This is an archive of past discussions with User:Excirial. 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 link is not a reference. It's to a website that sells products. Your editing history shows that your edits frequently oppose core principals on this encyclopedia. So in that light, yes, an only warning is justified. Dawnseeker2000 15:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
If i may interrupt you here - the link was added in the {{cite web}} referencing format, and the URL pointed to a book that seems relevant for the article. It is very likely that the user wanted to use this book as a reference instead of spamming that link, as it was added somewhere in the middle of the article after an unsourced claim. {{Cite book}} may have been a better option, but i do not think that this edit was meant to be vandalism, let alone a reason for a level 4 warning at once.
Besides, IP's are often dynamic, which means that the same IP may have different users at any one time. Just look at his edit history - his edits are incredibly diverse and likely signal different users at different times. Previous blocks on IP users are rarely a reason to block them again unless they are known to be static (schools et cetera), or if man sees a lot of vandalism / indications that the IP is constantly the same user. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)16:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I am quite aware of the users past history, but even if it is a static IP it doesn't change the fact that this edit isn't clear vandalism which is required to warn a user, let alone warn him for 4IM. There are now 4 sysops (including myself) on the WP:AIAV page stating that this warning was to much. I'm not going to give you a lecture or anything on this, but please - only revert edits if they are clearly bad, and only warn users if they are malicious or disruptive. And don't use 4 at once or 4IM unless it is clearly and utterly a case that warrants it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)16:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
A static IP doesnt mean the user is the same. A library, school, workplace, etc can have static IPs that end up having many different users. Tan | 3916:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
(Inserted) In that case the whois report usually shows the organization that has reserved the ip address as well as a responsible party. In this particular case there is no organization listed... Dawnseeker2000 16:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, congrats on the RfA. It seems we both protected this at the same time – although my duration was much longer than yours. Just wanted to let you know. –Juliancolton | Talk18:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Julian; Seeing that article's history going for a long block at once might not even be such a bad idea. I wonder what the relation between vandals and rainbows is though... Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, the only vandals right now are school kids who are all in a certain range; I don't see any other vandalism attempt on this page made before today, so i really hope this will be one of those "Solved by the school-bell" cases where vandalism ceases and remains gone after an hour or so. Before these attempts the article has been quite 5 days; I kind of hope it can be maintained without protection for now, but i left the case open so other admins can evaluate it; My assumption might as well be a tad unrealistic. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
... For this copyedit to the Rustock botnet. Did you know that editors such as Excirial always appreciate such assistance as they are non-native English speakers who can bumble up on the grammar parts sometimes? Excuse the Dyk joke, but thanks for that edit. Copyediting, Consistancy and WP:MOS were never my strongest area's, so i always appreciate a hand with them. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. But I am not a native speaker either, so don't make too much of that. :-) The "compromised of" part of the article was kind of funny in context. Ucucha14:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that a lot of lists end up under the "L" headings, i.e. "L" List of xxx
instead of the correct heading "X" xxx
so I attempted to fix as many I could, by adding the |xxx to the category.
i.e. instead of "[[Category:list of artists]]" which showed "Czech" artists under "L", I added "[[Category:list of artists|Czech]]" which appropriately put the list under the "C" category.
as these should not be under "L" but under "A" for American, "C" for "Czech" etc.
However, you seem to have reverted all these?
wonder what did I do wrong?
-z
To be honest i am not even sure myself on earth i rolled these back. They are obviously good edits, and i cannot remember reverting them to be honest - yet my contribution history clearly shows i did this. I reverted my changes to these article's, so they should all be back to the state before i reverted them. I really wish i could give you some form of explanation as to the why, but frankly i am rather baffled about this myself. I can only apologize for the extra work i caused here, as there is obviously nothing wrong whatsoever with your edits. So again, my apologies for these completely incorrect reverts. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I am very new to Wikipedia, and I am trying to do my best to fix stuff when I think I it is wrong and/or inconsistent, so I was not sure if I had done anything wrong. thanks again for undoing. --Zumbooruk2 (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No need to thank me for correcting the mess i made myself; The only thing i can think of as an explanation is that i kept the revert button pressed to long while reverting with "Huggle. But i am not even sure that it would act like this if i kept holding it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I gave plenty of examples on the talk page and even a source that overrides the old one. Yet this is vandalism because some random socialist disagrees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Napkin65 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
You removed a large section of sourced text without as much as an edit summary, so yes, that is being reverted as vandalism. Besides, this is a content dispute - until there is some form of consensus on the talk page the challenged sections should remain unaltered. So far the talk page seems to be against your removal. I would point you to WP:DR to discuss this issue if you cannot find consensus on the talk page. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Remove your warning to me please:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."
