User talk:Snocrates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Cat

Half of these people were from Reichsgau Sudetenland = Germany (German Reich). Other two were from a city which was divided between the Protectorate and German Reich (Mährisch Ostrau - Schlesich Ostrau). However fate of that category is already clear, no need to have "hot talk" about that. - Darwinek (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Snocrates 01:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Degrees of Glory Merger comment

I responded to your vote on the merger - see Talk:Degrees of glory#Merger proposal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Descartes1979 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Snocrates 01:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] renomination of Category:Charismatic religious leaders

Category:Charismatic religious leaders was previously nominated for deletion by User:The Wild West guy who said "Isn't this POV?". However that CFD was incomplete because the nominator didn't tag the category itself. You participated in the previous discussion so I'm notifying you that I've renominated (and tagged) the category; discussion is here. --Lquilter (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Snocrates 01:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jordan Smith

Might be interested in this BLP/N section: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Need some help! Cool Hand Luke 00:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Snocrates 01:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's harassment. I'm blocking him and all of his sockpuppets. On second thought, I'm too close to this user and he would not view it as legitimate. I'm going to give him a final warning. If he continues, I've no doubt that an impartial admin would ban him. The stalking claims are absurd on their face. You're one of the most prolific contributers in Mormon topics, and a casual glance should confirm who the harasser is. Cool Hand Luke 03:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help. Snocrates 03:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kolob / If You Could Hie to Kolob merge

Care to weigh in? Talk:Kolob#Merger proposal You were one of the most recent editors of If You Could Hie to Kolob. Descartes1979 (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] N!xau

Hi,

I see you mentioned a while back that the correct spelling for this is G!xau, not G!kau. Do you have any sources? The only other thing I can find online is the alt spelling Gcau, which suggests a dental click without frication. It would be nice if we could actually get his name right. kwami (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I think I did have a source at the time I was looking into that. I'll go back and see if I can find it again; I can't quite remember off the top of my head. I agree, it would be nice to get the name right. The source I had was adamant that the movie credits for the Gods Must Be Crazy movies had got the spelling wrong. Snocrates 08:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Uys evidently said N!xau was a typo for G!kau, but even without the typo it's hard to tell what it's supposed to represent. kwami (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And if we can verify the spelling of his name (assuming there is a set spelling; I think Ju|hoansi is still a bit up in the air), I think we should move the article and leave N!xau as a redirect. kwami (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll see if I can find what I was looking at before. Snocrates 08:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Any luck? kwami (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I never did remember what I was thinking of before. It was probably in a library book I borrowed b/c I couldn't find it in any of my books at home. It could have even been in a newspaper I read, in which case it might even be harder to track down. Snocrates 06:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh well. kwami (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving pages

Sorry for the inconvenience I cause you and others. I was in a hurry and the article seemsed like such a gross violation of what people would be looking for under a search of "auxiliary organization," I thought drastic action was called for. How did it get that title anyway? Why wasn't it under Auxiliary organization (LDS Church) in the first place?? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's OK. I'm not sure why it was there. You are right that it should have been moved. Snocrates 21:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Cat:New Zealand

Hi Snocrates,

It still seems odd to me to have Cat:New Zealand as a subcat of Cat:Realm of New Zealand at the same time that Cat:Realm of New Zealand is a subcategory of Cat:New Zealand. Categories may not form a genuine hierarchy, but neither should they be that recursive. Either one or the other subcategorisation is surely correct, not both. Grutness...wha? 01:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no harm to the recursiveness. New Zealand is part of the realm, so the nz cat should clearly be a sub of the realm cat. I see no harm in also including the realm as a sub of nz cat, though. NZ should be a sub of the realm as the priority, though. Snocrates 01:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CAT#Cycles_should_usually_be_avoided suggests a "see also" solution, which I have implemented for the nz cat. Snocrates 01:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Cheers, Grutness...wha? 03:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Categories

