a democracy. Disambig pages go where the major use of the confusing word is, and like it or not, that's the correct place. No democratic process is needed to decide that. pschemp | talk 01:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the recent RM discussions were mainly about whether the city should remain the primary topic for DAB purposes (as it was before this confusion). Both discusssions ended up with no consensus to move the city away from Cork, so the recent move was controversial and lacked any consensus. (It also breaks about 1,200 internal links too) While personally I'm neutral on whether the city is the primary topic as there are cases to be made (and have been made) either way, I don't think it's appropiate for two discussions that said "no argreement to do X" to be followed up by doing X anyway, as that will simply cause more ill will in the long run. As such, I'd ask you to put the pages back in the state they were in before the controversial move was made. Regards, MartinRe 01:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
No thanks, I'm done here. Get someone else to move it. Consensus doesn't trump common sense. If the consensus is to put a page at a title that is not in line with the manual of style, consensus is wrong and should be ignored. Cork should be the disambig page and there is no two ways about that. I'm sure you all think Ireland is wonderfully important, but its not the most common use of the word. pschemp | talk 01:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
'"I'm sure you all think Ireland is wonderfully important"' - and that kind of sarcastic comment certainly doesn't help. Ugh! - Alison✍ 01:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't meant sarcastically. Sorry if you took it that way. I was only trying to help here by starting to clean the mess and leaving the city name debate up to those of you who care. pschemp | talk 01:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that pschemp is familiar with WP policies and made the best descision based on them at the time. (I also agree with the changes she made, someone just typing in Cork will now get many pages that they could have been revefering to, technically, it would have kinda been POV if it was not that way... but w/e) Cbrown1023 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was relieved to see you fix this glaring error in Wikipedia, but now it has been moved back. Should this go to arbitration? The idea of putting a small city (just over 100,000 in population) at a name that is shared by an obviously more common usage is ridiculous and sets a horrible precedent. Your efforts to rectify this matter are much appreciated. --Serge 17:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration is not the next step here. See my message on the talk page. pschemp | talk 17:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mud slinging?

I resent your characterization of anything I've ever said on the Cork talk page (or anywhere else for that matter) as "mud slinging", which carries implications of bad faith, personal attack, and all kinds of negative baggage. I stand by my assertion that most of the opposition to the move is driven by non-objective Irish bias -- which no one has even attempted to refute -- and that they should be encouraged to look at the issue more objectively. Thank you. --Serge 00:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't say i've been impressed with the behaviour of anyone in that previous discussion. If you want to keep thinking you are perfectly innocent, go ahead. pschemp | talk 04:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Username In Violation

User:Hair_e._pot_err this seems like a violation of copyright and/or misrepresentation of the "Harry Potter" trademark. I wasn't sure who to alert so I naturally went to the admin who blocked my username and forced me to change it. Thanks 158.91.203.5 07:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to read WP:USERNAME. That's not infringing on a trademark because it is spelled differently. pschemp | talk 14:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Is User:Featured_article a username violation? Accounts such as Bot and Admin and Vandal are... Cbrown1023 14:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Reatured article does not imply malicious intent or more authority than the person has, so no. pschemp | talk 18:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. But it does not matter any more because it has been blocked for being a sock. Cbrown1023 20:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting & Deleting

I'm currently having an argument with another user about redirecting pages. He just blanks a page and redirects it to another page without discussion. He says that all his redirects are based on WP:NOT and WP:FICT, but he is technically "deleting" the content from the pages without an WP:AfD or other type of consensus-bring discussion. He also believes that this is okay because the other versions are still preserved in the "history", but that is the same case as with vandalism... I'd really like your opinion on this (please also note that he is not an admin and does not have deletion powers). A copy of our ongoing discussion is located at User talk:Cbrown1023. Thanks, Cbrown1023 18:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Cork - new survey

Due to the confusion caused by my poorly worded question, I've closed the previous survey and started a new one that is hopefully more clear. Your cooperation in this attempt to move towards consensus and closure on this issue is appreciated. Thanks. --Serge 20:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have added the survey, it is still formed wrong and un-helpful. pschemp | talk 20:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

At the Cork talk page you wrote: This poll is still malformed and needlessly complicated. It should not be used. I recommend we continue with Guinnog's suggestion and dispense with the poll idea. It hasn't worked yet, and the way this is written is calculated to continue discord. What is "still malformed" about it? How is it "needlessly complicated"? Why are you discouraging others form using it? Why are you giving up on the poll idea so quickly? The first two move request surveys clearly did work. They did not produce consensus to move the first one was about moving Cork (material) to Cork. The second one failed because it was closed too early (less than a week), before anyone other than mostly those with a pro-Cork-the-city bias could vote. The third one didn't work because I worded the poll question poorly. Granted, this is the fourth attempt, but so what? I, for one, have learned from each experience and believe all the lessons are incorporated in this one. But, I'm wondering why you still feel it is "malformed". In particularly, why do you say it is calculated to continue discord? How so? It certainly is not intentionally calculated to continue discord! Quite the opposite. However, no matter what, there is always going to be discord with those that are simply opposed to having anything other than the city article at Cork. You cannot blame the survey or anything else on that discord. Please give it a chance. Your comments that it is unhelpful are most certainly not helpful. --Serge 20:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Inserting polls no one wants are not helpful. pschemp | talk 20:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
About a dozen people voted in the last poll before it had to be prematurely closed. That's hardly indicitive of a climate where no one wants polls. Give this one a few days. If no one is participating, I'll close it myself. But why the hurry to close it right away? --Serge 21:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Please close it before people start voting. Has been closed. That is the only way to avoid further aggravation. If there ever is another poll, it should not be unilaterally set up. As to why the hurry, all of us are giving this thread plenty of attention for it to have a chance to close quickly if a solution is found. None of us, I hope, wish to spend the rest of our lives on deciding this question. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, neither of you participated in the earlier discussions and surveys on this issue. The last attempt suggested moving Cork to Cork (city) to make room for Cork (disambiguation) at [{Cork]], and was defeated. That appears what you guys are trying to accomplish. How do you think you're going to accomplish that? What exactly is your goal anyway? My poll is cleverly designed to get participation from everyone in the process of getting consensus on a new name. What you guys are doing is engaging in a process which excludes those who are opposed to the move. They'll just wait, and claim lack of consensus on anything you do. My approach, if you guys would support it, would include them, and, thus, disable them from arguing lack of consensus. --Serge 22:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Undergarment

Can you help me understand why this image has relevence - it seems clear to me he is using it to embarrass members of the LDS church as you can read on the page where I found it (and didn't remove it, BTW) Temple garments Thx in adv Abeo Paliurus 21:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No I'm sorry, that is perfectly relevent to the topic. Wikipedia is not censored for people's religious purposes. pschemp | talk 21:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your principled position, I agree with the principles you have outlined - but I see them in a different way. Just as we don't use the cartoons of the prophet muhammad on the article on comics, we shouldn't use this picture on undergarments. It shows disrespect and their are plenty of other pictures to use that illustrate the topic. Abeo Paliurus 21:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This isn't a cartoon, its a straightforward picture. Nothing about that implies ridicule. The scientologists don't like us talking about Xenu either as they consider it a secret, but its a fact. Now, I have warned that guy that if he inserts in in articles where it isn't relevent again, he will be blocked. pschemp | talk 21:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
We talk about Xenu, just as we have an article on Temple garments and Iniatory ordinance, but we don't spread images from Xenu on pages about volcanoes, or explosions. When I tell you that such an image violates things I hold sacred, but I put that feelign away, and can even argue for its existence in the approprate article, I hope you can see that I am sincere in saying that although it doesn't imply ridicule to you, it does more than imply ridicule to me, it is open ridicule. 22:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Right now the image is on 2 pages only, both of which where it is relevent. Sorry, but again, we don't censor Wikipedia for your religious views. Even naming in print Xenu violates things scientologists hold sacred so it is the same thing. There are lots of things here that make individuals uncomfortable but your religious views are not more important that anyone else's here. pschemp | talk 22:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
i don't think it is fair of you to accuse me of trying to censor Wikipedia, i have only argued that the image is inappropriate for specific articles - although I think the image is in poor taste, and should be replaced
naming the symbols on the garment and describing the covenants violates something i hold sacred, but i am not deleting them - we should have images only on the article for which they are appropriate Abeo Paliurus 16:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, and 1. i didn't accuse you personally of "censoring wikipedia" and 2. the image is only on articles where it is appropriate now so 3. give it a rest. pschemp | talk 16:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions from your personal suggestbot

Add sources

Thought this was in your field of expertise. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! pschemp | talk 01:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Temple garment

You appear to be an experienced editor. You would also then understand the policies regarding reverting others. WP:Revert would dictate "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it." I don't have a problem with new editors, but when someone is experienced, I have a significant problem with this type of behavior. It borders on "troll" like behavior and seems to invite dispute with other editors. I would encourage you to attempt to calm feelings on this page rather than attempt to inflamme them. Please do not simply revert, but follow policy closely on those pages where there is obvious disagreement. In doing so, you become a source upon to build cooperative behavior rather than the opposite. I look forward to working with you to produce a better article. Storm Rider (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You as an experienced editor should know that simply removing valid information when rewording can be done is not acceptable. Listen your own lecture please. I reverted because I feel the sentence was fine as it was. You should have reworded to begin with if you felt it was confusing, but removing facts is not acceptable, and you know that. So, next time, rather than getting snippy, think about your actions before lecturing me. (Never mind the *huge* assumption of bad faith on your part.)pschemp | talk 04:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The edit I deleted did nothing to improve the article. To know that it is headquartered in Salt Lake City does nothing. When we talk of the Roman Catholic Church do we always say, headquartered in Vatican City, Rome, Italy? Of course not! I suspect you are bending over backwards to accommodate an overemphasis on anything you perceive as censorship. There is a time and a place for information and it is not appropriate to simply attach everything every time something is mentioned. Storm Rider (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I suspect you are bending over backwards to accommodate an overemphasis on anything you perceive as censorship.' Huh? there you go again assuming bad faith. Really, you need to stop doing that. That's not my intent at all. Where's the proof that I'm on a campaign to do so? Since you refuse to realize that it was just a simple thing with no malicious intent, I'm having a hard time respecting your opinion about wording. You may want to note I am neither persecuting you nor doing anything so horrible as to deserve your nastiness. i suggest you read WP:AGF again and internalise it. pschemp | talk 14:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

[1] - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh wow! :) Thanks letting me know, and thanks for your help on the article too. pschemp | talk 14:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, congratulations! You did 99% of the work on that article, and it is outstanding! Atom 16:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

LDS Temple garments vs Sikh Kaccha

When I found the article about Kaccha, I was intrigued by it because I saw some similarities to LDS temple garments. I added links in both directions because I felt the two articles were relevant to one another. I'm curious why you removed those links? -- pne (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they are appropriate in the see also sections because they are two different religions. If you add that, then to be NPOV you have to add the religious garments of every religion and you end up with a giant list of all the religious garments in the world. That kind of thing would be better have its own article, some thing like Religious clothing, but it doesn't belong in those sections. pschemp | talk 16:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Are there really that many examples of this type of clothing? (As in, religious clothing that is not clerical clothing but is worn by general believers?) I think I see your point, though. -- pne (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh hey, another editor fixed this by adding a category that includes all religious garments. That way people can go to the category to see everything. I think this is a good solution. pschemp | talk 16:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah -- I see. Yes, that seems like a decent solution. I kind of wish there were a distinction between liturgical vestments and more generic "religious clothing", but this is probably good enough. -- pne (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
pne, we can make a subcategory that just refers to more generic religious clothing if you wish. That might help. pschemp | talk 19:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. Sounded good to me, so I went ahead and did that. -- pne (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Way to be BOLD. :) pschemp | talk 14:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
this makes more sense to me - two items of undergarment that are used by two different religions as a symbol of their covenant with God - and the image there is much more tasteful Abeo Paliurus 17:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hey, would you be able to protect a page for me? Khoikhoi 04:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

only if it truly needs protection. pschemp | talk 04:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Mardin? Khoikhoi 04:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Pschemp,

I'd like to apologize for my comment of WP:ANI yesterday. I didn't realize that you could address complaints against admins there, but obviously I am wrong. I misenterpreted the line at the top of the page. Sorry.

