This is an archive of past discussions with User:Consumed Crustacean. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The vandalism of your page was a one of. At school user Swinger222 told me to vandalise your page for a bet. So I did it. I am very sorry. DavidJJJ 12:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
If you take a look at my contributions, you will see that I do contribute to the encyclopedia in a good way. DavidJJJ12:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
editing the signatures of comments at Talk:Religious Ecstasy
Sorry for having to fix signatures for my comments - the comments were not from other users, they were all mine. Of course I would not sign comments of other people with my name! The username "HeIe 7" (with uppercase i as third letter) I registered also on my name because of warnings about possible abuse of the "uppercase i=lowercase L" problem, but I will avoid using this username in future. And the IP was mine, too. I fixed this because I think it is good to have all my comments under one username. Hele 723:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You aren't supposed to sign things that could potentially be from other users, though. I'm going to add a small notice beside the contributions nothing that they were made under another username / IP. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 23:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "things that could potentially be from other users"? Anything I write could in principle be written by someone else. Btw, everybody can see the history. You can apply for IP check, if you do not believe that these are my comments. Hele 700:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Now you have labelled my comments as having been unsigned, although they never were, as everybody can see from the history. Could you fix this? And maybe you as a more experenced wiki user could extract some useful points from the discussion into this article and article about Ecstasy (emotion) which so sadly looks like a stub. Given the recent events, I'll stay on talk pages for a while. Hele 701:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Write something on the IP's userpage, and the other user's user page, proving that you're those users. Write them as those users, not as Hele 7. That should be fine acknowledgement. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I did this under HeIe 7. At the moment I am unlogged and the system will show you the IP, is this the sufficient proof about the IP or should I try to create an user page for the IP? Actually it were fine if some admin could delete this IP from wiki system at all. I do not need third username and I will even not bother to remember this number, as the IP is a dynamical one and may be different next time. 80.235.68.7510:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Hele, pre-emptively creating an account like that is standard practice, but it's also standard to not use those accounts once created. I've tagged User:HeIe 7 with {{doppleganger}}. If you forget to login often the least confusing thing to do is to just remove the comment and put it back while logged into your named account. —Quarl(talk)2006-08-13 10:00Z
I'm also no too sure about the religious ecstasy article. I might look at it later, but I have another couple of articles to clean up and really I'm trying to cut down my Wikipedia usage ;) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
You don't have 100% edit summary usage -- some RFA participants will object over this; you could promise to enable the Wikipedia preference for enforcing edit summaries. I recommend you look over some past RFAs to get a sense of how the community expects you to behave; for example, try not to take offense if people oppose you (there is one specific editor who opposes almost every nominee).
Whenever you're ready to accept, (1) indicate acceptance of the nomination that page, (2) answer the questions (I recommend a paragraph per question), (3) edit the closing time to be 7 days from your acceptance, and (4) edit WP:RFA to transclude your nomination with {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Consumed Crustacean}}.
RFA can be tough; if you have any questions let me know. Good luck :) —Quarl(talk)2006-08-13 10:55Z
Thanks to both of you. It's on. I won't take it particularily hard if people oppose me, or if I lose; I'll just use it for self-improvement. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 23:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
You may want to take a look at the concern raised in the first neutral vote. Many users consider it important that admins have emails (so they can get notes and requests from blocked users and other issues). JoshuaZ01:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I supported your RfA, it looks like it's going well. Though you may want to take down your anti-scientology note untill after the voting's over. I don't expect a potential admin not to have strong opinions - but a lot of other people do... You can always replace it in a week. Ifnord15:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have removed it, though it's already been pointed out by a couple of editors. Oh well. I have not once POV-pushed and I'm not about to start. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey
Excuse me but can you just give an editor a moment to establish a page before you start redirecting and adding templates. Thanks you.--Zleitzen00:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is a list of artists. A list of artists belongs in an article called "List of artists". Is this particularily wrong? If you meant to have the list of artists inside the main Cuban Art article, this isn't recommended; you should have them seperate and linked with a See also. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It's an article I've just created with an aim for largescale expansion with other editors. The names are guides. "you should have them seperate and linked with a See also". Well you gave me three minutes.--Zleitzen00:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I know, but I did the whole moving for you in order to help the first article down the "Right path". Now you have this perfectly valid list to link to from the main Cuban art article; it can still act to encourage expansion. The Wikipedia is collaborative for a reason here. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Pardon, I know it's not my discussion, but may I suggest that this may be or have been a good use of the {{inuse}} template? Just a thought. BigNate37(T)03:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I'll be a slower in reacting next time, but I did so this time only because of my dislike of the overuse of lists (and possibly because I'm an impatient nit). I like the new article now though :) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The reference was is in the second link. It was said in a podcast. This is in no way spam. I simply feel he should get credit for being the first to come up with the term. Its not easy to lay claim to things like this these days. This seemed like the best way to go about it.