Thank you for the note! I have nominated three of the categories for renaming to their "new" locations. Exactly how though to I deal with Category:Pretenders to the Hungarian throne and Category:Pretenders to the Bohemian throne? I work almost exclusively with royalty articles and these categories will always contain the same individuals as Category:Pretenders to the Austrian throne. Given that imperial is always greater than royal, Austria covers it as the highest title (same for Germany (imperial) vs. Prussia (royal)). I feel they are not needed but looking over the WP:CFD page, the instructions for listing more than one category together seem a little confusing (or maybe I'm tired!). Thanks! Charles 06:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[responded at your talk page Snocrates 07:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]

I have put Template:Category redirect in both categories and added a note at the top of the Austrian template just in case. Can Template:db-catempty be added four days after Template:Category redirect is added or does Template:db-catempty have to be added and the category is deleted four days after? Charles 07:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[responded at your talk page Snocrates 07:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] Converts

If Category:Converts to Mormonism were a subcat of Category:Converts to Christianity then all converts to M would be converts to C; which is not the case. (Most will have been some sort of Christian beforehand.) Eg John Murdock (Mormon) is not a convert to Christianity. Some are; some aren't; neither is a subcat of the other. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If some are and some aren't, that's more of a reason of making mormonism a sub of christianity. For all other cats, mormonism is a sub of christianity; no reason why this should be any different. It doesn't mean people in the category are necessarily converts to christianity — it just means they are converts to a subspecies of christianity. Snocrates 22:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harris and reformed Egyptian

I noticed that you recently removed, rightly IMO, POV commentary about Martin Harris from the reformed Egyptian. This is not the first time that John Foxe has tried to include this. JF, myself, and Sesmith (who I invited in to get a neutral third opinion) had a bit of a discussion (starting at about the first unindent) which, while certainly not enough for a definitive consensus, brought out the arguments of both sides. After your revert, JF re-included the information in the form that SESmith and I originally objected to and which is still "extraneous pov commentary to topic in hand". He also has restarted the argument here. Would you mind adding your thoughts to the renewed discussion? Thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories re International crimes

Hey there, Just came across Category:People convicted of international crimes & Category:People indicted for international crimes -- nice work organizing all of that, it was a big jumble before (as you know!). Cgingold (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mormonism and history merge proposal

Please weigh in on the merger proposal between History of the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism and history. I saw that you were a recent contributor of one of the pages in question, and thought you would be interested.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Smiths

I see that Djsasso has done a few more moves. Has this now at least reunited the talk pages with the proper articles? Is this now under control, or is help still needed? What? Andrewa (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The talk pages for the articles are still reversed. Talk:Steve Smith (ice hockey) has the talk page contents for James Stephen Smith, and Talk:James Stephen Smith has the talk page contents for Steve Smith (ice hockey). Snocrates 08:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? The problem is that following a move, MediaWiki changes links to point to the new name. This makes it very hard to follow the history. Andrewa (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they were fixed a few hours ago. Snocrates 23:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Steve Smith (ice hockey)#Confusion over talk pages. Andrewa (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Snocrates 23:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat. rename

Thanks I am aware that the categories will be automatically renamed, but I don't mind doing it with AWB, especially since this allows me to disambiguate "China" in many of the articles simultaneously. If you have some outstanding reason for me to not do this, let me know. Thanks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is somewhat a violation of WP procedures, which is good enough reason for me. The 48-hour waiting period is intended to give objecting editors a chance to do so before the move is performed, I believe. Snocrates 22:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date format

You may want to see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death. Regards, howcheng {chat} 23:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? I use the YYYY-MM-DD formatting for dates, which presents itself as a regular date format in WP. How a date appears to readers depends on what your preferences are set to, not how you format the date in the raw text. Snocrates 00:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates: "ISO 8601 dates (1976-05-12) are uncommon in English prose, and are generally not used in Wikipedia. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness and ease of comparison." Most people do not have date preferences set. I would wager that most people don't even know it's possible to do so. Regards, howcheng {chat} 00:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The date preferences are set on a default, so everyone has them set to something. I don't think this is an issue. Snocrates 00:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, but the default is to show it exactly as it's been entered, so the vast majority of people will see the ISO style dates, which the MOS asks editors to avoid. howcheng {chat} 00:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're reading a mandate into the discussion where there is none. It just says they are generally not used in prose, which is true. I use it for birth/death dates, which is not part of the "prose" — it is dates set off from the prose in parentheses. The section of the MOS on birth/death dates gives no instructions about what formatting is preferable, so YYYY-MM-DD is as acceptable as any other. Snocrates 00:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's possible, but there are no examples of using the ISO format in the birth/death dates section either, so... perhaps this is something bring up on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). howcheng {chat} 01:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about it. Snocrates 01:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#ISO birth/death dates in biographies in case you are interested. howcheng {chat} 01:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Snocrates 03:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 18 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edwin Q. Cannon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] google hits on (the) Gambia