Best wishes,

Yuser31415 reply!|contribs|help me improve 18:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Cork move

Pschemp - Per most recent notes on WP:ANI and Talk:Cork (Now Talk:Cork (city)), I had made my peace with the move proposal. However, the manner in which it was instrumented was improper, discourteous to the contributors, and recklessly disorganised. I look forward to your help in addressing the incorrectly linked pages! Frankly I question the manner in which the discussion (and final move) was conducted. WP may not be a democracy, but Admins should conduct themselves with more tact, diplomacy and consideration when "directing" this kind of contentious issue! Guliolopez 19:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for helping me there, I appreciated your support. I'm still sorry that some were unhappy with the action I took. It reflected consensus as I saw it and I think we acted with the best interests of the encyclopedia we are writing together at heart. In changing 732 of the links (as I promised), I think I also added much valuable information to it. See Special:Contributions/Spellmaster and Image:Awbtrawlofcorkdone.jpg for details. Best wishes, --Guinnog 04:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
NP. I was shocked how many of those were actually for the material or the county.pschemp | talk 04:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Mactabbed

Your diligence in pursuing the matter is appreciated. Thanks. (→Netscott) 06:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A strangely familiar start. :-) (→Netscott) 23:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

phpBB

I have no idea what's going on in the talk page right now, but it isn't constructive. The party who wants to keep the extlinks is coming up with nothing except for conspiracy theories. Can the page be opened for editing again? Chris Cunningham 16:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the whole point is that you need to work it out with that person. pschemp | talk 17:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
All I'm getting on the talk page is personal attacks claiming that I am a shill of phpBB, that I'm trying to own an article, and so on. What do you suggest I do? Chris Cunningham 18:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I see more than that. There is also more than one person who disagrees with you. Compromise. pschemp | talk 18:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

History of erotic art article

I left a comment there on the talk page a couple of days ago in response to your edits, and it has gone unanswered. Should I assume that you have no objection to my acting on those suggestions? Haiduc 21:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No. pschemp | talk 22:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/1ne

I reverted your comment, because 1ne pulled out (again) just a minute before. Regards, Kimchi.sg 00:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish you wouldn't have. I didn't vote in bad faith, and the page wasn't closed when I pushed the edit button.pschemp | talk 00:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Wikiprout

Hi, Wikiprout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been editing images of EnthusiastFRANCE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and seems to be intent on deleting all Berserk-related images uploaded by said user while putting fair use rational for non berserk-related images. It is very likely he is a sockpuppet of said banned user.

He has listed all berserk-related images up for speedy deletion. This has for the most part failed twice in the past, due to the fair use template counting as a fair use rational. In his latest attempt, he has removed the fair use template as well as listing it for speedy deletion. Several images have already been deleted, a few of which I liked in the article. Thank you. -Aknorals 06:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked. Go revert. pschemp | talk 06:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Cork dablink

Hi. I think we're missing each other's points at Talk:Cork (city)#DAB link, so thought I'd move the conversation somewhere a little more private. I fully support that the article at Cork is the disambiguation page. My comment relates to the first line of the article Cork (city). It is presently

:''For other uses of '''Cork''', see [[Cork]].''

I propose it should either be deleted or changed to

{{This|the city on Ireland|cork (disambiguation)}}

I provided references for this change on the talk page. I partly changed it once on the article, but got reverted, and have no intent of getting into a revert war over it. I hope I'm making sense this time. Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 11:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok. Yep, I got my wavelengths crossed. Will think about this now. pschemp | talk 16:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I've tried again. this edit is the entire intent of talk:Cork (city)#DAB link, in accordance with Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages . I won't waste my time again if I get reverted this time. Thanks for your contributions to the discussions leading up to the page moves. --Scott Davis Talk 13:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I got it. Sorry but martin wasn't very clear at first about what he was talking about. I don't have an issue with it. pschemp | talk 17:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You're a defender

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For defending common sense across the wireless airwaves, and calling all the subtle POV-pushing vandals and rabid deletionists on their act. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. pschemp | talk 16:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Let me be the second to say THANK YOU for taking action. *Spark* 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

question

Rather unrelated to the usual editing and information efforts, I have a question regarding the SEM photo of a multi-lobular polyester fiber on your bio page. Can you direct me to a source for such fibers? I have a ('real world') application need.

Thanks - miles100 I can be reached at: safemiles@gmail.com Miles100 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not arguing with you!

➨ ЯEDVERS awards this Barnstar to Pschemp for being a good friend who also defends the Wiki against crap and is always right (even when I only agree 90% or so ;o)
➨ ЯEDVERS awards this Barnstar to Pschemp for being a good friend who also defends the Wiki against crap and is always right (even when I only agree 90% or so ;o)

I actually agree with you and would !vote "keep" on the article... except I object to the idea that "verifibility" is a keep reason.

Don't be annoyed with me! If nothing else you look taller than me (like most people, sadly enough) and thus I'm faintly scared of you ;o)

Cheers mate! ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Nur I'm not annoyed, was just baffled at what looks like an objection (which really wasn't). Like I said, certain people on the DRV hammered this article and said it should stay deleted because of no WP:V, so its understandable that people are pointing that out now. No big deal. pschemp | talk 22:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Duke53

I respectfully ask that you review his contribtions to user talk pages and then let me know if you think that they are an appropriate way to welcome new users. --Trödel 22:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I did. You can *add* your comments, but it isn't proper to delete someone else's. Even if you disagree. pschemp | talk 22:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Your admin actions

I strongly disagree with this block:

  • 22:38, 27 November 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "207.70.152.4 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (vandalism)

This comes a full 7 hours after the last edit. After the warning on their talk page, they have not continued the disruptive behavior. So what purpose does the block serve other than to be punitive, as the editor has brought there actions inline with our traditions.

Also this block fails to assume good faith:

  • 22:37, 27 November 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "68.100.239.10 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandalism)

The editor has two edits:

   * 22:31, 27 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Temple garment (→Construction and symbolism of the garment - deleted offensive picture)
   * 05:17, 6 September 2006 (hist) (diff) The Greatest American Hero

You are not blocking users on the Charles Darwin page on their first edit. This is the problem with the image on the Temple garment page - ANY PERSON who has gone through the temple would immediately try to delete that image. I know that was my first reaction (and I probably did delete it without thinking - I can't remember), which I have since tempered and indicated that we should get a better picture that is less disrespectful. The point is that the covenent one makes with God is such an internally personal and powerful experience that to see such disrespect causes a recoil reaction. I see others have tried to explain above...

Anyway, I feel that your blocks of 48 hours are much too long and fail to assume good faith, as the only justification for blocking after deleting a single line is that you feel the IP is a sockpuppet of an existing user. But it is much more likely that the IP address represents a new users who, like others who have been through the temple - recoiled at the sight of it and deleted it. --Trödel 23:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the reason it is still vandalism. I'm fully aware of thier editing history. The block is on the IP's only, anyone there can still register an account and edit under a username. Religious convictions do not excuse vandalistic actions. Frankly I'm getting pretty tired of your attitude that it does. Lots of vandals remove thing because they "believe" its the right thing to do. Its still vandalism. And if a page is getting vandalized hard, no matter what it is, I do block right away. See my history with Steve Irwin. pschemp | talk 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't twist my words - I am not asking to excuse the vandalistic acts - I am saying the punishment is harsh. These are good people that when educated will respect our traditions here. We should not be blocking them for 48 hours, etc. We should be educating them and welcoming them --Trödel 23:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
its pretty obvious this is the same vandal over and over again, just switching IP's so he can keep vandalising. Sorry, but AGF doesn't extend to people who keep vandalising. Go ahead an d welcome them if you feel like it, but I'm going to keep blocking the guy. I am however going to reduce the week to 48 hours since its obviously the same person hopping IP's. pschemp | talk 23:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone one better. The page is now sprotected so your good faith vandals can go comment on the talk page without vandalising and then you can have a chance to make them feel welcome. Enjoy. pschemp | talk 23:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Great! I support the sprotect - but didn't think I should do it on an article I regularly edit. I disagree that this obviously IP hopping as one edit is from Atlanta and the other is from a county government computer in Texas - the liklihood that the second computer is open to be used as a proxy is very negligible. --Trödel 23:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well i've seen a lot of vandalism and its really easy to jump computers like that. Proxies are more prevelant than you might think. Doesn't matter now though anyway. Honestly the sprotect was probably the first thing I should have thought of but meh. Good luck. pschemp | talk 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, just so I am clear on your position, any IP that vandalises a page can be blocked on site without warnings if the page their edit is similar to part of what is an ongoing dispute? --Trödel 23:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Its not as simple as you have stated it. If you have reason to believe that it is the same editor changing IP's in a short amount of time, yes (Which I thought it was) because in that case the constant revisions of their vandalism *is* notification that their behaviour is unacceptable. If it looks like unrelated people, then no I wouldn't do that. I don't think someone needs to be both warned and reverted four times before preventive action is taken to limit their vandalism. pschemp | talk 23:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
That makes more sense - the reason I ask is that there are freqently anons that make the same change to articles that are controversial within the Latter Day Saint movement wikiproject that occasionally go through bouts of the type of vandalism that we have been reverting on temple garment; however, I have had to learn to assume good faith with those users, despite the fact that they are "ganging" up to make non-neutral edits, and use patience and persuasion to keep the articles encyclopedic. Now that something similar has happened where the anons view is one that I support, it seems they are being treated very harshly. If you reveiw these edits that Duke53 made - I think you'll understand why I am no longer letting things slide. Comments to respected editors:
Unreasonably high warnings made to anonymous editors (edit the anonymous person made, warning issued)
I admit that maybe I was looking for the good in people, and maybe being a little naive as to whether they were using some kind of proxy hopping. I'll try to be a bit more skeptical, I just don't see the point of using harsh warnings in that case. If they are IP hopping they wont give a damn about some harsh warning on a page they'll never see again; however, if they are a new user then we just pushed that person away, maybe for good. So it seems better to me to be kind and not biting on the user talk page, even if we end up blocking the IP address because the edits come too quickly and are too much the same. Thx for listening --Trödel 03:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How Do You View This?

Hello I reported this to Winhunter already (who is away at the moment) but as an admin of Wikipedia how do you view someone creating an image for a vandalism barnstar, as a sockpuppet of JINXTENGU has done? I just think its a tad desperate for a vandal but is this considered appropriate? I would think an award that encourages the destruction of Wikipedia is not in essence an award for Wikipedia.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sock blocked. pschemp | talk 07:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Make mi fall 4 u

Since this user and his/her friend only ever edit their Talk pages, will they even know they're blocked? I guess they will when they try to edit the other person's page ... User:Zoe|(talk) 22:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to think of an appropriate message, so i haven't got around to leaving them a message. Was that your concern? pschemp | talk 22:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I was just thinking that if they never edit articles, they may never know they're blocked.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 22:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh. heh. pschemp | talk 23:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Spellchecker

Are Template:Spellcheck and Template:Spellchecker used or no longer used in the MediaWiki namespace? —Centrx→talk • 05:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not actively "advertised" them, but yes, those templates do work, using the preliminary Wiktionary interface to ispell. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 06:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I and a few other users are actively using this in our monobooks. pschemp | talk 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I thought it was referring to MediaWiki monobook and it wasn't transcluded anywhere. —Centrx→talk • 21:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

History of erotic depictions revert

"see also was removed as part of FAC discussions"

This isn't even remotely an adequate explanation of your reason for reverting the "See also" article links I added. Please explain your edit. Iamcuriousblue 00:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. Plus it give undue weight. Go read the FAC. See also sections should not be included in FA's at all.
What is "the FAC"? You presume other people are going to know what this is and how to find it. Iamcuriousblue 01:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The Featured Article Candidancy. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of erotic depictions/archive1. Cbrown1023 01:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is linked to from a notice on the top of the talk page if you took the time to read it. pschemp | talk 01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

re:WP:AN/I

See my reply to the other editor who already left that message at my talk. :) semper fi — Moe 01:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Hmm, I must have missed that last sentence you added in your string of edits to Talk:History_of_erotic_depictions#civilization_vs._civilisation - probably during the edit conflict I got whilst replying. As an admin, you at least should be aware of WP:CIVIL. The sentence "Please find something productive to obsess about." was both unnecessary and offensive. I'd much prefer Bloody Minded ;) Thank you. Carre 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

er...I must admit people often mistake my bluntness for incivility since they can't hear the tone of voice I'm using. I'll try to be better at that in the future. Understand I've been babysitting this article for many many hours now, so things like that are bound to happen. Bloody Minded is cute though. pschemp | talk 19:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Stalking, harrasment, etc.