But you don't have any outside reference that says that they came up with it first. That's what necessary for inclusion. It doesn't belong in the opening anyways, it's more of a "Trivia" section thing. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
What specifically? If you were talking about 140.203.12.4 (who seems to have been repeatedly adding copyrighted material), then it appears that it's stopped and nothing else can be done at this time. If it's the general neutrality issues in the article, I'm not sure that I can be of great assistance. I have extremely little experience with the conflict or the region. I'll read it over, but I don't know how well I can help. Sorry. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, completely astray from this topic, the preference to warn about blank summaries doesn't seem to affect talk pages, or at least usertalk pages. That, or I'm just crazy and am actually clicking Save page twice. Summaries in discussion areas is generally where I've failed to do it in the past; I tend to nail them in actual articles. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The link on you user page "Sites critical of Scientology" goes the the Scientology article, which (I hope) is written from a neutral point of view. The "Sites critical of..." is an implied polemic, so it would serve you better not to use that form anyway. Why not just "Scientology-related links" to show neutrality? Tyrenius20:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
It goes directly to the "Critical sites" portion of the external links of the article. Whatever, it's obviously a sticky point and has been removed. I don't intend to offend or bother anyone. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like you'll make it despite my efforts. Congratulations. I hope you take the opposers' advice to heart and, now that you're WP's official representative, stay away completely from messages insensitive to other religious groups, even if those groups are widely held in contempt, do kill babies, etc. etc. There are parts of the world where it's entirely socially appropriate to shout from the rooftops that Jews kill babies - today! Please be mindful. - CrazyRussiantalk/email00:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I am indeed going to use the opposers' advice as best I can, and I will remain civil towards Scientologists. There are plenty of forums and whatnot that I can use as a soapbox, no need to do so here. I appreciate that you did indeed give me some useful criticism rather than just plain voting :) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations
Well Crzrussian might get the premature congratulations, but I get the official one. :) Have fun using the new tools to help the project out. Be conservative with them, especially at first, and re-read the policies before taking action. After getting the hang of it, dig in and help out with the backlogs. Again, congrats - TaxmanTalk01:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations form here too. I have been watching your progress with interest. Good luck and use the tools wisely. ViridaeTalk02:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Congrats :). Let me know if you have any questions about being an admin. —Quarl(talk)2006-08-21 06:29Z
Congratulations, Consumed! I'm glad to see the various socks and so forth didn't stop you from getting the mop. Still, I'd echo CrazyRussian's comment above. We all have our faults. No reason we can't work on them. Congrats.--KchaseT02:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
The time of my RfA is a bit of an inconvenient one for a partial wiki-break, but I have a few things going on in real life. Job interviews, readying myself for the start of school next month (first year of University and all), etc. I'll catch back up in no time though. And thank you to everyone for your congratulations, your helpful feedback in my RfA, and everything else :). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
And, if anyone's watching, I did somewhat bork up the deletion summaries on that large batch of images. The category of the images superceding is on the Commons, not the Wikipedia. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
i prodded this because I wasn't sure what it was all about (no talk page discussion on the main page or anything). Could you describe what the page is all about? Hbdragon8800:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you removed a large portion of the handheld consoles from the list, but it appears that you left in the sections for the Nintendo DS and the Sony PSP. I didn't want to remove them (still not entirely comfortable with table editing on Wiki), but thought I'd drop a line to see whether it was just an oversight. Cheers! Ex-Nintendo Employee11:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I removed the seperate handheld section to move it over to the other page (which, as you've likely noticed, still hasn't progressed all that quickly). The DS and PSP are still in the controller lists right now though, because from what's been said by the companies they do have the capability of acting as actual controllers for the Wii/PS3.