There is ample evidence Draganparis is a sock-puppeteer, he was investigated twice and both times his socks were banned and he was blocked for a while. He was also blocked for disruptive editing (trolling). I mean, just look at his talk-page. It's one big personal attack and lies and trolling. Simanos (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of this users conduct we have a civility policy that should be followed to prevent needless friction between editors. Personally i tend to evade quoting this specific policy as much as possible because it is so often used in edit wars as a means to shut an opposing party up, but in this case i feel it is warranted. Have a look at your edit - In four lines of text you accused him of trolling, sockpuppeting, veiled insults and lying while also indicating you will not be reading further correspondence from him.
Thus i would ask, what exactly does your edit add to the overall discussion? Regardless of whether or not it is correct it only serves to inflame the other party who will respond in kind Ad infinitum which solves absolutely nothing. If you believe the other party is still sockpuppeting take it to SPA. If you believe the other party is overly rude take it to WQA and if you believe that this is a case where you cannot agree on an editing dispute please take it to DR. But don't start accusing each other over and over as again - that will solve nothing at all.
Regardless, i will not be striping or removing the warning. I would advice you to have a look at your own conduct as well, as you received two incivility warnings in a very short time - along with several comments on WQA stating that your edits are hostile. Maybe you don't even intend them to be, but people experience them to be as such. If you believe i am wrong you are of course free to create an ANI thread regarding my conduct as well. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
You still fail to answer that the NPA article states: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." I did not accuse him of anything without evidence. Feel free to try and prove so. Simanos (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
What I added to the discussion was to rebut the laughable claims of a known troll and sock-puppeteer that others were being aggressive. What do you expect? People unjustly accused by trolls to remain silent? How about you do your job and remove his comments (spam most of it) block him and maybe even ban him? Simanos (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This warning will be just another badge of honour for me. Just like the last one that lead to a dispute that I won. You have been warned by others as being too strict in your NPA policy. So it's not just me. You would do well to heed our advice and dwell on that for a while instead of brandishing around your new admin powers thoughtlessly. I will not take this matter further since your warning was just pointless anyway, but I suggest that you try and do something useful with your adminship and investigate some users that are really being disruptive and aggressive in those pages. There's already a new ANI about one of them I think, you could do one on the other to rack up your ban-points ;p (just kidding) Simanos (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I have never received any warning regarding my NPA policy, what i stated is simply a code of conduct i adhere to on my own initiative to prevent needless "You have been uncivil" warnings from my direction. The rare times where i actually DO warn a user for it are the occasions where i feel they are warranted, as it was, and is, in your case.
Furthermore I find your rationale strange. It is as if you cherish the previous conflict for the sake of conflict itself. There is no "Winning" or "Losing" a conflict, there is only consensus building. For the record, the WQA case was apparently closed as being stale which simply means that the problem solved itself - there is no judgment case towards either side. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmm I meant that some other people (for example in your review for admin-ship) have stated a similar thing. I failed at expressing it a bit. You still fail to prove I was accusing anyone without evidence and you avoid to comment on it. Why is that? Can't admit your mistakes? Simanos (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I could say the same about your rationale and your reluctance to admit your mistakes. Furthermore I'm not cherishing "winning", I'm cherishing the triumphs of logic and truth. For the record when someone is accused of something and doesn't get punished it pretty much is a "not guilty" verdict, however you like to spin it. As you can see I'm being civil and logical here despite your false warning and your veiled insults to my personality through pop-psychology. Simanos (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
You are referring to the oppose vote by crafty which provided a diff from two years ago? You may wish to read the full section in that discussion, as it actually concludes quite the opposite. I am not sure why you are using the multitude "People" though, as i cannot remember being involved in any civility-based conflict in a very long time. Of course you are free to prove me wrong with some diffs :).