Hi Snocrates
This is not an attack, but something I found interesting, and possibly an indicator of my lack of google-fu, and I would appreciate your thoughts. Your comments have inspired me to battle over a way to make a comparison of google hits more usable.

Your logic appears sound when counting the number of sites that use "Gambia" but not "the Gambia".
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22the+gambia%22 "the Gambia" = 8 million
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=gambia Gambia = 92 million

but then when I tried those sites using Gambia without ever saying "the Gambia", it was a much smaller majority.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=gambia+-%22the+gambia%22 Gambia -"the Gambia" 11.8 million sites

I have no idea where the other 80 million odd hits went, and I have no way of knowing how many sites use only "the Gambia" exclusively, so I don't think this should affect the vote, but I think it is way less than the 9 times majority we originally thought it was.

Or, like I said, maybe my googling skills are letting me down. I haven't yet found a way that I would trust a google fight for use in this manner. Maybe using google scholar instead of plain vanilla google?

Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WotherspoonSmith (talk • contribs) 11:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, that's interesting. I'm not too familiar with the alternative method you used either; I'll have to play around a bit and see what results I can get using the other methods. From the votes so far it doesn't look like my proposal to move the page will gain a consensus anyway, so I think you're right that there's no need to muddy the waters at this point with these results. Thanks. Snocrates 23:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of Urim and Thummim (Latter Day Saints) and the Seer stone (Latter Day Saints)

What do you think of merging these two articles? Though seer stones was occaisionally used as a synonym for U&T, they were also different items that were used for similar activities later in J. Smith's life. It would seem that we could easily merge these two articles, but I wanted to get your opinion first. Any thoughts? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a merge could work; in fact, it's probably a good idea since the concepts seem to be quite interconnected and, as you say, sometimes there's confusion about whether we're talking about the U&T or another seer stone. Which way were you thinking of merging it? I would suggest keeping the name more general, as Seer stone (Latter Day Saints), and that could have a section on the U&T. You could put a notice at the header of Urim and Thummim to see the other topic for a discussion of the U&T in the LDS movement. I think that would work nicely and I certainly would not object to and would support a move in that direction. Snocrates 04:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Urim and Thummim article already has a section on the Latter Day Saint viewpoint and it currently links to both of the artciles mentioned above. My initial reaction was merging Seer stone into Urim and Thummim (Latter Day Saints) and though I still have a preference for it, I could see using seer stone. I suspect most Latter Day Saints would prefer Urim and Thummim given it is the vocabulary they use. Conversely, I suspect those outside the Latter Day Saint movement might prefer Seer stone given that it is how they prefer to describe LDS views in most of their literature about the movement. I tend to support allowing groups to define their own beliefs and use their own language in doing so. It rankles to allow detrators to frame the conversation about a topic. Do you think you could support merging Seer stone into U&T (LDS)? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. My thought was to use the more general term, since the U&T could be seen as a "type" of seerstone, but a merge could probably work either way. Those outside the Latter Day Saint movement are not necessarily "detractors", by the way. Probably whichever term is more commonly used overall should be the one used. Snocrates 02:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Metalogic

I am pretty sure depopulating the category, and removing it out from under mathematical logic was not what you had in mind when you voted to keep it. That is what certain people are planning, now that they cannot kill it. Just thought you should know what's going on. Thank you for supporting the category. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit troubling. Thanks. Snocrates 03:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hail there, category warrior!