However, they were previously referring to the controls built into the units, which was where some confusion came from. I changed some of the wording, including the Platform, Wireless and Concurrent controllers cells to reflect their use as Wii/PS3 controllers. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Congrats on being granted sysop status, my apologies if my comments appeared to be harsh. I wish you the best and hope you become one of our best admins. Have a great day. Yanksox05:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
ReyBrujo 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. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
"I would like help uploading the trackmap application as shown at User:Jdorje/Tracks. Where do you input the commands
"Download the program by running the following command:
What operating system do you have? The instructions are Linux-centric, and it might work on a BSD as well. You need the packages that are listed as well. If you're using Windows, it might work with Cygwin. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Hi hi. Cygwin doesn't completely change the interface, it just runs in a window. Actually, I usually run it as a command line thing, not as a windowing system like the screenshot shows. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Now, when you set it up, I'm fairly certain you have the ability to choose which packages it downloads. You'll want to ensure that you grab all of the ones that the trackmap page recommends, including cairo and svn and etc. It's fairly important, as trackmap won't really run otherwise ;) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I’d like to give you a belated thank you for all your efforts on every article – your edits have certainly helped maintain and improve the quality of many of the articles here. I profusely apologize for my edit on the other article, since I attempted to revert another user’s edits but due to my slow reactions and connection (^_^) , our edits seem to have coincided. Please accept my sincere apologies for any misunderstandings my careless efforts may have caused. Ganryuu (talk)07:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Nah, to be honest I don't know if my own last edit wasn't careless. As I said, I should be sleeping. I should have been sleeping an hour or two ago. Right, off I go then. Thanks for the kind words. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Blanking warnings prevents (well, somewhat) administrators from reacting when you violate said warning. Since you've acknowledged that you've read it though, whatever. Leave them off. I think I missed some change of some unofficial policy of some sort, I don't know, so ignore me for now. Right. It's still somewhat uncivil to erase templates without any response. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Aye. He is currently on a 24 hour 3RR block. The standard block in the arbcom page seems to be around 24 hours for the first violation, 1 week for the next. I'm going to warn him in his talk page, and lengthen his current block to a 48-hour'er. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Note: You said that he continued with disruptive editing at his talk page - which he didn't; he simply violated the ban (with one instance of a mere content dispute). Just a reminder so that you don't get into trouble later. Cheers, mate! --PaxEquilibrium10:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, his edits to those pages still look to be somewhat politically motivated, like his previous ones. Even if he's not outright creating dumb point-proving articles as before, he may still be mildly distruptive. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
User:216.20.29.12
Would you have any objection to my giving User:216.20.29.12 a long block (yours is about to expire). It appears to be a vandalism-only static IP. He came off of my week-long block, vandalized immediately, and you blocked him for only 48 hours. - Jmabel | Talk01:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
You've blocked me for no reason, the change I've made amounted to no more than restoring a broken paragraph (as a result of previous vandalism). Someone removed the albanian name from the article (on a province 90% inhabited by albanians) and I just added it back. No disruptive editing was involved. Tonycdp09:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Albania is not related to Kosovo. And I did only edit Kosovo once to fix the broken paragraph, and it didn't amount to vandalism nor a contribution. Tonycdp16:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Albania is politically related to Kosovo, and Priština is definately related, being Kosovo's capital. You were blocked for 3RR to Shkodër, the Albanian city, which is clearly distruptive. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I was protecting Shkodër from POV. And as you can see from the talk pages I suggested that the person put the [citation needed] tag until someone comes along and substantiates it. S/he could've been blocked for breaking the 3RR just as easily, but as it often happens they don't.