As i said before, your warning is a civility warning. Edits such as [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7] serve no purpose other then to inflame a debate while provoking more incivility from the other party. The Spade essay explicitly differentiates between "just tell it like it is." and incivility. There is a difference between stating someone is a convicted sockpuppet (Which is fine) and creating entire posts riddled with uncivil content including that statement. Again, if you believe that Dragan is being disruptive take it to DR or ANI and see to it that it is solved. But don't start a mud-throwing competition. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Not sure, I did not do a complete study of your behaviour, don't flatter yourself. Perhaps it was the following:
27. Weak Support - I'm not as overly wild about this as perhaps others above are; I don't really like the "vandals reported" bit on your activity list on your user page for example. Maintaing "strict policies on personal attacks" are, well, perhaps something you need to reflect on - one man's personal attack is another man's honest critique. However on balance no likely misuse / abuse of tools. The oppose arguments (at the time of writing) are exceptionaly poor. Pedro : Chat 22:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
You also say "in general we can assume that anything similar to a personal attack page is not constructive." so I urge you to take another look at Draganparis talk page again which is a clear personal attack page on a few editors. And since you link/quote my edits there I know you've been there once already. Also you STILL fail to answer my question about "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.". Why is that? Too proud to admit your mistakes or to face the truth? See? I can do pop-psychology too if you want to go down that road (with your insults about me wanting to "win" instead of just wanting to discuss). Another thing you fail to own up to.
With that in mind I checked all the links you gave to my alleged "attacks" but I could see no crossing the line on my part in any of them. I could explain each and every one of your new false accusations links if you'd like, but I'd also ask that you do the same first so I could see your objection to each case separately. You must prove your case with more than just your say-so's. My contention is that they are all fine. And I find it misleading on your part to just link random stuff and try to create the appearance of attacks on my part. Simanos (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
You may be interested in..
This edit which was aimed at Jimbo Wales concerning your contributions. I cannot fathom the reason for posting it on a barely used talk page discussing improvements for his user page, but i thought i would let you know nonetheless. I have a feeling it might be moved to the correct place, so i linked the diff instead of the page. Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Heh, just check the account. [8] Its a very obvious sock of a user I reported, most likely of User:Ragusino but certainly of one of his banned buddies (User:Giovanni Giove, User:PIO/Luigi 28, etc.). This happens a lot, recommend a quick block. :) --DIREKTOR(TALK)20:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
All i can say is about this is Quack!, and all i can do is offer you some duck stew as an apology for not seeing that talk page at once. I'd love to say "That takes care of the issue" but seeing the SSP case i presume there will be more. O well, guess the problem will eventually burn out in due time. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but i didn't notice that there was another block in that particular range. Actually, if you look at CIDR range 119.30.39.0/20 you can see that this is likely an IP switching vandal who's ISP is Grameenphone Ltd, located in Bangladesh. The vandalism from the range seems to have died down for now though so i don't think a range-block will be that effective (If they stopped editing blocking the range will only hit innocent users). If vandalism continues from that range you might want to ask for a rangeblock - personally i think that the company has divided its range into multiple parts as 119.30.39.0/23 seems to catch every vandal on those pages. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I thought you'd given the warning as a response to my report, which mentioned the other block, but not to worry; just trying to understand your reasoning! Cheers, --BelovedFreak18:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Aah, i must have missed that particular part. I believe that AIAV was a tad backlogged when i handled the report which may have caused me to work a bit faster by going directly to the users contributions. I gave the warning because i saw another count of vandalism which had not been reverted yet; It wasn't until you dropped a note that i figured this was an IP switching vandal :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to stop by and say thanks for looking at my article and upgrading it from a stub. I appreciate the work you have done! Mzwhiz21 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is definitely past stub class, and i am certain it qualifies as a C class article as well. Seeing that it is on hold for a GA review which cites just a few minor points i marked it as B class, but i leave the definite review of that to someone more involved with that particular wiki-project. Of course it might already be GA class by the time that someone reviews it in more detail.