See this discussion about what we're attempting to do here. Thanks for the help! BusterD (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it OK if I move some out of Category:Civil wars to the appropriate by-continent subcategory, or is the intent to leave them in both? Snocrates 22:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirill wanted the categories to read just so (per project guides), so I've been depopulating categories like African civil wars in favor of Category:Civil wars involving the states and peoples of Africa. The current subcategories under Category:Civil wars are the basic filing system. Each civil war gets three cat tags (cw by era, cw by continent, cw by type). BusterD (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hinckley's death

I'll be online for two hours. LDS pages are obviously getting tons of new traffic. It looks mostly benign, but if you see anything that needs to be locked down, let me know. I can probably act on it more quickly than WP:RFPP.

P.S.: I learned about it through one of your edits on my watchlist. Thanks for all your work. Cool Hand Luke 04:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll probably be logging off shortly, but I'll let you know. Snocrates 04:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Johnson Farm

Thanks for your assistance with John Johnson Farm! I didn't intend a POV... being a non-Mormon, in fact, I was only dimly aware of the differences in the LDS churches. What sources should I be looking at for a more balanced, NPOV view of the topic? -- JeffBillman (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Onsens

Hi Snocrates,

I've nominated Category:Onsens for a speedy move back to Category:Onsen, which is plural without the "s" according to Oxford English Dictionary. More information is avaiable at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Category:Onsens? and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Pluralization. The latter specifies pluralizing according to the major English dictionaries. "Onsen" does not appear in Merriam-Webster, whereas it does appear in OED, which gives the plural as "onsen" (not "onsens").

If you have any questions regarding anything related to Japan, Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan is ready to work with you. We're a very active community and welcome your participation.

Best regards,

Fg2 (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, OED provides two alternative plural forms. One is "unchanged"; the other is made by adding an "-s". Words in English are usually pluralized by adding an "s", so most users would intuitively recognise "onsens" as the plural of "onsen". Snocrates 06:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Departure

Dammit. Just as I was about to suggest nominating him for admin. Hurry back... Grutness...wha? 07:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck in your endeavors. You'll be missed here. --Kbdank71 18:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Return

[edit] Welcome back!

Hi Snocrates - welcome back! As you can see from the message I left while you were away, you might be interested in thinking about adminship (assuming, of course, that you're not likely to suddenly go offline again). You do a lot of work with category renaming/deletion for which I think you'd find admin tools useful. If you're interested I'd be more than willing to nominate you for adminship. Have a think about it and let me know. Grutness...wha? 23:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

PS - just curious - whereabouts on the planet these days was an internet link likely to be impossible? Grutness...wha? 23:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I did see your comment; thank you for your confidence in me. I think I would like that — to apply for adminship, that is. However, I haven't always been a very good Wikipedian. I edited for a long time as an anon, and even when I joined as a member finally I didn't really understand a lot of the social aspects of WP at first, and after I had been on WP about a month, I got into a stupid edit war and was suspended twice in two days after the other editor complained about me. I think I have improved now that I've studied the policies a bit and been a member for a bit longer, but I don't want you to nominate me if you think this would torpedo my chances of being successful.

I'm on Pitt Island, one the Chatham Islands, east of New Zealand. I was told there was no Internet service here, but apparently I was misinformed. Snocrates 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Didn't know about the edit-war business. Well, as I see it there's two possibilities: either wait a while longer, say another month or two to give you a bit more of a clean record, or go for it now, and be prepared for the possibility of not becoming an admin first time up. The latter would at least give you a chance to "test the waters" and see how the general feeling is about your early editing history. And you never know, if enough editors see that your editing has changed since then, there's a strong chance you could still get there first time up. Let me know which you'd prefer to do.

Pitt Island? Yeah, that would be about as remote as you could get these days. Do you work for DoC counting black robins or something? (yup, I'm another Kiwi, down in Dunedin :) Grutness...wha? 09:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I may as well go for it now. I don't mind discussing "my past" and the changes I've made in my application itself. If I don't make it this time, so be it. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, right? That is, if you're comfortable still nominating me. If you'd prefer for me to wait before you do so, I completely understand that too. I'm actually with the Univ of Otago doing work out here. I occasionally will be going back to Dunedin. I'm not Kiwi by birth, but I've been here for a few years now. Snocrates 20:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category: ZANU-PF Members

Thank you Snocrates for the help. Stuff not always as easy for us the old, my old mind can't keep up with these new things!! Samwise Gamgee 02:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's OK. I thought that was probably what you were trying to do! Snocrates 02:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Offended me?