Albania may be related to Kosovo in a wider context (but so are other countries in the region), but the content I was protecting had nothing to do with Kosovo, it was purely an Albanian issue. The arbitration never specifically mentioned that Albania related articles were put under watch.
You have mis-interpreted the temporary injunction.
You banned me from editing Kosovo articles because I was "abusing" Wikipedia to prove a point. I admit my mistake, yes I did try and make a point because the Article on Northern Kosovo was absolutely ridiculous. But I never intended to break any rules nor undermine Wikipedia.
If you read a bit more on why the Northern Kosovo article was created in the first place, you will find that it was created to MAKE A POINT. The user claimed that: if Kosovo is to be recognised as an entity then Northern Kosovo should be recognised too. You should have banned that user too because he was abusing the Wikipedia to make a point.
But you never really bothered to look into it, and perhaps next time you should, rather than judge situations so quickly and wield your magic stick at editors.
You were still revert warring on Shkodër. It was a content dispute, and was not as clear-cut as you're making it out to be. There was no outright vandalism occuring, which is the only normal exception for the 3RR. As for the other user, if they weren't blocked you probably should have reported them as well. There is a page for that, or you could have put a request on your user talk after you were blocked.
You were also uncivil on the Kosovo talk page before the article creation, which was part of the reason for the ban itself (which I mentioned somewhere, don't know where exactly). I'll call the ban off if you can agree to chill, but if you do continue being distruptive again the next administrator will likely not think twice about giving the full 1 week block.
North Kosovo is out of juristiction of the Pristina government ever since the occupation/protectorate of 1999. It maintains its own Government, President, Assembly; governmental institutions and recognizes the legitimacy of Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium22:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans.
Hello Sir,
I dont know about which issue ur talking about.Can u plz specify the same and I will give justification for my allegations.Thanks.
Mahawiki06:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Well I have posted my response below.I didnt see admin's noticeboard before I posted above message.If u are asking explaination of [7] what's wrong in it?I am telling him that since i am myself a Maharashtrian why would I vandalise Solapur article.And about [8] I have retained the discussions removed by KNM.I hope u will go thru my response (below)as well!
Dear Sir,I read ur message on Admin-notice board.here are the proofs of Sarvagnya's misbehaviour.
---
Hello,
First things first.When i joined wikipedia I was not aware of wiki policies and hence I was 'bold' and 'emotiona' when dealing with my edits.It is only after Aksi_great and Sunder adviced to me as being 'citation-savvy'.I agree that I was rude and incivil at times but frankly of admins would take care of NPOV and interfere into the feuds early i would not need to resort to incivil behaviour.I am pleading admins to watch belgaum_border_dispute but in vain.My biggest concern is kannada POV pushing there.[PLEASE SEE THIS BLATANT POV PUSHING of sarvagnya].If any admin promises to take care of this anti-Maharashtra stand I think I will not bother anyone.In fact if anyone wants I would delete my a/c here.I am concerned about misinterpretation of Maharashtra's stand on Belgaon issue which is very emotional issue for all Maharashtrians.
I have also stopped taking all this things personally and would request sarvagnya the same.They are busy on Kill-Mahawiki mission.
Sarvagnya's not just anti-Marathi;he seems to be anti-Hindi also!He has been engaged in mindless speculation about Hindi's status on the pages of jana_gana_mana, vande_mataram and recent sare_jahan_se_achcha.His tone is rather rude and insulting.See this and this(...Whether hindi is the opeesial language of India or Timbuktu or Somalia is irrelevant ...Hindi has no business squatting on this article...)