Besides, you may wish to use the search function to see if we have article's on a few redlinks. For example the M-1917 bayonet is currently a redlink, but i believe it might refer to the M1917 bayonet. Other then this it is a nice article, and i certainly enjoyed reading it while is was being expanded and i hope you also had a good time writing it; At the very least i guess that it was quite a different homework assignment then usual. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll go through and check for the redlinks. I'm hoping to get it passed into a GA shortly, just having some problems with the proper wiki reference citations. I think I have them fixed for the most part though. This definitely was an interesting assignment for class and showed me how tough it actually is to get an article approved and passed on wikipedia. Mzwhiz21 (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations!
I just noticed the article passed its GA review. Well done! I took the liberty of adding a GA button to your user page; those are visible indications that a user helped with a certain activity. It should be in the top-right corner of your talk and user page, on the same height at the page title. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the kind words! I really appreciate it especially because I am rather new to the whole article writing process on wikipedia. Thank you also for helping out with my sources during the writing process. I was really confused about that whole part of the process but you really helped. Thanks again!!! :)-Mzwhiz21 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for protecting the article History of Morocco.
However, I have another request: Can you please lock it on the version that was online [9] before the editwar started [10]?
As you can see on the discussion page[11], this is not happening for the first time, but always involving the same user. The maps on the article are original research and non-sourced and they contain false information example. The given information is also non-sourced and in contradiction with all the sources and references (see [12]).
I'm just asking you to lock the article on the less untrue version.
Regards,
Omar-Toons (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
If a page is protected due to a content dispute, it is customary to protect the version that is currently on top, unless this version contains vandalism, copyright infringements or violations of the BLP policy (See Wikipedia:Protect#Content_disputes). Since this version seems to contain neither i am reluctant to switch the top version. Remember, protection a certain version is not an endorsement of that version, but rather a necessity to stop the edit war.
I advice starting a discussion on the talk page to form consensus on the topics you mentioned, including the usage of those maps in general. If i have a section showing clear consensus i can act upon that basis once a user enters an edit war that does not comply with that consensus. If a user refuses to comment on the talk page and continues his reverting behavior that is considered to be disruptive, which in itself is a reason for a (temporally) block. Try to work something out in the three days the article will be locked and remember - the protection lasts three days, consensus lasts a lot longer - So don't worry about the top version. If you cannot find consensus yourself i would point to DR for some assistance with it. Good luck! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
re users BisR41 and TrisR41
I note you blocked the former as a sock abusing account. I would note that I have blocked the latter as a block evading sock of the former. You commented in your block summary that BisR41 passed the WP:DUCK test, so if there is an ongoing SPI you may wish to include the latest incarnation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a SSP case, but the sock template's should do the "tag-and-recognize" task. Quite a persistent and predictable fellow though; Create an account, post an angry message, complain at jimbo's talk page about how he is blocked unfairly and then create another. But i shouldn't be speaking to you - talking to myself is a sign of madness, and since we are all meat-puppets according to him... O well, easy enough to recognize and remove i guess. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed his "Request" and self granted unblock on IRC, so i just removed his talk page access. I guess WP:POPUPS needs some maintenance as well as you can apparently block people without showing up as being an admin. O well, vandal logic i guess. As for protecting your talk page - well, it is mostly a case of "Not Done" par the protection policy because new accounts and IP's would not be able to contact you at all. If want talk page protection you should have a separate area where unconfirmed and IP users can contact you. In other words, it would just mitigate the problem. Though if you wish some short protection and won't mind an extra page for IP's and such I'll be happy to protect the main talk page.