Snocrates, I just read your message, posted on my talk page. We have had our disagreements in the past, but I can honestly say that never once during these disagreements did I feel offended because of them or your viewpoint. A healthy difference of opinion is always a good thing. Besides, even in the event that I was offended, I still would have intervened there, because my personal feelings toward a person have no bearing on whether or not I would jump to their aid. Wrong is wrong, and HLT was clearly wrong. Rest assured that there has NEVER been anything in your conduct which has offended me. Also rest assured that if HLT challenges both of us, I will be unwavering in my previously stated position. That's another of my trademarks: When my mind is made up, I stick to it. Sometimes a curse, but most of the time something I've admired in others and wanted to develop for myself. Keep up the good work, and through thick or thin, always post on my talk page if there's anything I can do for you or something you see me doing wrong. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, do you know why an editor put Walter F. González as the new apostle in List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Another editor has reverted it back, but I was wondering where that came from and if you knew. Snocrates 07:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Speculation. Nothing more than that. If a new apostle had been called, it would have been officially announced by President Monson through Church Public Affairs. As a subscriber to the LDS Daily News, I am kept up-to-date with all the current developments in the Church, and there has been nothing about a new apostle. Whoever put this in obviously hopes it's Elder Gonzalez, but for now, it's pure speculation. Btw, I got that proof I spoke of in relation to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Check it out on the Chronology talk page and post your opinion there, if you would. Also, I don't habitually check for responses to comments I've made on other users' talk pages, so if you could post a copy of whatever you reply to here on my talk page, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA...

Hi again - Your RfA will start once you formally accept it and answer the few questions listed. Go to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate#What to do if you are nominated by someone else and follow the instructions there - your RfA nomination is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Snocrates. Good luck! Grutness...wha? 23:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My back!

Thanks for watching my back on them categories. I'm busy creating pages for Zimbabwe....one of these days i will finesse my skills when it comes to ordering those articles/categories. I appreciate all the good work you are doing!!! Thank you! Samwise Gamgee 03:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh — it's you again! I didn't even realise you had made those edits. Honest, I'm not tracking you or anything — I sometimes monitor the creation of new categories. Snocrates 03:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADlohcierekim&diff=190858245&oldid=190844073 Thanks for your note.] No, don't try to argue with or debate the accuser. Ignore him for now. I put it to the accuser pretty plainly on your RfA. I think the editors who engaged him in discussion probably got through to him. You see opposes like that once and a while. Generally they are no more important than you let them be. The burden of proof is on him. He may just be someone who harbors a grudge from before. I think you've grown a lot and that you will do well with the tools. And I don't believe the sock puppetry thing. And you are certainly welcome to the advice. If I can be helpful, please let me know. Cheers and happy editing. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 08:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Proposal - Angel Moroni

Please weigh in on the merger proposal between Angel Moroni and Moroni (prophet). You are receiving this notice since you were identified as a recent editor on one of those pages. Thanks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Snocrates for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. barneca (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation?

Do you have any explanation for the results at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Snocrates? Jehochman ^Talk 17:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zoporific is my partner's account. I taught him how to use WP using my account, and he recently created his own. We share IP addresses because we lived together and currently work for the same employer. All our WP work has been independent of one another, though we have worked on similar topics. I wasn't aware that this kind of set-up was considered SP??

I've tried to edit the page listed above to respond to the allegation, but I see the IP is blocked, so I can only edit this page. I will contact User:Zoporific by phone and let him know what's going on. Snocrates 23:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Both of you got involved in editing the same article. Coming from the same IP address, we have a very hard time distinguishing this situation from sock puppetry. I am not going to place any sort of block on your account, and will try to figure out how to resolve this. The situation is unclear. Jehochman ^Talk 00:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for both accounts to be unblocked so we can discuss things and figure this out. Wikipedia needs to do something for roommate situations because it's coming up rather frequently. Jehochman ^Talk 00:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Snocrates 00:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