"Meat puppetry". Calling folks from a forum to defend an article is somewhat... annoying. Woot there is the understatement of the year. Whispering18:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
TV Newser is part of the CFIF/Splash cabal that sees socks everywhere. They think I am a sock and will claim that me defending Tecmobowl is more evidence that I am a sock and he is a sock. I am not a sock, he is not a sock and he as only made good edits and really understands the concept of wiki. TV Newser, CFIF, and Splash should all be banned forever! Belly Flop Patrol09:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Swiftfox
Gentoo - true, any distribution will do, I was just going out of my way to provide alternatives. "just compiling yourself" is better. You don't fancy adding that in, as I do want to keep alternatives. There is also an RfC that you might be interested in - see Talk:Swiftfox. Widefox02:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Forgot some of the code was in User:WCityMike/monobook.css, too. Might you do a quick restore there as well? My thanks in advance. — Mike20:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Howdy, I have been following events at Armenia for quite a while now, since I had to block Calgvla(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log), now known as Caligvla(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log), for 3RR a couple weeks ago. The debates there are very testy and very hotly argued. Editors who are in the majority opinion have largely controlled the Talk page, including liberally removing comments they perceive as trolling. There was a consensus to archive the RFC when it closed, but I don't think that extended to the entire Talk page. Parts of discussion being archived were very recent - Nixer was trying to reply to something only a day old. I think he has the right to debate his position, no matter how unpopular, and clearly archiving that particular discussion was going to remove it from the public eye. I guess what I'm saying is that I think he had legitimate reasons for breaking 3RR in this case, and the other users should not have continued to archive the entire Talk page if parts of it were active. I'm not going to take action since you are the admin who reviewed the block, but I encourage you to reconsider. --Aguerriero (talk)22:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I still think he was being intentionally disruptive. Another admin might see it differently, but there was no reason for Nixer to repeatedly (past 3RR and warnings) revert the entire talk page. If he was just doing that one section, I might think differently of it. And again, there is a reason that the 3RR exists: to stop silly revert wars like this; it doesn't necessarily matter what side of the war is right. There were other avenues he could pursue, and you would think he would after the multitude of 3RR blocks he has recieved. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
"Hose" nonsense account
I have a feeling that this is a previously blocked troll who loves twisting policy. He's doing a weird mix of good edits and pure nonsense. Some wikibreak I'm taking. :) - Lucky 6.907:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, User:Mahawiki and User:Arya Rajya Maharashtra are making personal attacks on me here without any reason. Mahawiki calls me sockpuppet and says whatever I edit are meaningless. I warned him of reporting to an admin. Then Arya comes and calls me sockpuppet. They have filed a sockpuppetry case against me and some other editors very long back which had no outcome so far. I have complained to User:Utcursch too, and this is to let you know. Thanks.Gnanapiti05:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Your message to Mahawiki
Thanks for ur message. But i hope u will be neutral as well and take note of this.It was Sarvagnya who started trashing comments and warnings but when I do the same i am being warned! Morever their's a confusion over removal of warnings,few admins term as incivility and few like u dont think so. Plz advice on the same.
I am sorry if i sound like POV pusher. To explain what I meant to say is =I edited belgaum_border_dispute and added about Mahamelava and yuvamelava which was attended by about 40,000-50,000 members. In response to that Gnanipati added a minor incident of flag hoisting which IMO is not significant unlike karnataka assembly session or karnataka bundh. Thats why i pleaded a neutral intervention so that s/he can judge about it.Thanks. Mahawiki10:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Just few minutes back you had advised User:Mahawiki regarding the usage of terms such as "Kannada-POV pushers"; but he reiterates the same thing again.