Not stalking, waving.

This isn't meant to be a big deal. No one is perfect, but it's how we handle mistakes that separates one from another. I may not have approached you very well the second time around, and the Wiktionary link the first time was uncalled for on my part. But you've been, well, hostile. I'm sure that you receive a truck-load of abuse from garden variety idiots, but a little fine-tuning on your responses is all that I'm suggesting. Don't take it so personal, don't make it as though I'm out to "get you." Just try to take on board some constructive comments from another person who is also a dedicated Wikipedian, despite sometimes choosing not to log in.
152.91.9.144 22:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

PS - You won't hear another peep from me on this if you choose not to respond, I promise. - 152.91.9.144 22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
PPS - Since you responded on Lar's talk after this message, I'll respond there. - 152.91.9.144 00:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the month

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

NCurse work 17:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal information

PaxEquilibrium (talk · contribs) has posted personal information about you, I believe without your consent to do so [2]. I have indefinitely blocked PaxEquilibrium, left a message on his talkpage and also a message at AN/I[3]. If Pax has your permission to do this, then feel free to overturn my block, but if not, you may wish to have oversight performed.--MONGO 19:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm heading out, but to have the information removed, see here.--MONGO 19:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like that's going around everywhere. Someone posted it at the top of your talk page and I reverted them. Cbrown1023 20:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I want that oversighted. There have been a rash of these from accounts and IP numbers, I can only assume they are the same person. pschemp | talk 20:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean the information was real? I just assumed it was a bunch of BS meant to harass you. Cbrown1023 20:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
No it was real. And that's still harassment. if you see these, kill them on sight. Actually, go directly to oversight. I do not authorise this. pschemp | talk 20:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm now interested how I got into this in the first place... --PaxEquilibrium 21:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to ask Mackenson. I haven't a clue. pschemp | talk 21:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A vandal

Look at this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arbitrary&diff=91285313&oldid=88969060 Please block this IP address. If you look at his editting history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=216.114.95.129 he has made similar vandalising edits. Juror 8 20:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If this is in immediate need of a response, please post at WP:AIV because pschemp is not currently here. Cbrown1023 20:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ref desk cleanup, help needed

As a user who has expressed interest in dealing with misuse of the reference desk, you may be interested in my comments at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Where we stand and my new strategy for dealing with the problem at User:SCZenz/Reference desk comments. It will take help from many people in order to make it clear which behaviors aren't appropriate. -- SCZenz 02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Mactabbed back?

Hello Pschemp, I believer Juror 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Mactabbed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Please review User:Juror 8's first contributions and also note the uncivil usage of a revert tool on Michael Richards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Also note that User:Juror 8 contacted you directly. Please block according to your own conclusions. Thanks. (→Netscott) 04:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed the same editing pattern. Blocked. pschemp | talk 04:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Your continued assistance is appreciated. (→Netscott) 04:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Another one. I'm doing some more prospecting so you'll forgive me if I contact you further. (→Netscott) 05:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I've found the mother account (which correspond to the User:Maior5 account you blocked). It's Maior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (who was indef. blocked by User:Mackensen who also blocked the sock Maior1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)). User:Iodyne thought that User:The exclusive bad apple was a sock as well. (→Netscott) 07:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok blocked. pschemp | talk 11:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I should have taken the diff I mentioned straight to oversight. BusterD sent me an email, mentioning that he had reverted that entry on AN/I. I quickly blocked User:PaxEquilibrium and left you a note here and at AN/I...I should have just taken it to oversight, and asked if I should block Pax. Lately, my block log has been getting stalked, so in my haste to make sure I provided full transparency for my block reasons, I forget to ensure your privacy was protected. I hope you accept my sincere apology, and feel free to smack me with a clue bat if you so desire.--MONGO 13:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If it happens again, you'll know. :) pschemp | talk 18:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Spamming

oh great admin i am so sorry for spamming --Records 02:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Try to keep the sarcasm to a minimum please. WP:CIVIL Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. That's not much of an explanation or realization you shouldn't have done that. pschemp | talk 02:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Explained on my talk page. --Records 03:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines --Records 03:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a point? pschemp | talk 03:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
See the section regarding discussing edits --Records 03:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the guidelines. What is your point? pschemp | talk 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
My point is I can discuss edits. Thank you very much. --Records 03:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You aren't discussing edits you are spamming talk pages. pschemp | talk 03:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • PLease Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. (For an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the m:Wikibate proposal.)

And please remove these posts immiediately:

After this "explanation" I am totally opposed to this article being nominated. User continues to spam talk pages for his cause and has admitted personal gain motivations. pschemp | talk 03:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

--Records 03:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your demand is inappropriate. The posting was entirely factually justified, in contrast to your own attempts at sarcastic snipes. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Can't you just block this guy? -- Selmo (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Fine block me indefinitly. I am sock puppet of User:Endgame1.--Records 03:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Blocked. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Van

Actually, I don't see myself as being qualified to be a mediator in this instance, given the, ahem, vocal nature of the other party. And, on the behalf of all your fellow editors, our admittedly ineffective apologies for the gratuitous insults directed at you on that talk page. However, I do think that the page is important enough to have the issue decided one way or another. I hope that any additional comments added by other parties will help resolve the matter in the way most accord with wikipedia guidelines. Badbilltucker 14:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. pschemp | talk 15:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Look who's back

Reasonable doubt1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is the latest User:Mactabbed sockpuppet.

I don't want to annoy you with this so if I'm bothering you just let me know. Thanks. (→Netscott) 01:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Next, User:Burden_of_proof, he is persistant. (→Netscott) 11:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Dead. pschemp | talk 14:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Next, User:Air of reality (Note this one's first edit and wiki knowledgeability) also have a look at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mactabbed and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clever curmudgeon this user was quite a bit more prolific than I realized. (→Netscott) 22:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't pursue this last one as it's been blocked as well as User:Ad hominem2. I'm getting other folks now to pursue this matter. (→Netscott) 23:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Restoring some sanity

In this edit you were one of those editors I was referring to that I deeply respect, yet over the last month find myself losing that respect, and Jimbo's post to the list jerked me back to reality. You probably haven't noticed me prior to this issue on the garment image, but I have stumbled upon your edits and thought of you as one of those editors that is a kindred in wanting to build the encyclopedia first. --Trödel 04:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I do think that Duke is making this issue much more contentious and unpleasant than it needs to be. I appreciate your efforts to remain objective also. I also know that if the larger community gets pulled into the discussion, they will pretty much demand that the picture stays until a suitable replacement is found. Nothing will change until that happens, and the bickering will just go on and on. Each new person on the page who wants the image removed stirs up the pot and takes away focus from the task of finding one. The rules of the Wiki trump any consensus decided by editors on a talk page thus making an alternative illustration the only hope for resolution. pschemp | talk 06:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

pschemp, you seem to doubt my sincerity in the temple garment discussion; I get the impression that you think I'm trying any way possible to get the photo removed. I'm honestly ambivalent about the photo; I think it does provide some informational value to the article, but I also have a negative visceral reaction to the photo that I'm still trying to analyze, that is more complicated than simply "whoa, I don't want people to see Mormon garments". I sincerely want to find a solution that is compatible with Wikipedia policy, is less objectionable than the current photo, and is consistent with my own personal values. I am also resigned to the possibility that no such solution may exist, but I don't feel that I've exhausted all avenues to explore.

Perhaps what you perceive as an effort to achieve censorship through insincere arguments about other factors is actually editors like me trying in good faith to pin down what exactly is objectionable about the image so that they can constructively contribute to a solution that is in harmony with Wikipedia's "no censorship" position.

My verifiability comments in particular were not my way of fishing for technical grounds on which to remove the image, but are legitimate questions in general about whether images should come from reliable sources or not. That was prompted by the discussion around Bytebear's suggestion of providing a photo that simulates a set of garments; I found myself wondering about how we know the photo in question is an actual set of garments or not, and if that weren't a concern for this photo then why a convincing simulation would be a concern to anyone, or indeed how anyone would have a basis for challenging it. (Not that I support the idea of a simulation necessarily.) You can see how this leads to questions of verifiability.

Anyhow, I don't know if this quells your suspicions at all, but I'd like to find a way to reduce the mistrust exhibited in the discussion. Thanks for listening (well, reading). alanyst /talk/ 00:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not doubting your sincerity. I believe you think its unencyclopedic. Everyone involved is sincere. Just some aren't correct. pschemp | talk 00:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent username block

I see you have blocked user:Fenasi Kerim for reason {{usernameblock}}. This user is requesting an unblock on the grounds that the name is not offensive. May I ask the reason that you found this name in violation? The only things I could guess is profanity in a foreign language or a living celebrity. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed profanity in a foriegn language. It was posted about on ANI at the time of the block (2 months ago) if you wish to hunt down confirmation. pschemp | talk 22:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Smells socky

I think it's time we had a look at who's been vandalising user KFA's page, I see the same edits from at least four accounts. --Alf melmac 18:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. think a checkuser is in order? pschemp | talk 23:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference desk

You appear to understand the situation there well. Any help you can lend is appreciated. Friday (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Fire extinguisher?

Since you could hardly be accused of drinking the Mormon Kool-Aid, and because I think you can be fair about it, I wonder if you could nuke any of the comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Temple garment that you feel are just poisoning the atmosphere and not contributing to the discussion. I think such an action is supportable by policy; if not, definitely disregard this request. BTW, I am trying not to prejudice your mind about which comments, if any, should go. Many thanks, alanyst /talk/ 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Done as that was never the intention of the post, to disinigrate into that. pschemp | talk 18:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 1) I don't think that you can classify what I posted there as 'mormon bashing'; I was pointing out that some people preach one thing yet do another.
  • 2) Why are that other guy's posts allowed to stand until someone else responds in the same manner that he posts? If you don't wish for others of us to respond to his smarmy posts then don't allow them to remain in the first place. I don't want to hear 'be a bigger man', etc.; if his posts are going to be allowed to remain I shall respond, and challenge (if need be) what he says and how he says it. Duke53 | Talk 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed both your posts. The conversation was off topic. pschemp | talk 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My point remains: his post was allowed to stand for 10+ hours, mine for a mere 42 minutes. This pattern has been played out many times. Duke53 | Talk 20:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Not by me, so thank you if you don't accuse me of that. That's life, its tough and it sucks. pschemp | talk 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It sucks worse when it's endorsed by admins; did I say it was just you? Duke53 | Talk
Stop making those types of comments in places they don't belong and you won't have to worry about them getting removed. pschemp | talk 20:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not 'worried' in the least about mine getting removed, I'm more concerned with his being allowed to stay for long periods of time. Duke53 | Talk 21:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

pschemp, thanks for your intervention. I think your changes were spot-on. Nice job. alanyst /talk/ 21:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the revert on Lubbock?