Oh, and if you meet another account such as our good friend, don't bother with level 1 warnings. If this is a users first edit just hand then a level 3 or 4IM and blast them to AIAV if they repeat. No need to assume good faith on those kind of edits :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I'll just go to you. That was an excellent response. Although I wonder... what do you mean? Another talk page? how? Tommy201019:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, technically it is just a subpage which is being user as a talk page. For example, you could create the page User:Tommy2010/NonProtectedTalk (Or a similar name) and leave that one unprotected so that anyone can edit it. If you place a note on your talk page directing users there it can be used as if it is another talk page, while protecting your own talk page and other user pages from hostile edits. That way the junk will stay limited to one page that few users will actually see, reducing the damage hostile edits might do. Most times it is more convenient to leave the regular talk page unprotected though as sending users around and watching two talk pages is a tad more time consuming because you need to check two pages (And you won't get the message bar if someone posts on the subpage). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Knowing that a checkuser process may take a longer while (+ 2 or 3 weeks) than creating a next one, Iaaasi returned under the username Conttest (talk·contribs).His latest blocked sockpuppet , Umumu (talk·contribs), was so isolent that commenced lingering disccussions on WP ANI
[13] and Fringe_theories boards [14] in which he vigorously participated of course. Then he falsely denounced Rokarudi
for vandalism
[15]
and eventually he tried to get Squash Racket blocked on Edit warring board
[16]
Also, it is important to note that the reason why Umumu was blocked was
he was a sockpuppet of veteran sockmaster of
Bonaparte (talk·contribs).
And now this new user, Conttest, suspiciously emerged at the same article John Hunyadi[17][18], which was the main hunting field of Iaaasi/Ddaann2/Umumu.
It looks to me that if his recurring sock-accounts are not blocked with quicker velocity than the time a checkuser process usually takes he will stop at nothing. May I ask what do you think of it? Good luck and best wishes--Nmate (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Umumu contacted me on IRC in the past, and after this message Conttest contacted me there as well. A WHOIS on Conttest responded with this line: "Conttest <qeqqeeqqqe@(REDACTED)> “Umumu”", which confirmed that he is indeed Umumu (I redacted the IP address from the line). I didn't comment on it and instead just asked if the accusation was true which Conttest admitted: "<Conttest> the fact is that his accusation is true, I am iaaasi/umumu, but I made this account only to make constructive edits to show that I am not a disruptive user"
I am not sure if he is directly related to Bonaparte, or if this is a separate group. Regardless i blocked Conttest for sockpuppeting and advised him to take it to the mailing list if he wishes to have his block reviewed. I also advised him that a two month or so timeout without further sockpuppets may demonstrate that he intends to be a constructive editor. Also a note for future reference: The user indicated that he won't be editing the disputed topic anymore when unblocked. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
On April 29, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rustock botnet, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Who is Flowanda and why is she taking off information from pages who are extraordianrily cited even with ISBN I went ack to several of her recent edits before Coffelt and they all are non-sensical. This editor should be censored as she is taking information Wiki deems acceptible and information that is cited and with articles cited.
Please help Excirial I would surely be obliged. OneMarkus (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
You may wish to contact Flowanda instead of me, as she was the person removing the content. The reason for the content removal was left on the article's talk page though, and i presume it was done par WP:BLP. I would urge you to cease reverting edits for now, at least until you contacted him/her about the issue. Flowanda is no new contributer and therefor i presume that there might be a very good reason to remove this content. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you please Semi-Protect the page? The IP address Special:Contributions/98.28.172.69 is editing it continuously, without discussing it at all and tries to add the nationalistic Indian sentiments. It's really annoying to revert it each one or two hours. Thanks. Ariana (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
User was blocked for edit warring at Afghanistan and is now requesting unblock. I have reviewed the scenario and think full protection may be helpful as there appear to be ongoing disputes at the page. I am contacting you as you handled a request for protection for the page, and thus may have some context that I do not. Thanks for your time Taelus (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I concur. It seems that there are several disputes concerning a large share of the contributers on that page. The IP users seem to be editing in good faith as well, so using semi protection on the page would disadvantage them while permitting other users to edit. Seeing the page has been fully protected just days before, and considering that we are now up to the point where users are being banned for 3RR i protected the page for 3 days. Hopefully that will cause people to spend their energy discussion, rather then reverting. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reversion of vandalism to my user page.[19] The IP has previously only edited Talk:Joseph Vickers de Ville.[20] Recently there has been repeated blanking on this page by dynamic IPs and, as soon as the page was semi-protected, the same kind of blanking by D-MacDermott (talk·contribs),[21] whose edits have all concerned this subject,[22] who has previously been warned,[23] and has recently been marked as a sock (of the IPs).[24] To avoid perceptions of involvement, I left another warning, but I think the IP needs to be blocked, and also User:D-MacDermott. this is an extremely obscure subject, and the vandal edits are obviously by the same person. Ty12:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I went trough this in a bit of detail, and all i can say is Quack! To sum it up:
User:D-MacDermott was created on 24-05-2009 and started editing the article in question. All sock puppets were created a day later (25-05-2009), and all of them aimed at the exact same article.