Please refer to his edit which was made after your warning, and he continues to call names as "Kannada POV pushing", "sock-puppets" etc. This is extremely uncivil and against good faith on other editors. These kind of personal attacks and incivil edits are always disruptive in a community effort like building an encyclopedia. Thank you. - KNMTalk10:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You are being partial
With due respect to u,I think u r knowingly or unknowingly being partial when delaing with Marathi-kannada fight here.U had warned me twice asked for explaination when sarvagnya complained about me,but when i gave explaination u didnt do anything.U seem to act instantly when kannada users complain.Please be neutral and address our concerns. It is almost evident that a user has created many sockpuppets to push his pov everywthere esp. Belgaum_border_dispute.Mahawiki06:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I only spend so much time on the Wikipedia, and can't view everything at once. I've seen you being uncivil, and others have pointed to extra examples of incivility. If you want to point to specific examples of what the other people are doing, it would help. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Barraux
I have an e-mail from L'atlier des dauphins to show that Barraux is in line with the GDFL. Is this enough??? Should I do something else to stop this happening again??? Chris5897 (T@£k) 14:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, shouldn't be too hard. Be certain that the copyright owner knows that they're releasing the information under the GFDL, and not just "to use on Wikipedia". If you are, use the address/instructions here to email the OTRS permission folks (it's the same for images and text, it just references images specifically for some reason). Make a note that you've done this on the talk page. I'll also send a confirmation e-mail to the L'atlier people, and if they say it's all right I'll take the copyvio tag off, as the OTRS folks may not respond for up to a month. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyways, now that I'm back: the way to avoid the trouble should be easy:
Get permission
Establish article
Note in the talk page where the information is from, and paste a copy of the permission email (without email address, name, or other personally identifying parts)
Since some of these are 2-dimensional images from the 16th & 17th centuries, how would they be G12 copyright violations? -- nae'blis23:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Sweat of the brow? Some of them probably shouldn't have that tag. But,they shouldn't have speedy tags on them anyways. See the above section. I'll fix that. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
And please refrain from littering my talk page with templates. If you can't be bothered to formulate your own sentences, just go ahead and delete questionable articles unilaterally. -- Chris17:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually, I think that may be my first one. I'm not personally that big on displaying the things I recieve, but I appreciate it regardless :) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank Yanksox. I wasn't awake at the time that his second block wore off, so I couldn't do much about it. I wasn't very awake at the time I was actively arguing with him either :P -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Ironically, the only thing his sockpuppetry accusations accomplished was to call the attention of everyone watching the affected users' pages to the AfD discussion, resulting in an avalanche of delete votes. It otherwise would have attracted very little notice. TCC(talk)(contribs)23:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep,if he hadn't melted down like that his article probably would have been around a few days more while the process ran through it's 5 days unremarkably. More fool him. Robovski00:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I am just wondering what your feeling is now regarding our feud.
I am ready to do whatever it takes to put this unpleasant episode behind us.
I am guessing that you would not be terribly interested in mournful apologies or sober commitments to better behaviour -- though I will grovel if that would help.
Also, I'm sure that we can agree that my main account should not be unblocked by anyone other than you. Otherwise, it would be a perpetual source of worry for me, and I would likely keep my head too low to be any good to the Wikipedia project.
So -- is there anything I can do to make amends, aside from waiting another week and asking again, or building up a decent edit history with another account? If I get no answer I will assume that I should put in a good fifty or hundred constructive edits before coming to you again.
Thanks for reading -- you-know-who. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blockle (talk • contribs) .
NPOV Talk?
You sent me a message about NPOV, but I can't seem to find anywhere where I put my POV. Can you please point it out? Bgold402:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Sigh, always a fine line between feeding trolls and assuming good faith -- I figure if I err on the AGF, the worst that will happen is that I'll look a bit foolish. And I try to err that way when it comes to cultural difference complaints, even likely spurious ones. Occasionally, a really stunningly rational answer to a troll can bedevil them, and I'm not easily pissed off, so there's no danger of a big fight ensuing. But I agree with your decision, it was probably BS. I also think he should be username blocked...Though I don't envy the admin with that task. Cheers Dina21:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually you guys, I think that editor was 'User:Isitcozimblack', who was indeffed for his username, which (despite some dubious edits) I found surprising. The person MAY be a troll, but if s/he is legitimately protesting what IMO IS a dubious username block, it's maybe not the best thing to remove it. Anchoress22:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Ouch. I am inclined to agree with Anchoress. The previous block was questionable and this user could just be trying to make a point of some kind. However, the user in question just got username blocked. Suggestions? Dina22:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