The pronunciation of Lubbock is important to somebody wanting to find out about the city. "Lub BOCK" (or even the horrible "loo BOCK") are very common mispronunciations. It does not seem as if it's out of place to mention it at the beginning of a Wikipedia entry on a place; see for example Burnet, Texas. Why the revert? If it's a question of authority, I have lived in Lubbock for most of my life, and it's easy to hear the accepted pronunciation on the evening news (for example). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.182.97.121 (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Because you need a published source to back that up. And it needs to be written in a more encyclopedic manner. Your living in Lubbock does not fufill the conditions of WP:VERIFY. pschemp | talk 19:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
If you wouldn't mind a third opinion here, I guess a source for this couldn't hurt, but this really falls into the category of an undisputed fact or common knowledge. Reliable sourcing is important, but there can't be a reference for every fact in every article. I'm in New York City and anyone here who's heard of Lubbock, Texas knows how the name is pronounced. Newyorkbrad 20:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no doubt that a source exists because the name gets mispronounced all the time. At any rate, it needs to be written better and preferably in IPA. pschemp | talk 20:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
My personal opinion, though I haven't checked the MOS, is that layperson-readable pronunciations should accompany IPA on things like city names. And my point wasn't questioning that a source exists, but whether one is actually needed in this case. I certainly wasn't objecting to the idea of including a source, but this isn't the sort of edit that might be either dangerous (e.g. BLP) or inaccurate and therefore needs to be instantly reverted if it's added unsourced. Finally, if it had been me reacting to that edit and I had decided to revert it, I would have included some explanation of the problem in the edit summary instead of just a blanket reversion. The anon came here for an explanation and hopefully will have read what you wrote, but he could equally have assumed that he wasn't wanted or was being treated as a vandal and just gone away. Note also that most geographical pronunciations are unsourced, see, e.g. Thames, Worcestershire. Now, where can I find a source for how Lubbock is pronounced.... Newyorkbrad 21:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here you go: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lubbock I agree with Newyorkbrad on all points and don't think that such a simple edit should be reverted, and your backpedaling argument (first, needs source; ok, if not source, needs to be rewritten and preferably in IPA) looks a lot like what you're complaining about people doing in the Mormon underwear incident. I agree it might not be up to whatever standards it needs to match up to, but that's the whole point of Wikipedia: to improve collaboratively. I put the info in there because the info is important and correct. If it doesn't meet standards then by all means clean it up, but don't just delete it wholesale. I personally don't know IPA, and personally it kind of makes me mad when I encounter all those symbols and have to spend 5 minutes figuring out how to pronounce a word when a simple "rhymes with blah" would suffice. But, that is a reasonable standard, so I won't complain further about it here, but if you're so stuck on IPA then please, go ahead and put it in IPA yourself. And next time please try not to be such a jerk to people who are trying to get into helping Wikipedia improve. I have seen plenty of things on Wikipedia marked with "citation needed" and "cleanup needed". Deleting it without comment was just plain rude. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.182.97.121 (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
Well, let's go ahead and make the edit to the article again, without the name-calling.... I must have missed "the Mormon underwear incident," but that's okay. To the last commenter: sign your posts with four tildes (whether you continue to edit anonymously or if you register an account, which is preferable). Your contributions are appreciated. Newyorkbrad 23:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually I'm removing insults on both sides of the Mormon underwear incident, thank you very much. I don't think deleting it was rude nor do I think my response to your question was rude, and am thrilled that we have a source, but rant on if you wish. I'm not here to please everyone on Wikipedia. pschemp | talk 23:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disputing your position on the Mormon thing, which I found from your profile and just think is kind of funny; I'm just pointing out your backpedaling here. On top of that, I just looked at the "Administrator" link on your profile, and found this gem: "One-click rollback is only intended for vandalism, spam, etc.; if reverting over disputed content, it should be done manually with an appropriate edit summary." So if not rude, your reversion was at least unwarranted.24.182.97.121 03:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the ref. If you noticed I wasn't the only person who thought your addition was weird. Anyway, every fact in every article needs to be sourced eventually, so we need to start somewhere. pschemp | talk 14:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Thanks

I thought I had signed in. Evidently it didn't take. Thanks for the heads-up. Badbilltucker 15:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

np :) pschemp | talk 15:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

I'm a little confused why you're against peer review for Charles Darwin. Certainly I think it's a very good article, but, well, the point isn't just to hit FA, it's to improve the article, and, well, there were mainly three of us who did the improvements; peer review seems a good way to encourage others to comment as well. Adam Cuerden talk 04:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You flat out don't need it. The article is already way beyond where peer review can help it. Others will comment on the FAC. Peer Review is designed for articles much less advanced than this one. In this case it is nearly a duplication of effort. pschemp | talk 04:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Darwin and Edinburgh

Hope you don't mind me adding this comment to your pristine page, but I feel impelled to comment on the odd coincidence about Darwin and Edinburgh. Firstly, thanks for your support at the Darwin FAC. From a comment Samsara made it appears that she's in Edinburgh, as is Adam Cuerden, and it's where I grew up though now I'm about 65 miles to the west. So that's the first three votes, and to my surprise your user page shows you in a shinty outfit (ok, hockey's commoner in Edinburgh) above a nice picture of Salisbury Crags. Of course Charles Darwin's lodgings as a medical student were near the university, about a mile to the right of the picture, and Arthur's Seat, just visible to the left above the crags, is one of the places where James Hutton developed the geology that Lyle picked up, greatly influencing the young Darwin. Well, it looks like some pretty good coincidences to me :) Thanks again, .. dave souza, talk 18:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for educating me. Interesting connections. Maybe you should all have pint together once the FA passes. :) pschemp | talk 03:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait, we're all iin Edinburgh? Adam Cuerden talk 14:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Not me. Actually Dave isn't either, so nevermind. pschemp | talk 15:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference Desk

What are the main ways in which you feel the Reference Desk has "disrupted Wikipedia" per your recent comment at the Discussion page there? They should be addressed and corrected so that project can continue to be of assistance to readers who can't find the information they are looking for. Edison 20:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

When it's functioning so terribly that it and its members and issues show up on ANI nearly every day, that is disruptive. pschemp | talk 20:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks & help on Women's suffrage

Hi Pschemp: thanks for the note on the MfD, and can I ask you a question? Help is needed (IMO) on the Women's suffrage page, and it doesn't look like there are any active editors on the page. Over the past few weeks, there has been substantial vandalism (up to 4×/day), which has all been caught (a lot of it by me, some by others). I know it isn't a huge number compared to some pages and the vandalism isn't the problem, really, except that it has been interspersed by some dubious edits that I can't figure out whether they are vandalism or not. Most of this has been by a bunch of different IPs - I don't know if it's a concerted effort to diminish the quality of the page, or if it's someone who doesn't like me personally (since I do a lot of the reversions), but there are now at least two dubious edits that I've posted to the talk page with no comment from experienced editors. What do you recommend should be the next step? I don't mind just continuing what I'm doing (reverting, warning, and documenting the dubious edits), but I'm worried about the quality of the article. Should I just be more harsh? Revert any unjustified, dubious IP edits? I'm loathe to do so, but...

Also, I don't know if I've even caught all the questionable changes. There's been a lot of IP activity on the article lately and I haven't checked every edit. Anyways, thanks in advance for your advice. Anchoress 02:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This diff shows, as far as I can tell, no terribly questionable changes except for one removed paragraph that might be redundant. I semi'd it for the moment, hopefully that will discourage the vandalism for a while and allow people to actually work on it. pschemp | talk 03:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot; did you check the two diffs I posted to the talk page? One was a big deletion (may have been the one you mentioned), and the other was a weird change of number. I really appreciate the help, and I noticed the semi, that should be useful. It's not that I'm bothered about reverting, but it was just getting a bit kooky. Anchoress 03:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that's the one. I replied on the talk page. pschemp | talk 03:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Award Time!

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For making dozens of reverts, I hereby present you with the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Scobell302 07:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF

I would humbly suggest not being so hasty about assumptions. The recent decision to add "assume high intelligence" to the AGF policy was a unilateral decision by User:Samsara to change the nature of the policy. The "discussion" he asserts his addition was based upon consisted only of himself, and later, of himself and Centix talking in opposition. As substantive change in a key guideline in WP requires a consensus, perhaps needless to say. ... Kenosis 01:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please return to the relevant talk page. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Dude. Unilateral implies only one person did it. Radiant agreed with it if you read the talkpage. I humbly suggest you get your facts straight. pschemp | talk 01:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

From Talk:Gartner

Shame on user:NickelShoe for doing the lazy thing and nominating this instead of actually taking the time to fix it, and also on anyone considering supporting it. The purpose of AFD is not to get articles improved. This company is so obviously notable it is ridiculous and the nom borders on bad faith. Stop whining and start working. {{sofixit}}. pschemp | talk 14:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I was patrolling prods and took it to AfD as a courtesy to the prodders considering I have never heard of this company. I wasn't trying to fix the article; I was trying to get some consensus instead of people prodding and deprodding without discussion. I'd appreciate you not to make the issue personal. NickelShoe (Talk) 06:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Do your research before you prod then. What you list is your responsibility, one Google search would have shown the notability. Ignorance is not an excuse. The issue is personal, because you have the capability to use your brain. To get consensus and discussion, use the talk page. pschemp | talk 15:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Tampering with user pages

I take strong offense in seeing that you have been removing an entry from my user talk page. I take additional offense in not having been notified of this action. __meco 13:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks may be removed on sight. I removed all vandalism from that user. As for notification, you have a history. I'm sorry you are offended, but I personally appreciate it when people remove vandalism from my talk page. If you like vicious trolling on your talkpage, enjoy. However, I suggest you find something more important to get offended about. pschemp | talk 17:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Image

I see that that is not the first time that image was uploaded. Perhaps that file name should be protected against recreation. pschemp | talk 01:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this type of salting sufficient? -- tariqabjotu 02:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Perfect. pschemp | talk 02:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

New User:Mactabbed sock=User:Made of people

Made of people (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is editing in the same areas and same interest in previous sock areas. This new sock's got the same first edits to his user page as previous socks. (→Netscott) 01:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ignore Netscott. He is no longer interested in improving wikipedia by getting vandals banned, as I see he continues to do. His mistake is that he's lumping me together with the dozens of other vandals he has to deal with on a day-to-day basis, which I can understand, not realizing that I actually haven't vandalized, and is blinded by his rage and his personal vendetta to get me banned. Just relax and make peace, leave this situation the way it is, and wait for me to vandalize before you waste effort banning me. It's obvious that I am no longer vandalizing wikipedia. Made of people 01:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Zero doubt. (→Netscott) 01:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, Netscott fails to realize that he is doing more harm than good by reverting good-faith edits as he is right here. Please reason with him and explain to him that he is becoming what he is trying to fight and that he is doing more harm than good by reverting my edits, which bring no harm.Made of people 01:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
And here.Made of people 01:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Bzzt. Toast. Obvious sock. pschemp | talk 02:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Next, Open stakes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). See this talk for further explanation if needed. Cheers. (→Netscott) 00:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Blocked by Cbrown1023 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) but an RfC created by this sockpuppet remains at this point. Happy Holidays to you Pschemp! (→Netscott) 02:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the page with G5... check it out to see if I was in the right. Feel free to undelete if you think that it should stay. Happy Holidays! :) Cbrown1023 03:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, could you have a look at this (on the RD talk page)?

[4] Is this an appropriate use of the talkpage? Anchoress 23:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Euch, now I got a personal invitation to 'endorse'... is that OK to do? Anchoress 13:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
NVM, I posted it to AN/I. Happy Holidays. Anchoress 17:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Defamation

Sir, you blocked me with this comment: " with an expiry time of 1 week (single purpose account, disruption on talk pages, sockpuppet of KdBuffalo)."

Please review my posts to evolution/discussion, the hostile posts against me, and my attempts to keep the section discussion on the topic. The section was and is being highjacked by those who disagree with me in an effort to have it devolve into a flame war, ofuscate the section, and ultimately have the discussion removed/archived. If you continue to act so rashly, I will appeal to higher authorities to bring attention to your abuse of power.