I have little to no doubt that the IP and Mac are the same users, and i have little doubt that the sock puppets are his as well. Combine those, and you get all the ingredients to create an indef block. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sir, I saw that you had problems with Simanos. I think that we all have. It seams that Mr “GK 1973” and “Simanos” pretend not to be aware that I disclosed my personality almost 2 months ago and that this has been verified by Wikipedia administrator. This protects me against defamation. Both users have been explicitly defaming me permanently since. Of course I had some harsh words for them, although not containing direct insults. I do not say that I will make a legal case immediately but I think that they should be aware of the matters of facts. The European jurisdiction is quite explicit, I am afraid; even the US jurisdiction has recently been quite clearly pronounced. I expect Wikipedia to respect its own rules regarding defamation and ban the two editors indefinitely. I want that the case finishes calmly without a scandal that may be really very serious indeed. (For further information please see my Talk page, present investigation page, Syril and Methodius, Alexander the Great, and Macedonia (Ancient kingdom) as well as their Talk pages.)Draganparis (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Let's see...
1. "disclosed my personality", totally irrelevant, his own personal choice and of course assuming that this disclosure was true and that anybody really cares whether it is or not.
2. "not containing direct insults", ... right... (too bad we don't have emoticons here)
3. "I do not say that I will make a legal case immediately", a direct threat to Wikipedia, admins and users alike and one totally unacceptable by Wikipedia regulations.
4. "The European jurisdiction is quite explicit, I am afraid; even the US jurisdiction has recently been quite clearly pronounced", threats become even clearer
5. "I expect Wikipedia to respect its own rules regarding defamation and ban the two editors indefinitely.", not even starting an ANI case, when there is an ANI case against him pending for methodically spamming slander against me, Simanos and other users.
6. "I want that the case finishes calmly without a scandal that may be really very serious indeed.", more threats.
Excirial, I would love you to take part in the ANI case regarding Draganparis and see for yourself whether his accusations are valid or not. He is an editor already banned twice for disruptive editing and sockpuppetry, who has never made any contribution to any Wikipedia article apart from propagating his POV in talk pages, getting banned in the process. In the last weeks he started "warning the Wikipedia community" of a group of "Greeks", who disrupt any scientific approach to certain articles and who "might" be socks. He spammed this inappropriate warning in the form of a notice and even threatened uninvolved users and admins to not remove his notices!! I warned him to stop, but it seems that my warning only fired him more up to continue his spamming slander. I opened a case against him and it is still pending. I openly stated that I am willing to let go if he just apologizes but he obviously has rejected even that proof of good will. Your input will be most welcome. To understand what is going on you will have to go through the ANI case and Draganparis' discussion page. Oh! And of course you are not the only admin who has received DP's warnings about taking "legal action" against us, you, Wikipedia or the world... I understand that you exchanged some words with Simanos (with whom I have only recently communication due to our common problem), but I am confident that as an admin, you will view this case as really is and separately from your any problems with Simanos. GK (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Question
Are you from Hamilton? Just curious, because it seems you watch all Hamilton-related pages.
Hello Excirial. Just wanted to drop off a note of thanks for the quick action on removing the vandal edit on my talk page and for blocking said vandal. It is always nice to know that others are on the lookout for this kind of thing. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk19:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Excirial, I've been having problems with an editor making continued changes on an article Albany Senior High School, Western Australia by user 203.59.28.108 who seems to want to make a stance on a single issue about a pine forest.
The same user has then gone and made changes mostly to other pages I've contributed on. Most of these changes add no information but are entirely neagtive in nature.
I don't want to waste your time but could you have a look at the history of Albany Senior High School, Western Australia article and let me know if you think I've been unreasonable?