I have placed your RfA on hold given the effect of the above accusations. I think you need to decide whether you would like the RfA withdrawn, or whether you would like the opportunity to make a statement in response to the sock puppetry case and have the RfA continue based on that response. WjBscribe 19:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. well, I must say that I'm very disappointed in this turn of events. Disappointed if it's false, since your work at CfD would have been greatly enhanced if you had the admin tools, and false accusations do nothing to help the community - and doubly disappointed if it's true, for obvious reasons. Grutness...wha? 23:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The accusation is not true, unless there is a "one account per household" rule that I wasn't aware of (see above). Snocrates 23:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but you haven't answered my question. Would you like your RfA to continue? If so, I suggest you write a statement explaining the situation which you can append to your RfA. The community can then make up its mind on the matter. WjBscribe 00:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What I would have liked is for the opportunity to respond to the accusation before everyone assumed that the sockpuppetry accusation was true. Now, judging by the votes there, the application is destined to fail. I'm on a different schedule than most of the rest of the English speaking world, being at GMT+1300. I only saw the accusation first thing this morning. Snocrates 00:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration with the situation, but the position would only have gotten worse had I not put the matter on hold pending your explanation. The situation is not ideal I agree, but I can't change what has already happened just ask you how you want to proceed now. It seems to me you have the choice between trying to salvage the current discussion or withdrawing and starting a new RfA at some point in the future. WjBscribe 00:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think if you withdraw your RfA now without responding strongly during the process it will be very difficult for you in any future RfA. My advice would be to attempt to make the geographically separated edits I mentioned below, and then use that and a forceful statement if innocence on your RfA to reopen it for additional discussion. I switched to oppose based on the confirmed connection between the accounts and the seeming evidence of sockpuppet abuse, but if you do the above I will strike my oppose and others may as well. Avruch ^T 00:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not blaming you WJBscribe; just bad timing I guess. I think I would like to follow Avruch's advice here, though I'm doubtful it will have any effect on the outcome since editors probably won't come back and reconsider their votes. It is frustrating because now my reputation is no doubt shot b/c I tried to teach someone else how to use WP. Last time I do that!

On second thought, I think you can withdraw the application. It's going to be enough time/effort working out just the sockpuppeting issue without having to worry about this. I don't want to put other editors in the position of having to judge this situation and whether I'm telling the truth or lying in a bit of a strange situation. Maybe it's best to just work out the basics right now. Snocrates 01:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll close and archive it. I think that's a wise decision - focus on resolving one thing at a time. There's nothing to stop you having a fresh RfA when everything else is in order. WjBscribe 01:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redemption

I see that you are living on Pitt Island. You can contribute to Wikipedia in a special way that others cannot. Take many photographs of Pitt Island and download them. If you do, I will come to your defence as a valued Wikipedian in this aspect. I cannot guarantee that this will offset any bad behaviour but it will be a positive contribution.

Furthermore, since you recently moved to Pitt Island, you may be one of the few Wikipedians there. You can demonstrate that there is no further sockpuppetry from people editing from that remote island. Archtransit (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There are 2 others that I know of and my partner is moving here and he is on WP as well. Most people here only live here for part of the year. I've never uploaded any images to WP before but perhaps I could start. An article needs to be written about the island too. Snocrates 23:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If your partner has not moved to Pitt Island yet, then you should have him/her edit from your former IP address if possible. If the two are clearly unconnected (i.e. geographically separated, with edits close in time) then that will at least partially confirm your explanation. Avruch ^T 00:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, there is an article about Pitt Island, but it could do with expansion. And I agree, if you could get your partner to edit from a different place to you, it would certainly be strong evidence in support of what you say. I suspect that one of the other pitt Island Wikipedians is probably user:Rekohu, BTW. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll suggest that. Right now the common IP that is blocked is that of the Univ of Otago. Snocrates 00:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Can you possibly post the autoblock ID here and I'll see about getting that freed up - Alison ^❤ 02:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the ID is 786754. Thanks. Snocrates 02:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{rfa}}

I saw that you faced an allegation of sockpuppetry.

I am sorry to see people voting oppose based solely on the allegation, before you have had a chance to respond. That is not right.

I don't know very much about your editing history. I don't expect every administrator to fully comply with WP:CIV 100% of the time. I had been thinking about your {{rfa}}. I decided that a few instances of incivility, were insufficient reason to vote against someone's candidacy, when they committed themselves to trying their best to be civil.