For your information, I have contributed to other articles on wikipedia. I have no idea who KdBuffalo is, and I have uploaded my email address so that you can contact me directly. While attempting to have an intellectually honest discussion regarding falsifibility on the evolution talk page, I tried via deletion of some posts to keep the thread from devolving into a flame war. I did not simply delete posts that I did not agree with, in fact I keep many posts that I disagreed with on. I deleted those posts that were either attempts at flame wars or were clearly off topic after repeated requests for others to stay on topic. Others in the section discussing falsifiability that I started have agreed that many are engaging in ad hominems instead of keeping the conversation intellectually honest. You are banning the wrong person, you should consider dealing with the fanatics who do not care to engage in conversation regarding valid concerns with the article. You will also note that I have not yet included anything on the falsifiablity (that the theory of evolutionary origin of species does not have an experiment that could falsify it, as other valid scientific theories do) in the main article. You are stifling valid discussion, and I resent it. VacuousPoet 02:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


Your block of VacuousPoet

VacuousPoet, who you blocked, has made an {{unblock}} request on his talk page. Please respond to it.Eli Falk 06:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Request reviewed and declined. Vsmith 14:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:User yo-1

Hi Pschemp. I recently created Category:User yo-1, and when I checked the deletion log, I saw that you had deleted it before. Based on your deletion summary, it seems that it was previously not being used as a babel category, but since I'm not an admin, I can't verify this. Are you okay with it's recreation? Picaroon 17:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Crumble Christmas

Here's wishing you a very happy and satisfiying Christmas and an exceptional New Year. All the best.--Alf melmac 10:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC/NAME Debate

While it's probably rather a moot point now, you might consider notifying a user if there's a debate over his or her username. Would have been nice to participate. 'bitchen' ric 21:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedian

I think the time is ripe to either undelete or recreate the Wikipedian article. I can do a good job of having it comply with WP:Rules. Though Oxford Dictionary haven't included it yet like they did with Google (verb) it is likely they will when it meats their standards. In the meantime WP:N is applicable in allowing its recreation because if you 'google' the term you will see it has been referred to quite prominently in various news sources. Cheers. frummer 02:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, 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!

NCurse work 09:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group-Office (third nomination)

I've re-nominated this, thought you'd want to know. - brenneman 05:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Pschemp, I am not a sockpuppet, see User:SunStar_Net#My_history_on_Wikipedia for an explanation. This explains why I'm not a sockpuppet. --SunStar Nettalk 12:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Mactabbed, another sock

Fistful of Questions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I've been a bit busy of late and haven't kept up with Mactabbed's socks but here's another one with the same editing pattern. In particular note this latest sock is back mistagging images and editing Buttocks [5]. (→Netscott) 17:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, he can't stop himself from removing the male buttocks picture as always. BLocked. pschemp | talk 19:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello again Pschemp. Unfortunately Cbrown1023 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) unblocked this latest sock. I did some further illustrating on User_talk:Cbrown1023#User:Fistful_of_Questions_.3D_User:Mactabbed to illustrate the sock nature of this latest user name. Cheers. (→Netscott) 22:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I replied on his talk page. pschemp | talk 23:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm definitely no good sleuth and having read all that's been said on the issue, I feel quilty for having urged Cbrown1023 to lift the block, which I thought (at first sight) was "ridiculous". That's surely no way to speak of admin decisions. My apologies. Hoverfish Talk 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Please just make sure you know *all* the facts before saying such things. pschemp | talk 23:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
As said, I feel quite bad about it. It's a learning experience for me too. Hoverfish Talk 23:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem.pschemp | talk 00:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was mistaken

Hello pschemp. Please, note that I'm not being sarcastic nor unfriendly, quite the reverse. Now I understand that the subproject I started, although with good intentions, should be discussed before in the Village pump so the community can decide whether it should be done or not. I was mistaken, and I'm sorry. And I would like to fix the inconveniences I have made. I'd like to ask your pardon again for trying to fix the changes I made [6] [7] [8], but again without first discussing it with the rest of the community (I assumed that the comments[9] by Aude were enough). But please, note that I'm not a vandal, so you don't have to act like I were one. I love the Wikipedia, and I'm only want to help, like you. I have some knowledges about accessibility and web standards, so I'd like to apply them to improve the Wikipedia, mainly to help the wikipedians with disabilities. Note that I was only making "compatible" edits, for example changes that needed a visual change like Template:ORBCOTW former [10] were first discussed in the talk page [11] (and later those wikipedians thanked me [[12]] [13] for making those changes).

And I assume that you reverted my reply in the talk page by mistake [14]. If I am right, please can you revert those changes so my conversation is complete? Tomorrow I will start a new discussion at the Village Pump to ask if the new ImageMap extension should be used instead of the problematic template:click. Please, don't revert it, because I'd like to fix the pages I changed. Best regards --surueña 22:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The removal was a mistake, I've fixed it. I'm not treating you like a vandal, you didn't seem to understand about consensus. I'm glad you do now. All I am asking is that you get consensus for whatever changes you make. Good luck. pschemp | talk 23:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverts to Uncyclopedia

Why are your reverting me without so much as an edit summary? Do you really think tongue in cheek humor belongs on Wikipedia, or sources that don't actually support the statement (as the next cite in the article does), but that simply link to some parody definition of the word before the cite? Milto LOL pia 01:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop inserting the unreferenced tag. pschemp | talk 01:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the talk page about the validity of the references. In fact, the first reference was a link to an uncyclopedia article, and had no bearing on calling Uncyclopedia "content-free". THe sources are lacking, and you'd do well to look on the discussion page instead of protecting it to win an edit war. Milto LOL pia 01:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not involved in an edit war. Your edits are vandalism. You were repeated asked to not insert that tag. I reverted vandalism and protected the page to stop it. pschemp | talk 01:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I was asked once by you, above. ANd you don't WP:OWN the article, I don't have to have your permission before improving it. Milto LOL pia 01:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Sean black asked you too. I don't care at all about the article, I'm just reverting vandalism. pschemp | talk 01:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia, for future reference, it's courteous (and often can lead to a quicker resolution) to advise an administrator when you are challenging one of her decisions on a noticeboard. Pschemp, heads up that Miltopia has raised the issue of this protection at ANI. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My mistake - like I said on ANI, please excuse my lack of experience. Milto LOL pia 02:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Better template

I've found a better template, {{reliablesources}}. It's appropriate due to the lack of third-part sources. That should clear up any concerns over the other template and there's no reason for the page to remain stagnant any longer. Milto LOL pia 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

its not up to me, talk to the editors on the page and get their consensus. I don't really care what the content is. pschemp | talk 02:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You protected it due to me adding a false template, and I have found a better one. This is directly related to your justification of protection. Milto LOL pia 02:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, so go ask on the talk page. pschemp | talk 02:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad guy

Hi. Could you please have an eye on User:Alzuz? He was blocked (by a steward even) in yi.wp because of sockpuppetry and now he comes as IP, creates mass of new accounts and vandalizes a lot (in yi.wp). A really bad guy... And he was so nervy to write on my talk page there that I should help him... Thank you. --Thogo (Talk) 03:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Kein Problem, Ich wache über ihn. (let me know if that isn't correct ;) ) pschemp | talk 03:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
"über ihm" would mean "above him" as a place, it does not imply that he is the target of observation, "über ihn" (accusative case) is better in that case. :o) --Thogo (Talk) 14:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Pugno di dollari=User:Mactabbed

"Pugno di dollari"=Fistful of Dollars (ie: User:Fistful of Questions). This user has taken up the same editing style where Fistful of Questions left off. See [15] to compare. (→Netscott) 01:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Cbrown1023 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. pschemp | talk 02:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Next, To Catch a Thief (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Just like his previous sock User:Pugno di dollari he's created another cross namespace redirect: Infobox Film which combined with edits to Charlton Heston (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Pale Rider (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), redirect behavior, usage of WP:AIV, and usage of a revert tool makes this a no-brainer. (→Netscott) 16:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Usernames

I appreciate what you're doing with the notice, but it is by no means "of prime importance to the functioning of this page". The page has functioned just fine without drawing attention to policy debates elsewhere on Wikipedia, and as stated in the infobox at the top of the page, "This page is only intended to bring attention to usernames which may be inappropriate", not highlight general username policy issues. As I stated in my edit summary, those interested in discussing policy know exactly where to find such debates. When similar names come up in future, I see no problem with referring to a policy debate directly relevant to that name when giving an opinion. As you made the proposal on the linked page, it's only natural you want it to gain support, but this also puts the notice into canvassing territory. I hope you see where I'm coming from. Deizio talk 03:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not canvassing for support, I'm canvassing for opinions of all types because this is a very important topic right now. I'm sorry, but while the RFC page may say those things, those words were written before SUL was even concieved. Things have changed recently and that is now of prime importance to the functioning of that page. It is incorrect to assume that people who go the the RFC page automatically know where to find policy debates, and this is a very, very big issue for the entire wiki. Many users are not aware of even where to look for discussions on the matter, certainly not those new people whose names are being debated on the page and have been directed to the RFC while their name are discussed. Additionally, the notice is temporary it will not be there forever, and no one else has objected. pschemp | talk 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added a general note to the infobox which points out that current policy issues relevant to usernames can be found at Wikipedia talk:Username. If every editor who has made a proposal posts a "check out this idea" notice we could end up with a lot of these notices. As above, adding links to a debate in an opinion you've voiced on a particular username would also be fine. The more RFCN leans away from solely debating usernames, the further it moves from its true purpose. I'll leave it up to you to remove your notice, but I still thinks it risks setting a bad precedent. Another user has followed with a "hey, check out my idea too!" note already. Deizio talk 07:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Boris Johnson VC

You just blocked Boris Johnson VC (talk · contribs) because of his username, and advised him to request a username change. However, he already has: [16]. Hut 8.5 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

that wasn't mentioned in the WP:RFCU discussion, I was just closing it from that page since consensus was to disallow. Thanks for letting me know, he'll be unblocked pending the change. pschemp | talk 17:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on my user talk

I think you didn't look at the issue very closely before you left me this comment. I reverted those edits when it was not obvious this was a sock. This was before I did the investigation that showed he was indeed sock, and before I indef-blocked him. --Ginkgo100talk 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

yes I saw that, great. I read your user talk and noticed that already. pschemp | talk 03:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Islampedia

I tried to nix this one, but the prevailing sentiment on the page was somewhat different then.Proabivouac 03:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I think it was allowed because it isn't promoting a religion quite so aggressively as "Jesusfreak." Keep an eye on the edits is all I can say. pschemp | talk 03:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I feel a politically-correct heirarchy of sympathy may have played a role in this. Wouldn't we nix Biblepedia? Perhaps not, but I can't help wondering.
On another note: do you know of an analogous RfC page for userpages? If not, might you assist me in creating one?Proabivouac 04:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Right now, they are discussed on ANI, as this one was. I'm not sure about adding yet another RFC page. Why don't you float the idea on Village pump proposals and see what people think? pschemp | talk 04:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


My userpage

My userpage is not hate speach, whatever else it might be, the reason it was an issue is the volume of political information, not any specifically controvertial views. --Boris Johnson VC 14:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in here, but the volume of political information is not the only issue here. Of equal concern is the way in which you are promoting your political views on your userpage. Hut 8.5 15:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

From User:El chulito

How dare you claim I was not forced to change my username. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_chulito&oldid=103950609 in the history of my discussion page from January 28 @23:33 left by User:Asterion.

I only missed all of the following message(s) on User:El chulito's page because I followed User:Asterion's demand and immediately desisted from using that username under threat of block!!.