No idea. Considering the name they chose (err, both times), it seems like she/he is looking for some sort of response (i.e. trolling). No rational person would choose a name like "I am black and I like fried chicken and watermelon" unless they expect someone to be pissed off or otherwise react to it. Maybe I'm just internet weary, I don't know. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I always worry about active conversations being lost in a move-archiving... but that page has been quiet recently. ---J.S (t|c) 20:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't know what you're talking about. Those characters are not officially confirmed, and removing the character information on the others is non-helpful. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I Just Revert back the the full list of confirmed characters and why
I always find it interesting how these people manage to violate the spirit of every rule in the book, then come back and blame you for any minor infractions. He calls you a mentally unstable child molester, but when you use the t-word, then you're the one who's out of line. In other words, act like a total jerk, goad the other person into making a tiny mistake (breaking the letter of the law, if not the spirit), then play the "I'm only doing my duty in opposing you." I imagine it's not the first time you've seen this one either.-Patstuart(talk)(contribs)16:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, he/she only showed up during the ZDaemon AfD, with the first comment toward me being that whole bit about emotional corruption. I probably replied a little too often and so encouraged him/her, but I've stopped that. Not the first time I've come across a user like this though. That he's suddenly come back after five days shows some persistence, and based on his contributions it looks like a relatively static IP address (ZDaemon edits go back to Nov. 7), and he's apparently edited under User:Tcdoom who acted in a similar manner [10][11]. Bler. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like he's stopped. The standard procedure is to go through the appropriate test templates, up to the final warning / test4 template (remember to add subst: before each). If it's blatantly obvious that they're trying to harm the Wikipedia, you can short-circuit to {{subst:bv}}, or in extreme cases {{subst:test4im}}. Either can be immediately followed by a block on the next act, though bv can also be followed with a test4. After you issue a final warning template, on their next act of vandalism report them to WP:AIV, which is watched by several admins. Page-move vandals and people with inappropriate usernames can be reported immediately.
You have to be sure not to be too biting when you do this type of thing though. Start at test1 for general silliness and newbie tests unless it really deserves the others. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:)
Aww, thats so nice of you, thank you :) Now I can use the same principle for the other similar templates I'm planning to make for the rest of the country :)) Thanks again :))) --GOD OF JUSTICE03:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
There is still problem with that template. I solved the image problem by replacing old image with new one that I can see, but the size of the template is still problem. Here is a screenshot how this map look in the Mala Bosna article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sub301.png In another words, template is too large: it cover 2/3 of the page, while text cover only 1/3 and text with only 2 or 3 words in one line is very hard for reading. I tried to solve problem by moving map down, like you can see in Bikovo article, but then we have new problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sub302.png Map simply drag text from subsequent section down and make an empty space. So, what can be done that we do not have these problems with this template? PANONIAN(talk)17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
He finally figured out how to renew his IP, or is waiting for the ISP to do it for him (though I'm on the same, and mine has remained static for months). Sigh. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Odd, that. However, I'll bet it's just based on his recent Ref Desk chatting, including the oddness on the Ref Desk talk page. I seriously doubt that any of the others are Theavatar3/cjwright, since his editing style is relatively distinct. I'm also fairly sure that I've seen the others edit while he was blocked. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I remember seeing another editor who frequently makes nonsensical edits to his own user page, which reminds me of Theavatar3, but I'm not sure I rememeber who it was. You're probably right. I'll take off my tinfoil hat now :) Friday(talk)00:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The previous version looked better. Good job Consumed Crustacean. I thought that previous version was rude. thnx for changing back to foundedby original question :) --Judged11:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I just issued a 38 hour block and a final warning, as I do think he deserved some explanation as to why what he is doing is inappropriate (WP:AGF and all that). If he continues after the block, I support whatever action is deemed necessary, up to and including an indefinite block. This type of editing is highly disruptive, should be stopped, etc. I think it's clear cut in this case. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Thx - I'll do my best to ignore his provocations - I think J. Smith will try to mentor him some - and if he starts making useful edits - that would be great. --Trödel17:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I have received what sounds like a reasoned unblock request from a sockpuppet of the user this seems to concern, here. However, I know nothing of their background. Would you like to comment? Sandstein22:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. See this and the above sections on my talk page for a couple of his other socks, [12] for a somewhat older list of them (confirmed by CheckUser), Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive154#CJWright._Again. for the last AN/I discussion. I've had him on AN/I two or three times now, each time consensus was reached to block him indefinitely and keep him blocked. He repeatedly pleads to be unlocked, claiming that he'll reform, but he still continues trolling as before. If you want to consider unblocking him, please bring it to AN/I for another discussion. I'm out of patience myself, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism Report
the yeast specise Saccharomyces cerevisiae needs editing but i cant find the proper revert it has a pornographic picture covering half the page {{unsigned|Mike Winters}]
hi, nobody, anywhere, ever, calls this series "The Days Series" which is a ludicrous and meaningless title (and original research). the series does not have an "official" name, so, by default, the first game (and the best known one, with highest google count) should be the title i.e. 5 Days A Stranger, or alternatively 5 Days A Stranger series. Nespresso21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
adding permission notes as user modifiers of copyright tags
thank you for the copyright comments on my digital photo and scan images
I have modified the copyright note - and realize anything could happen to the images in the world of neutral-evil aligned Wikipedia users who are obssessed with factual articles and publishing quality graphics - and at the same time don't know the difference between art, anarchy, and Freeedom!. Copyright tagging and image work still in progress.--John Zdralek21:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I actually meant that anyone, Wikipedian or not, is allowed to take the images and do several things with them, including using them in commercial works, if you put it under a free license. This despite any requests you make to the contrary. That's the nature of a free license. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Your blocks are like a breath of fresh air. I am unblockable. I an a master puppet. I will release a virus into Wikipedia to bring the whole thing down tomorrow morning. I have vandalized over 5,000 articles and shows no signs of stopping ever. Again, you can never ever block me -- EVER!!! Honey Bees Fly03:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I just vandalized 10 more random articles. I have DSL. I can fly at the speed of light. You can NEVER catch me. Wiki is all about vandalism! Honey Bees Attack03:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I just finshed vandalizing other administrator pages. I will never be blocked!!! Now I will go vandalize the bee article and any article starting with the letter B.
I am a woman of my word. I vandalized the bee article. My vandalism is hard to spot. Subtle and yet extremely effective. There is a lot more to come. Money Bree04:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. For an outcome to be achieved, we require you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ]11:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC), checkuser clerk.
Look Ma... I can fly. I decided to unblock myself. I have a more powerful software than you ever will.
I have opened thousands of puppets including today non-stop. I continue to vandalize Wiki. I am the #1 sock on Wiki.
I have opened puppets and stacked up the votes for deletion on many categories for the last few months on various categories for the fun of it. I frame inoccent new editors when they have a content dispute by creating socks and reverting to their edits. I have gotten innocent editors blocked for nothing. I pretend to be them. I will continue vandalism. AGAIN, I AM UNBLOCKABLE AND UNSTOPPABLE. Hahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tree Funner 2 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC).
(copied from reply in my own talk page) Hmmm... I ASSUMED that the addition of the speedy deletion tag was incorrect because all the other text in the article were deleted. I didn't notice it was harassment. Thanks for pointing that out to me (the article has been deleted now). Insanephantom09:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for deleting my user talk archive page as can be seen here. I recreated it at User talk:Meno25/Archive 1 after removing my personal information. You can check the history of my talk page to be sure that I didn't delete anything. Cheers.
It hasn't really been recreated very often. Various Wikipedia namespace pages on vandals have been deleted in order to deny them attention, and I'm not salting it on that principle. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
(CCing to the bot's talk page)
Hi Consumed Crustacean, regarding your report on User talk:HBC AIV helperbot, the bot gave such a long edit summary because your use of decimals has screwed up the blocking mechanism. It's a weird bug, perhaps something we need to report? I'm going to repair the block, but at the time of this message, the IPblocklist gave the following account of your block:
17:41, 8 January 2007, Consumed Crustacean (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 68.254.181.254 (contribs) (expires 02:37, 24 February 2020, anon. only) (Unblock) (Repeat school based IP-vandal, with much activity recently. Anon-only block.)