Cheers --Hughesdarren (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems that User:Orderinchaos already dealt with it by protecting the page in question. Most of the edit actually seems fine, except for the "Sexual intercourse" part. This would be one of the cases where i would be wondering about the users motive's, but have a look at this edit as well. Third Reich? Keep Troth? In other words, vandalism masked with some content. Feel free to WP:RBI if this continues after the protection expires. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Steve, i altered the protection you placed on Afghanistan. You placed an indefinite full protection and a 1 month move protection on the article, so i think you simply mixed the two up when protecting the article. Just letting you know in case it was intentional :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, if you can take a look again at the John Hyndai article. I don`t want argue anymore but this is to much... If you can take a look please before this turns out into something worse.This article already carries heavy pro-Hungarian view and how can we work on this article when somebody like this "guards" it and acts like it is his personal wikipedia and article. iadrian (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to answer his other false allegations until I don't know whether User:Iadrian yu = User:Olahus or not. Olahus has a long block history and Iadrian yu is obviously "clean" and doesn't seem to mind breaking the rules, he also gave full support to User:Umumu/User:Iaaasi/User:Bonaparte. I feel again that I don't know who I am talking to.
User:Olahus keeps a low profile lately, although earlier he was there in all Hungarian-Romanian debates. It also caught my attention that User:Iadrian yu has edited the article Vlachs of Serbia, one of the favorite articles of Olahus.
In short i did not broke any rules, and if you really think that i did please take this problem to the noticeboard and present your evidence that you have(if any). That is your problem if you don`t "know" who are you talking to and it is not a part of the discussion and your acting on this article. However i would like you to STOP with false accusations and attempts to tarnish my reputation. If Excirial asks for me to do a check user i`l do that.The problem is your attitude and acting like you own this article that affects it`s overall quality. Since i know how you can easily create confusion out of nothing i will stop talking now until Excirial appears... iadrian (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
An admin can check whether you broke 3RR or not. Last time I "created confusion" we found out User:Umumu's real identity, so you never know... I hadn't said a word until you started falsely accusing me in this section. Squash Racket (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Great, then this "problem" is over. Correct, but nine other times you did nothing than confusion :). Anyway, i did not know that Umumu was a socketpuppet and it is good that it was revealed. Even so, Umumu`s or whatever he is called arguments are still valid, even after his ban. If he represented a valid reference that is OK, he is accused for socketpuppeting not for unreferenced and bad text. He is discovered because when he represented a lot of facts, everybody started to analyze his profile not the facts, i guess that`s easier. You are doing the same in my case, when i say that you act like that is your own articleWP:OWN you throw an false accusation , that is called confusion and staying away from the real problem. I am not interested even if you share your account with Nmate, or if you write Nmate`s text in English since he learned English in a couple of days, i am interested in the problem at hand. You have to stop this with WP:OWN and gaming the system WP:GAME luring who will brake the rules so you can continue with your attitude of your personal article, personal wikipedia. iadrian (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Which nine other times? Would you list when and where I "created confusion" (in your opinion)? The problem with supporting liars, Iadrian yu is that they may lie also when "citing" sources if you still don't want to realize that.
You accuse me with creating confusion and then throw in another false accusation. Pathetic. Feel free to ask a checkuser if your suspicion is genuine (which I doubt).
Let Excirial react if he wants to. I really want to find out whether the Iadrian yu ~ Olahus problem exists or not. Squash Racket (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
@Squash Racket: My blockings are dating back to the year 2008 as a result with a conflict with the User:Xasha on the article Moldovans. However, as you can see, they are 2 years ago and Xasha has been finally banned from editing Moldovan-related articles. Additionally I was blocked last year due to a conflict on the Template:Greeks. As you can see, I was never banned from topics about Transylvania and therefore I wasn't banned from conflicts I had with you. The mentioning of my block log in this discussion is just an attempt of you to provoque me and to disqualify me. But, unfortunately for you, I'm not in the mood to start any dispute with Hungarian nationalists. And next time you are accusing me for something, be fair and announce me in my talk page. --Olahus (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say your blocks were related to me at all, only that Iadrian yu has less blocks (well, till yesterday it seemed so at least).