How dare you accuse me of creating a sockpuppet in light of this. Maybe you should do your research. You have done no less than call me a liar and I demand an apology. And don't call me "dude". I am 42 years old; you can call me "Sir". El chulito 17:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal information

You should take a look at User:64.72.125.117's contribution history. The IP address is blocked, but you might want to have the contributions removed. Best, Gwernol 18:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already deleted edits with personal info from mainspace articles, but I wasn't comfortable with doing so to other folks' talk pages (looks like most of the talk pages that were hit were admins anyhow). I'm not sure how other people do it, but the QuickCheck extension for Firefox is very handy for mass undeletions minus a few edits. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. In the future, its faster to go straight to oversight request to get them permanently removed. I appreciate what you did though. pschemp | talk 19:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The edits were just your email address and a derogatory comment. Is that something you wanted to oversight? OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes. that isn't a public email address, plus it has my full name in it. Not really what I need floating around. pschemp | talk 19:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see that you've already undeleted them. Sorry about that, I assumed a regular delete would be sufficient. I'll ask first next time. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, don't ask. Just send to oversight. This is a regular vandal, unfortunately. pschemp | talk 19:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

I took the liberty of unblocking All Male Action (talk · contribs). You blocked this account for being a sockpuppet of RJII (talk · contribs). This may or may not be true but RJII was blocked for being a shared account. As such, it is not a violation of WP:SOCK to create a new, single-user, account. If you think I have erred in my unblocking, please let me know. Thanks! --Yamla 17:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, please note that User:RJII was banned for one year, effective July 1, 2006, by an Arbitration Committee decision. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Infinity0#RJII_banned. I assume you weren't aware of this, which is understandable as it was never reflected in the account's block log. Newyorkbrad 17:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Yamla, please reinstate the block. Account sharing and use of many sockpuppets os just one of many reasons RJII is banned indefinitely. We don't want his sockpuppets back either. 172 | Talk 17:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
(I have reinstated the block, since my block was overturned without discussion.) Yamla, I think you error was in unblocking *before* you discussed it with me. I realize you were acting in good faith here, but this is a perfect example of why you discuss *first* before changing someone else's block. I am seriously disappointed that you unblocked without giving me a chance to answer your questions, and consider such action to be bordering on rude. Maybe I'm a stickler about politeness, but even if I think someone is dead wrong, I ask them to explain first. There are very good reasons that the unblock page says "Remember, there was probably a good reason for the person to be blocked. Please discuss the block with the blocking sysop before unblocking." That's before, not after. pschemp | talk 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I never followed through on blocking "Improper Bostonian" following the checkuser. Now that there has been scrutiny of the new account, I notice "Improper Bostonian" has made a few edits today. 172 | Talk 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Blocked. That's enough to convince me. pschemp | talk 18:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding RJII, please note that if it is established that RJII has edited through a sock (I haven't seen a checkuser or sock investigation but I assume there is a solid basis for this finding), especially in bad faith, then the block of the sock should be recorded in the log of block and bans in the arbitration case and the ban timer on RJII should be reset. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I already recorded it. I didn't make a reset note because I wasn't sure what the procedure was for that. pschemp | talk 18:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that if it's certain it's a sock, any admin can restart the clock, especially if there have been bad-faith edits. If it's less clear, my suggestion would be to bring the matter to the attention of one of the arbitrators who worked on the case. (My apologies for telling you what the admin procedure is after having being an admin myself for about an hour, but I've done some work on the arbitration pages.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Pschemp, my apologies. I saw RJII's block log stating that the account was blocked because it was shared. There was no mention of an ArbCom decision (or possibly I missed it). I monitor the unblock category and the unblock-en-l list and try hard to only unblock a specific block (as opposed to an autoblock) when the block was clearly given in error, as seemed to be the case here. Please accept my apologies. --Yamla 18:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My point is that regardless of your reasons, you should have asked first. No hard feelings, please just learn from this experience. pschemp | talk 18:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, thanks. --Yamla 18:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd also encourage any one of you who knows this situation more than I do to deal with the {{unblock}} and wikilawyering *looks at Yamla, NYB* Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 20:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Right now I'm not familiar with the evidence of sockpuppetry to be the reviewing admin. Was there a checkuser case or sockpuppet check done? RJII is before my time so I wouldn't recognize any behavioral evidence. Newyorkbrad 20:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Behavioral evidence and choice of articles is what I based this on. I'd rather not spill too many details, but 172 may be more willing. pschemp | talk 21:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't need it; my concern was that some admin be in a position to perform a fully informed review of the unblock request, but it's probably a moot point if the account is username-blocked as well. Newyorkbrad 17:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks for you help. pschemp | talk 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

hughes

your suggested revision to the hughes entry makes no sense. 1. it does not connect with another entry. 2. it is indistinguishable (e.g., does not say ...Hughes (footballer) --Epeefleche 07:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity in lead sentence

Hi Pschemp. I removed ethnicity from the lead sentence of most of the Jewish fencers per WP:MOSBIO only to have them all reverted back. Epeefleche feels that since these folks are in the Jewish Hall of fame that makes their ethnicity notable but I disagree pretty strongly. I do not want to get into a battle over this so I appreciate your edits. I suggested that we try to bring some other eyes into the matter. Anyways, cheers!--Tom 15:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think some battles are worth fighting. I also think that should Epee learn to do this correctly, it will increase his value as a contributor, so that's why I'm willing to revert and explain. Also, I'm not restricting this to the lead sentences. pschemp | talk 18:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'm actually coming off a one month block for creepy Jewish edits so I am very reluctant to do the edits you did even though I think they are appropriate. Thanks and carry on. --Tom 19:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that Epee will "learn to do this correctly" once you do your homework. It will increase your "value as a contributor," help you develop communication skills that are not condescending, and make your commnications reflect you in a more attractive light.

Come on P ... I imagine you are above such tone if you take more time before you hit "save page."

I also find it interesting that you view this as a "battle." What is your goal here, after all? Wiki needs people like you, but I imagine there are better "battles" for you to fight than this one. Perhaps not ... --Epeefleche 01:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with expecting people to learn how to write an encyclopedia correctly. pschemp | talk 03:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, 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!

NCurse work 17:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Essjay RFC

Hi! Could you point me to the edits where you feel I'm displaying bloodlust? That's not how I'm feeling, and I'm not sure where you'd get that notion from what I've said. Thanks, William Pietri 08:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks that RFC needs to stay open after Jimbo already commented is. pschemp | talk 09:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I tried to explain my reasons, and believe bloodlust is no part of my motivation. You're naturally welcome to your own opinions, but I'd remind you to assume good faith and try to stay civil. If I can clarify things further for you, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks, William Pietri 09:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I see now what the issue is. I was edit conflicted when I posted that comment. It wasn't directed at you, or a response to your words. It was directed at everyone. pschemp | talk 19:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I resent the repeated implication that the only possible way someone could disagree with you is bloodlust. I again ask you to demonstrate that you are following core policies WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. And even if you don't do it out of politeness, I'd suggest that continued polarizing statements in a discussion are not the best way to get a discussion to end. Thanks, William Pietri 03:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The only reason for continuing an RFC as nasty as that is bloodlust. pschemp | talk 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't wave AGF and CIVIL in people's faces. Nothing good ever comes of it. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to take alternative suggestions for calming discussions down, although perhaps my talk page is a better place to discuss it. Thanks, William Pietri 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
And it seems I was justified, as certain people continued (and continue to rant on Jimbo's talk page even now) to insist that the rfc remain open, even after Essjay quit. There is plenty of evidence that they were out for blood. I'm well aware of our core polices. I appreciate your comments, but you aren't telling anything I already know. pschemp | talk 05:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's progress. I'm wasn't saying that nobody was out for blood, only that to impugn the motives of everybody who disagreed with you was unnecessary and harmful. I know you were aware of the core policies; my goal wasn't to give you new information. It seemed to me that in being upset about how a friend was being treated, you were not following them to the degree you were expecting of people on other sides of the issue. I felt that was inflaming the situation. Maybe you missed it in all the chaos, but most of the people I was asking to calm down were the ones upset at Essjay, so this isn't anything personal. Thanks, William Pietri 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My block

Hi, I've realized that I was blocked for one month by you for "disruptive incivility".

I've simply done an error. As I've explained in my unblock request (already accepted by another admin), I didn't mean to say "without any value" but that "their value cannot be judged", something like priceless and countless. My previous behavior here on wikipedia has been without any problems.

I don't think that even if I meant that (the "without any value"), a single fact can lead to a block. I've always been polite here.

I also have to say that probably, I you had investigate just a little on me before giving me that block, you would had came to this, where I said that I think that Essjay should not resign from ArbCom, Checkuser and so on. That, combined with what Ben Aveling said on my talk page and a bit of AGF, probably would had lead to another decision.

I think that, when you'll give another block, you should be more careful.

Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 13:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot. Do you mind if I re-add the corrected version of the barnstar, alog with a brief explanation on the issue, to Essjay's talk page? Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 13:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Essjay

I was just reading Essjay's history and saw your comment. I certainly didn't mean it in the negative manner it was received (AGF, please) and don't mind that the thread was removed. I honestly think the suggestion would be a good idea - a few steps in the moccasins that I among others have unfortunately been compelled to walk. Most of the people who actually face that situation are in no position to discuss it. Yes, the idea is shocking and disturbing - far more so is the reality. I'll withdraw the message, but please don't shoot the messenger. DurovaCharge! 21:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


I am not being sarcastic

I am not being sarcastic. WAS 4.250 06:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Authorship

Hi, Pschemp. Your user page says, "Featured article I wrote: History of erotic depictions." Although you are to be commended for being the primary brains and elbow grease behind that article, didn't many people help write it? If so, perhaps they deserve a little credit too. I was thinking it would be more accurate to say "Feature article I created." Sincerely, --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the edit history before the FAC if you'd like to make such inappropriate comments. I wrote that article almost completely by myself and contributed 99% of the original text. I've never stopped anyone else from taking credit for their part, and in fact thanked the others who made contributions at the time. I will not be taking your suggestion as it is extremely rude and you obviously don't have all your facts straight. I wrote that as much as anything can be written on Wikipedia. I put 3 months into writing its text and researching and citing it. Others copyedited and made suggestions and format tweaks and such, but the fact is, I wrote it and the edit history shows that. Please refrain from leaving messages on my talk page in the future if they are going to be like this one. pschemp | talk 08:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I meant no rudeness; in fact I praised you for the excellent article. It's just that perusing the History of erotic depictions article, I recognized in the text a few of my own phrases I had added to the pornography before it was split off into the article in question; from this, I naturally assumed that there were vestiges of sentences that many others had written as well. Pardon me for assuming a degree of collaboration that apparently did not exist, and for rankling you in general.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, if you looked through the edit history, you would see that what survived of the original couple of paragraphs split off in the final article is very little, and even less in its original wording (And I created the article with history that I had already added to). I'd be surprised if more than 4 words in a row of that part still exist. Additional to writing and re-writing, I sourced everything and what couldn't be sourced was thrown out. (Which was quite a bit of the original paste-in.) There was not collaboration on it at all (other than one good copyeditor/suggestor who worked with me the whole time). In fact, that's how many good featured articles get written these days. Too much collaboration leads to chaos. In fact, I looked at the history of your username and found that you only ever edited the history of pornography section once, therefore making your claim of recognizing phrases somewhat suspect. pschemp | talk 08:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence I saw ("Nude human beings with exaggerated sexual characteristics are depicted in some Paleolithic paintings and artifacts (e.g. Venus figurines)") went untouched from the old article to the new one, and it's quite a bit longer than 4 words. You created and shaped the article, but you appear to be exaggerating to make that point. I too would take great pride if I built such an article, but something about your claim makes me uncomfortable, especially when I see phrases others wrote retained in the current text.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Go away. That sentence exists because it was one of the few things that was actually sourced. There are a total of 3 full sentences in the whole article in their original form from previous authors. My claim to writing (which includes rewriting) is not exaggerated. Make sure you note that dump of text I used to start the article already had material added by me previously, as I had started to rewrite that section when it was part of the pornography article. I never made the claim that absolutely everything in there was an original creation. We do use GFDL. I did however *write* that article. It didn't exist before I came along. pschemp | talk 09:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

She wrote that article in the sense that it was nothing when she started editing it, and it was everything when she left. It's not reasonable to expect other people to not have copyedited the article, since that is unavoidable, and it is part of wiki courtesy to copyedit other people's articles without asking. In essence, it is very unkind to dispute that she has written the article. I suggest you let this matter rest, TFMWNCB. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A warning

Hello. I'm just popping by briefly to make sure that you are following the core policies WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. These stand for "Civility" and "Assume Good Faith", and are integral to the running of the encyclopedia. As an admin, it is fundamental that you follow them to the letter. All eight of them. Please remember this message in times of strife. Thank you and kind regards, —Celestianpower háblame 21:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Celestianpower I am confiscating your Spiderman costume forthwith under Regulation 605, article 47, subsection 25d, you may have it back after breaktime, if you behave.--Alf melmac 21:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I fear you may have overlooked WP:AGF. Please review that policy before proceeding with further sanctions. Thank you, —Celestianpower háblame 21:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
OMG He's fooled us and is climbing Buckingham Palace dressed as Batman instead, somebody stop him, will someone please think of the children?.--Alf melmac 21:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think such discussion is helpful to your cause. I have not acted out of line with core policies during this debate and implore that you reconsider your request. Please know that I mean no offence to you, for we all have differing opinions, per WP:CON; I just want a conclusion to this dire issue. Thank you, —Celestianpower háblame 21:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!