The instance of incivility that Djsasso cited didn't seem very egregious. Your first comments seemed civil, your last comment in that thread didn't really seem that bad.

I admire you owning up to mistakes.

I admire you for committing to joining the category of administrators willing to consider review. Did you know that only ten percent of the existing administrators put themselves in that group?

If you can show whoever makes such rulings that you aren't a sockpuppet master I will vote to give you a chance.

Best wishes! Geo Swan (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your words. I do admit I've been uncivil in the past to others, but it seems to me maybe uncivil too for others to vote based entirely on an accusation without even waiting 24 hours to hear if there is another side of the story. I don't really blame them, though, because I completely understand now in retrospect why others could think I was sockpuppeting, it just never occurred to me at the time, I guess. Anyways, thanks for your kind words, and I hope you know I was being sincere in my apology to you and it wasn't just a "good answer" to the questions you posed. Snocrates 01:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't have occurred to me either. I saw a dispute over a {{copyvio}} concern. The individual who was defending the disputed text acknowledged that the original came from XYZ artist's cooperative, that he or she was a member of the cooperative, and that the cooperative had authorized them to cut and paste that text up onto the wikipedia. I think everything was heading towards a happy resolution -- except that they added that the Wiki-id they were using was one shared by all the members of the collective. Uh-oh. The article was deleted. And account was permanently blocked.

I didn't remember reading that accounts can't be shared. I don't have a problem with a room-mate mentoring their room-mate, on their wiki-id, until the room-mate gets interested enough to make their own wiki-id. That is all we are talking about here, right? If a few hours of mentoring is all we are talking about, or longer even, with no intent to deceive, I don't care if you were in technical breach of this rule.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Geo, accounts can't be shared. The policy is really clear about this in part because of accountability and in part because of attribution of edits. I don't have a problem with partners/roommates/etc editing either, but I think people need to predeclare on their userpages like, for example, User:Lar identifies on his userpage that his wife edits. If people predeclare and if they use commonsense in editing...say not voting in the same XfDs/RfAs, not joining their partner in edit warring on the same articles, etc, most of the problems with roommate editing would be reduced. I know anything about the case you mention, but there's a couple of problems that I can imagine, one is whether the orgnisation understands that they're releasing their content under the GFDL and what that means - that it can be reused by anyone, even commercially, etc. I have seen similar cases on OTRS and often it turns out that the copyright holder of the text didn't understand Wikipedia and our licensing or what they were being asked to do. Snocrates, would you and your partner be willing to identify yourselves to administrator you trust? If you both joined an admin you trust for a chat on Skype, this could probably be resolved very quickly. Of course, I would understand if you didn't feel comfortable with that but it's just an obvious quick resolution that came to mind when reviewing this situation and thought it worth suggesting. Cheers, Sarah 01:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Can your partner get his own account? Does he have one? Bearian (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My partner's account is User:Zoporific. He watched me edit on WP sometimes; when I moved, he registered his own account. Snocrates 02:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

For the purposes of Wikipedia, you and your roommate User:Zoporific can be considered a single user, per the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Snocrates. Please be careful not to participate in the same discussions, WP:RFAs, WP:AFDs, and so on, without disclosing the connection or else you may be subject to remedies for violating WP:SOCK. If you both join together in editing an article, you may be treated as a single account for the purposes of WP:3RR and other policies and guidelines. Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, judging by the latest turn of events, I find this "warning" a bit redundant. I think it's completely clear what "can be considered" under the circumstances. We already have been considered a single user. Thanks anyways, though. Snocrates 03:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion discussion for Category:Prima donnas

Hi, you recently participated in the re-naming discussion to change Category:Divas to Category:Prima donnas. [1] Category:Prima donnas has now been proposed for deletion. You might want to comment on the new discussion page [2]. Best wishes,Voceditenore (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Mormon schools

Category:Mormon schools, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Temple Lot

I see you've worked a lot on Temple Lot. It looks really good and I was impressed with the level of detail; I wanted you to give you a heads up that there have been some kind of weird edits happening on it by User:Jeh akuse. I've already reverted a few, and I thought you might want to be aware. You probably already noticed, but he also vandalised this page, which I simply reverted for you. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)