Yes, I remembered :) — Moe 23:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I remembered :) — Moe 23:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That actually made me smile. pschemp | talk 00:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks now to you pschemp -- Drini 01:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad, in times like these on Wikipedia we frequently forget to, glad I remembered this random day. :) — Moe 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) — Moe 02:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You are awesome. Although that big fish scared me into the mud a bit; luckily I found a nice juicy Ottoia to chomp on ;) Opabinia regalis 03:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Fishy! Unfortunately, I can only communicate via a complex series of squeaks, moofs, and user warning templates, so... {{uw-randomlove1}}! :p Awesome, thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Belated thanks for the fish thing :) -- Where 22:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Will you run this again? I love the idea! Crested Penguin 22:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That was funny message

This one's greener, like a good sockpuppet should be!... Thanks a lot Pschemp! Much appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 03:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
This one's greener, like a good sockpuppet should be!... Thanks a lot Pschemp! Much appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 03:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank for the note. Happy softball BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 00:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesomeness. My physics needs me back now though :( --Ali K 03:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Essjay#POLL. Hopefully nothing comes of the statement of intention there, but I apologize if anything I said steered things in that direction. Newyorkbrad 04:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect he will follow through though. What an insane waste of wiki time. pschemp | talk 05:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It won't go anywhere. People understand that enough is enough. Newyorkbrad 05:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh my gosh!

I almost missed spread-the-funny-and-slightly-random-love day! How could I?! — Ilyanep (Talk) 04:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

 :) but you didn't. pschemp | talk 05:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the fish! ;) --Fang Aili talk 15:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Seconded! :D --JoanneB 20:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Alf crayons his face like a black and white minstrel, grabs a cane and imitates Al Jolson doing "Sonny Boy" a la The Singing Fool followed by a quick burst of "Swanee" a la Rhapsody in Blue, he then bows and exits stage left. One can surmise he is happy with his fish.

Yeah, thanks! I'm glad some of the wikilove hasn't died :). Kindest regards, —Celestianpower háblame 22:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay!

Back at ya! How you doing anyway stranger? This whole Essjay things sucks, I've emailed him to let him know he has my support. Hope all is well :) Glen 06:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Vanishing Administrators.

Why are administrators vanishing? I first find out that Sarah Ewart is leaving for the moment, something happened to Essjay (I don't understand the situation), and HighInBC, upset over Essjay, has also gone. Is this a coincidence? Acalamari 20:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not leaving. I've just been on a break and had my account renamed. Sarah 20:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Phaedriel

Thanks. And thanks for the fish on my talk page too, heh. – Chacor 14:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pschemp, Just to clarify. Did Phaedriel ask you to change her page? There was another editor who changed it a few months back. It just seems like editors should change their own pages or admins should explain these changes. I know this seems like a personally matter so feel free to email me if you prefer. Anyways --Tom 16:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC) ps. I also see that you removed the history page without explaination. Is this standard policy? This seems very odd. Thanks --Tom 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It is when matters of privacy are at stake. I owe you no explanation. pschemp | talk 18:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
That nice. Sounds like an excuse too me. Anyways, carry on. --Tom 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

rfc

There is an RfC on the administrator that protected Essjay's RfC.[17] --CyclePat 07:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple issues I would like to resolve with you, prior to opposing the deletion of the RfC on your conduct. Is it possible for you to read throught the deleted RfC proposal on your conduct and to please send me your response prior to going any further? Thank you! --CyclePat 23:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Nssdfdsfds

Per your comments on Wikipedia talk:Username policy, you may also want to take a look at the current entries for two of his accounts on WP:RFCN. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

QUESTION

Hi, I'm Abbopa, or you can call me Rodini. I just have a little question for you. Is it possible to delete accounts? Abbopa 04:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense; Pschemp, look at this. Acalamari 04:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: history of ...

You may enjoy these:

Image:Griechen6.JPG
200px

The uploader has actually done the job of going through several collections taking pictures: [18]

If only someone did that for zoological and palaeontological collections... I suspect someone will eventually offer a bounty or reward for that.

BTW, the guy visiting the prostitute in the first plate is much shorter than the lady. I wonder if he's intended as a teenager, or whether the artist felt the composition required this change. Incidentally, the woman in the second picture would also be taller standing up than either of the two gentlemen - lack of a sense of proportion?

Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! (pun not intended...) :) pschemp | talk 13:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
NP. Any idea on the size difference? I'm curious now that I've noticed it... Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Not yet. I think its common to have people out of size proportion for the sake of the overall composition (and for the illusion of depth - larger person is closer to viewer etc...) on Greek pottery, but I'd have to check to make sure. pschemp | talk 14:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


belated thanks

A happy finny day to you too! :-) [19] That was a remarkably cheerful day - people were even thanking me for deleting their vanity pages and letting them know about our policies on notability. Wow. FreplySpang 19:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Another RJII sockpuppet

Sorry to bother you again... In Capitalism We Trust (talk · contribs) was created around a week following your block of User:All Male Action and User:Improper Bostonian on January 31. [20] For the past month the account has clearly followed RJII's editing pattern and style, guarding the same set of articles. After a month, the lack of enforcement of the ban by other administrators has been frustrating. So if you can take another look at the situation, it will be much appreciated. Regards. 172 | Talk 12:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikilove

SunStar Net has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

As for the thread about WikiLove, well, what a day for you to have a load of it on - my birthday!! Regarding my RFA, if you didn't want to support me that was OK, but now I've explained my user history on my userpage in case anyone asks about it....

Anyway, hope you're OK! --sunstar nettalk 14:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

So, what's it gonna be? Is scientific POV privileged or not? I don't care, just as long, as it's decided. Fossa?! 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I won't violate 3RR, do you have an argument, one way or the other? BTW: You're at 2RR as well at the moment. Fossa?! 23:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Follow the rules here Fossa. pschemp | talk 23:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That's what I'm doing and that's why I don't revert your bullshit. Shows that this thing just won't work. BTW: If the scientific POV shouldn't be privileged, why don't you put that into the policy. I'm at 2RR both ways, you could still follow up on my initial edit. Fossa?! 00:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

Please lay off on David over at Samsara's talk page. Samsara's comment was rude, GetAgrippa over-reacted...it doesn't matter who was wrong or right, what matters is that a snide comment may cost us a good editor. It's beside the point whether you think Samsara's actions were right or not, or whether GA's reaction was proportionate or not... it's outcomes that matter. David is well within his rights to be upset, and even though you think it wrong for him to blame Samsara (which is a perfectly vaid opinion), it doesn't help matters for the two of you to get into a fight. Guettarda 19:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. When someone accuses another of hypocrisy and then engages in it themselves, I will not "lay off." The juvenile attempt at a guilt trip is entirely unacceptable from supposed "adults." pschemp | talk 19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
So, what's the best possible outcome? That you "win" a pointless fight, and we have two more good editors who will stay mad at each other for the rest of time. There are more important things than being right. I know, I'm a hypocrite for saying that, given some of my past behaviour. But walking away from a fight is sometimes the most "adult" thing to do. Guettarda 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you notice I haven't commented there any more since you posted this message? I'm not actually mad at David D. I just happen to think that answering a perceived snide comment with snide comments isn't very constructive and was pointing that out. If that makes him mad at me, oh well. pschemp | talk 19:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not mad :) Seriously. David D. (Talk) 19:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Both of you. (I took too long thinking about how to phrase this message, so I didn't see David's post until after posted here). Glad you both aren't mad - it looked pretty heated. Guettarda 20:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pschemp

Can you please specify which country-username "fanned the flames" (here). There is an ongoing discussion for this issue with some concerned users and some feel the country-username prohibition case is definitely worth re-opening. Thanks. NikoSilver 11:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I have no more comments. You are obsessed with this because User:Macedonia didn't get blocked. Give it up, move on. The names that are blocked will remain blocked, and we deal with other cases as they arise. You've been obsessing about this for months now, and its unhealthy. pschemp | talk 16:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, glad I noticed this. Thanks for the tip. NikoSilver 00:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Ilikeballs88"!!??

What's wrong with that username!? I found that you've blocked that user because of his/her/its name. But I think there's nothing wrong with this name. The "ball" doesn't always refer to testes!! Please cleanse your mind for a while, the "balls" may refer to basketball, football (Soccer + American football), tennis ball... Maybe that user was saying that he/she/it likes those things... --Edmundkh 05:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Our username policy says, "potentially offensive." I was already offended. pschemp | talk 06:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

But anyway, maybe YOU are the only one offended. I've explained why there's nothing wrong with that username, so, sorry to say this, your thinking is so dirty. Wash it!!--Edmundkh 10:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it offense as well, please actually contribute to the encyclopedia instead of just nit-picking administrative decisions. Cbrown1023 talk 01:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Knit-picking the admins doesn't mean that I never contribute!! Read my contributions to see what I've done. --Edmundkh 11:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of my username from consideration at WP:RFCN

I did not nominate myself just to make a point. I nominated myself to generate discussion on a nebulous area of username policy. I do want to know whether or not my name is a violation, and I think it's worthy of discussion. Deranged bulbasaur 00:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated this request as it does not appear to be a POINT violation. As the name says, the page is a request for comments on user names. It is not just for blocking people. This appears to be a good faith request by a user for comments on the appropriateness of their user name. Can you tell me what is disruptive about listing at RFCN? —dgiestc 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hysteria? No

I went through the edit history of some (but not all) of the discussions around credential verification, and did not see any of yours that I would classify as joining the general hysteria that some have been pushing forward. The entire discussion has been marred and brought down by people who were commenting in apparently complete lack of knowledge of what I had proposed, imaginging for themselves a mandatory system which would violate privacy rights, give PhDs a free pass to editing, force people to do bad things, etc.

There are some interesting and valid concerns raised, and I think they are worth addressing in a rational way, but I also think that they are not hard to address at all.

The fundamental issue for me is that our trust has been broken, and there are a lot of good people -- honest PhDs who are rightfully proud of their achievements -- who are now treated as suspect because of the actions of one person. And that suspicion of them sadly extends with the general public to suspicion of us.

The basic idea here is very simple: be honest, be transparent. If you don't want to claim to be something, then don't. If you do, then please let us be sure that we can verify it. In most of the cases I have checked so far (but a comprehensive study needs to be done), verifying PhDs is quite easy. It's a simple step that can increase our trust in each other, our respect for each other, and our credibility with the people we serve: our readers.

No one is proposing, and I mean that quite comprehensively, as I have see NO ONE proposing, that PhDs should be given a free pass in editing. That's the Citizendium / Larry Sanger approach that we quite properly reject as being epistemologically bankrupt. What's true is true, what's good writing is good writing, and what's verifiable is verifiable. I see really overwhelming support for it, and this is no surprise: the entire premis e of Wikipedia has been strongly influenced by my NPOV concept which has been here from the beginning, and it doesn't allow for fallacious arguments like that to carry any weight.

So, what are some other reasonable objections against what has actually been proposed? Well, one is that people might fake credentials and then we can be hoaxed again. Well, sure I suppose it is possible, but at least we will have tried. Some have suggested it will be worse for us if we try and fail than if we don't try at all, but I don't follow the logic. We can say: a hurricane might eventually knock down even the strongest building, so we might as well just live in the open under trees. But that makes no sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 09:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

My bet is that most users with a PhD do not mention it on there user page. For those that do, it is no harm for them to prove it or remove it. Either way is easy. Either way it does not effect the editing. David D. (Talk) 17:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • pschemp, I encourage you to offer this up as one of the alternatives. Maybe even no accompanying essay needed. Perhaps just moving the discussion quoted to its own page and linking to it could be sufficient. Nothing like it is currently "on the table" and I think it is the obvious answer. Others may disagree but it would be a shame for it to be missed entirely. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Film

Hello Pschemp, you might like to review the deletion history and recent creation of this redirect. Cheers. (→Netscott) 23:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, 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!

NCurse work 19:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A question that only an administrator can answer

(I would have asked KOS to do this, but judging by his talk page he seems to be a little bit inactive.)

Can you delete User:Springeragh/UserPage and all its sub-pages? (Idea grown old. :P) Thank you! —  $PЯINGrαgђ  21:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the page you listed, but which others specifically do you want deleted? I'm a bit confused and don't want to delete the wrong thing. pschemp | talk 23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hello

this is regarding your decision a while back on LactoseTI and his/her alleged sockpuppet, Komdori Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LactoseTI

The block has been overturned however I am getting suspicious about the relationship with these two users.

Komdori has not responded to any questions or comments on his talk page back to September 2006.

Yet, he seems to keep track of what is going on by participating in polls, like in the talk page of Port Hamilton. User Komdori also seems to only participate in polls or controversial discussions that LactoseTI participates in. Note that Komdori has responded recently, but that may be simply to cover up possibilities of looking like a "bot" and acting smoothly as a user.

Now this not neccessarily true, but could you check Komdori's edit history? (sorry I don't know how to do it)

Also, solely on a user's viewpoint and not as an editor in Wikipedia, user:Komdori claims to be an ethnic Korean. However he is usually against the pro Korean argument in disputed articles. Several users have questioned him about his ethnicity as it is very very rare for any Korean to have such viewpoints (of course anybody can have any viewpoints)

Now I'm not labeling Komdori as a "Korean traitor" simply because he claims to be a Korean and rejects Korean arguments, it seems that this account has been solely created for refuting Korean arguments.

The questioning from the other users have also not been replied to, even though Komdori has been online very recently.

thank you. Good friend100 20:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Username block

User:Armenia has requested an unblock review. You blocked this user for a username violation. I believe I understand your thinking but a clarification for the benefit of the user would probably be in order. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not physically interfere but, given that this user has not actually vandalised (correct me if I am wrong) might it be reasonable to allow them to edit with a different username? Or am I missing something? If so, please tell me. My mop and bucket are still new.--Anthony.bradbury 00:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression he already is editing under a different username. He isn't blocked, just the name. See user:macedonia as to why it's a very bad idea. pschemp | talk 00:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine. That's why I didn't interfere.--Anthony.bradbury 16:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Having been admonished to bring this here, I copy my comments at RFCN:

  • Comment I think I can understand at least two points of reservation.
    First, the possibility for offense. The recent history of Armenia is fraught with conflict, including the Armenian Genocide. As an aggrieved people (ouch, like my ancestors weren't?) there is often a pull towards reaffirming the original harms and such. There is certainly going to be an obvious potential for certain others to see the identification as a certain indication of bias. Thus the name is likely to be inflammatory in this world. Stupid, unfortunate, regrettable and unfair, but there it is.
    And... to show that this is a valid worry but one that could be negotiated, reviewing the existing users:
    User:ArmenianJoe, User:ArmenianNY, User:ArmenianPatriot, User:Armenian Art Girl, User:Armenian Democratic Liberal Party, User:Armenian Fury, User:Armenianweirdo
    we find users that contribute just fine, users that have done nothing wrong, and two users that have become problems.
    Second, what are the rules for such a large identification? I find no guidance here. There are several users American..., including User:AmeriCan, so it would seem no big deal. But then again, there isn't a User:America. Can a user have the name of a whole country? Oh my, there's a User:North Americas.
    I'm afraid on the whole I can't see a problem - yet. It will, as it should, depend on the user's conduct. Shenme 02:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In yet another place I see the comment

There had been a discussion back then about accounts named after nations, sparked by some controversial users such as User:Macedonia.

What can I say? I look at policy and see nothing. I understand the concerns, and yet wonder how far they can be taken. I guess the only comfort we can take from this surfeit of caution is that it has been attempted across the board? That, I'm sure, will be of some comfort I suppose. Shenme 04:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, how is the treatment for this user consistent with the treatment of that one? Please don't take that as a complaint or "obsession" of any sort, but out of sheer curiosity... I really haven't figured out what the difference may be from this, or numerous other past examples. Maybe someone could enlighten me? NikoSilver 11:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not arguing if either of the three cases should be blocked or unblocked (the past ones, the one discussed above, and the one here). I'm just wondering about the reasons for this inconsistency. It's really peculiar also that I see that "it sparked a discussion back then", since that one wasn't blocked. I'm still very confused. Maybe we should discuss this in a wider audience? NikoSilver 11:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Niko, I don't see what there is left to say. It seems her previous reply to you is a perfect answer to this query, not to mention prescient. Userspace is provided to aid in editing the encyclopaedia. I hope you're using it well. Best wishes, Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I just said that I don't care either way, but I am curious for the answer. Does that qualify as "obsession"? I really doubt it. And also, data and diff collection for future RfC's and/or policy changes is considered legitimate userspace use; no? Anyway, I'm sure there's a legitimate answer for this, and I'd be gad to listen to it, because I really can't figure it out. Still, I continue to not care either way. NikoSilver 12:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the essay that you linked to suitably documents the depth of your involvement with this issue. I didn't want to dwell on it, but you missed your chance. Now help build the encyclopaedia, goddammit! It's what I hope we're all here for. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OMG. The answer is this. Country names are blocked since they aren't conducive to promoting co-operation and can be quite divisive. Macedonia slipped though before the rest were blocked. There are other username policies, like the one prohibiting wikipedia in the name that have a few people grandfathered in. Wikipedia is not perfect, it is not run by bots. Since consensus has not been gotten to block Macedonia, he remains. The rest didn't need consensus because they weren't active users or changed voluntarily. This has been hashed and rehashed and the answer ends up the same every time. Niko it's well known you have a Greek POV and Macedonia is opposed to this, if you want Macedonia to be blocked you need to go get community consensus. However, no change to the policy is going to be made. Personally I'm glad he sticks around and behaves badly, it's a good reminder as to why these names are not a good idea. NOTHING has changed in all these months Niko, including the fact that I'm tired of your obsession with getting Macedonia blocked. Leave it. pschemp | talk 16:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Grandfathered in !? OK I'll go get my zimmer frame and o.a.p. bus pass now then :p --Wiki alf 17:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey Alf. Grandfathered in is not my personal choice, but instead what the community keeps deciding. In some names (Wikipdiatrix for example), it's specifically written out. In this case, sad to say, it's grandfathering by default because no one will let me ban the name. *sigh* pschemp | talk 17:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
It's ok, it tickled me, it really did :) --Alf melmac 17:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The explanation is adequate, thank you. As I said, I don't care either way, I was just curious. Problem solved.
For the other part, I feel I need to set the record straight: I am Greek. I do have a Greek POV. YES, it's only normal! Happy?
Now, look at my contributions in the Macedonia related issues: Before my time there was complete chaos and havoc in all articles. I have managed to suppress my ethnic feelings and bring peace and quiet in this much contested issue here. I am the main contributor (by far) of the most neutral article ever written about Macedonia: Macedonia (terminology). I am its nominator for FA, and the one who did all the errands to bring it from a mere "dab list" to its present state, and I feel that it is one of the best articles around when it comes to heated national issues (please name another one!) The article is listed on top of every Macedonia related other article, and is used as a citation when someone comes by with the usual POV (from both sides). Have you seen any of the usual activity after I made this article?
I've also contributed in many related articles, and created them from scratch. See Macedonia naming dispute for instance.
Finally, I'm one of the active members of the WP:MWNB, and I have reverted numerous Greek POV additions and modifications from the existing "status quo" or "consensus" in the contested articles. Hell, I could be accused for treason back home!
So when it comes to asking for something which I see fit, I would expect the community to check my background more seriously and base its opinion on my good will for neutrality, rather than my perceived "obsession". The "community consensus" that you are asking me to get, should have well taken these into account before treating me as a mere troll who wants "Macedonia banned". I was sincerely disappointed by your mocking answers then,[21] [22] [23] [24] and by your practice now, and I had every right to ask why. Now I'm going to try and get a grandfather of my own. Thank you, and case closed. NikoSilver 09:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Minions vs. robots

You've been hanging out at wiktionary again, haven't you? ;) [25] Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

 :) Actually I should have used peon...it fits better with the oath of fealty. Or this, which hits the nail on head. [26]. pschemp | talk 17:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo, Inc. Because you can be a meatpuppet, too! Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
And we make it easy for you. No oath required. ;) pschemp | talk 19:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Awwwww!

It's just so AWESOME to read you again, P! :) I'd rather not talk for everyone and their brother to read us, tho... so hurry, and check your mail, girl! :) can't wait to talk more with you. Love you! Phaedriel - 10:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

Are you supposed to be editing out comments on an article talk page, as you did at Talk: Undergarment? If someone said it, why not let it stand? Duke53 | Talk 21:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between personal attacks and incivility and constructive comments. Telling people they need to learn better English is not acceptable, nor does it further the encyclopedia. I'm well aware of you're track record too, so you might not be the best person to comment on this. pschemp | talk 22:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
My 'track record' :) hasn't got a thing to do with the question about someone admitting to being anti-mormon, does it? My question again: are you supposed to be editing out comments on article talk pages ? p.s. I am free to comment on <anything on Wikipedia, just as you are ... unless there is a new 'rule' here that I have never heard about. Duke53 | Talk 22:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Is this about her archiving the comments on that talk page? If so, I fully approve. It's just a frequently neglected, but necessary maintenance task. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
No, this is about the deletion of editors' comments on that page. Duke53 | Talk 00:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It's called removing trolling and unhelpful comments. From WP:TALK "Editing others' comments (except on your own user talk page) is generally not allowed. Exceptions are: Removing personal attacks and incivility." and "How to use article talk pages: Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." The comment made was belligerent and irrelevant. Don't confuse this with user talk pages, removing others comments there is an entirely different matter. pschemp | talk 00:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
So the following statement: Can we then assume you to be Anti-Mormon? Bytebear 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC) qualifies how? Is it a personal attack? Is it 'incivil' ? Your 'opinion' is that it is 'unhelpful'; my opinion is that it is not. It accurately defines the paramaters that many editors use on this subject. I, myself, am simply anti-censorship. Duke53 | Talk 01:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's incivil. It ranks right alongside, "are you anti-semite?", "are you anti-blacks?" and "do you hate women?" You can be anti-censorship, anti-democracy, anti-whatever as much as you like, but ethnic or religious groups are definitely out. So yes, it's plain trolling. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Plus it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion. "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." Remember? I'm not going to argue about it further. pschemp | talk 02:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Erotic

Hi, I was just wondering whether you removed the reference to Sigiriya in Erotic Depictions because it was not erotic enough? It is quite old. DanielDemaret 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

First, old doesn't equal erotic. Second, your insertion was nearly random trivia, it was in the wrong place, it was written poorly, it was totally unreferenced, and contained the un-verified POV statement, "consisted of beautiful barebreasted ladies." In short, it wasn't appropriate for a featured article. That kind of insertion is how good quality articles degrade. pschemp | talk 22:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct in all your assertions here. You are also totally ignoring my question and on top of that you are being very uncivil. DanielDemaret 19:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You can believe that if you wish. I merely speak the truth. It is not my job to sugar-coat it. pschemp | talk 20:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I now realize that you did not mean to be uncivil, so I retract and apologize for accusing you of that. I suppose you inferred that I asked a question that went something like "Why did you remove the paragraph?", and then you answered straight forwardly to that question. Thank you for that. It does give a some small partial answer to my question, and it was informative.DanielDemaret 20:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I was a bit short with you then. pschemp | talk 01:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User page text

It is amazing how first impressions can differ when one does not know other cultural environments in detail. When I first saw your user page, "I love my country, but I think we should start seeing other people", I reacted with fear "Oh, no, they are not stopping at Iraq. I better fill up some freezers with smoked Lox for the pending invasion". Then I googled the text, and it appears that it could be an anti-war slogan, or at least a protest against overzealous patriotism. Is it? We don't have patriotism quite like that here, so I am tad uncertain.DanielDemaret 21:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a request to my fellow Americans to open their eyes to the fact that they aren't the only country that's important and to consider the rest of the world for once. Patriotism is fine, but our smug xenophobic brand of it needs a lot of work. You've got just as much patriotism, one can see that at football matches, but its expression is tempered with a sense of belonging to the larger global community, something that is increasingly important to the future of our planet. No one should just dismiss other countries out of hand immediately, and I've seen that happen in both the US and the UK. The more we interact, the harder it is to hate. pschemp | talk 01:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Never seen any football match, so I did not realize that.DanielDemaret 03:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
A very "Lewis Fry Richardson"'ly sentiment which of course I agree with. DanielDemaret 04:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)