A checkuser would clear this up if you don't have anything against it. You keep a distance from recent Romanian-Hungarian debates unlike your earlier behavior, while Iadrian yu is everywhere now. To me that's a little suspicious. Squash Racket (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
As i stated before, i cannot really help you with this issue content wise as i have virtually no knowledge of the subject, and therefor i cannot decide who is correct, and who isn't. The only actions i could take would be blocking or warnings users for 3RR violations, civility and whatnot. However, doing that would not help at all, as blocks have been handed out before, so unless i permanently block someone this will keep flaring up all the time. Besides, blocking would not solve the issue itself - it will only prevent it from occurring for some time.
What i do notice is that huge amount of text this issue is generating over a long period of time. I think the entire issue started somewhere in January 2010, with some large flareups since March. To summarize:
The talk page of the article in question contains about 40 sheets of A4 size paper worth in text regarding this debate (Around 20.000 words)
My own talk page hosted about 3-4 long discussions, even though i am not exactly involved. Participant pages contain even more discussions.
Several blocks were issued for 3RR or other reasons.
A bunch of ANI, SSP and 3RR cases have been posted, along with RFC's, 3O's and who knows what else.
The issue seems to be have spread across several pages.
Besides this it would seem that all of you are wikihounding each other. I was actually around when this was posted yesterday evening and i decided i would let it play out this time. 8 minutes after Iadrian's comment Squash Rackets reacts. 7 minutes after that Iadrian reacts. 9 minutes later it is squash again, 13 minutes later Iadrian, 13 after that squash and then 5 hours later Olahus posts here the first time. If i subtract the time it takes to write a post, i would say that each of you has the other users contributions on auto refresh, or at least on a watchlist.
It would appear that the RFC / DR trajectory didn't work, and therefor i would suggest that you find yourself a binding and final solution to the problem. Go to ARBCOM and request arbitration for this as i believe that, by now, this cannot be solved any other way. Do note that ARBCOM's decisions are final, and note that they can impose restrictions on editors as well which will be enforced. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I was angry when I saw Iadrian yu making a "report" here as this is not a noticeboard and you already indicated you weren't very pleased with how your talk page was used. If I don't react though, you — as an administrator — might take action based on the unreliable comment of that editor.
Is it sufficient if next time I simply leave a notice saying the allegations are false and the description of the problem is misleading and I'm willing to answer but only on a noticeboard? Squash Racket (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I never acts on the basis of claims alone, especially not in an entrenched edit war such as this one as accusations tend to fly around from all sides. In situations like this I only look at the names mentioned in a report and then check the related edits. After i have done that i will read the full and decide if i agree with it. If i read in advance i might be specifically looking for an issue, which is rarely a good idea. As for my talk page: I really don't mind if it is used to discuss an issue, even though this if often better done elsewhere due to visibility issues. What i do mind is if a discussion turns into a high speed mud fight where editors only discuss each other and not the problem at hand.
Finally, i would urge you and every other party involved to take this to ARBCOM as i mentioned before. This has been going on a very long time so far and i do not believe this will ever be solved unless a final, binding decision is made to which every party has to abide. It is either that or continuing the current course which is set towards an indefinite block for someone among a load more reports, discussions and reverts. It is likely better to get this over with in a more structured and arbiter assisted manner. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Ou, you were afraid that he would say something based on me (unreliable editor, say you, a very "reliable and neutral" editor). Now when you run out of accusation since i am not Olahus socket puppet i wonder what`s next. Don`t want to enter this game but just to point out that my block log got bigger because of this. How is that called? No comment. I have learned my lesson. Even here you can`t stop with your bad attitude and it is expected for somebody to work with you who doesn`t share the same POV. My fault was to bring this discussion here and i apologize to Excirial for creating all this, and if we run into more problems considering WP:OWN and WP:GAME then we should take Excirial`s advice. iadrian (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
A checkuser on Olahus and you hasn't yet been done.
User:Rokarudi probably indicated that he had problems with placenames, BUT:
I did NOT react, I haven't made a single edit helping him protecting some Hungarian placenames from your anti-Hungarian rampage yesterday
frankly you should just keep silent now with your reporting of someone else after your 7-8 (or more?) reverts yesterday and you were even unblocked afterwards.
What should you do? Just to let him to help you to get me banned, and you did by making some edits and he with his clearly provocational edits. There is no any "anti-Hungarian" crusade, there is a pro-Hungarian crusade. Who started with all this? Ignoring all wiki rules? WP:NAME, WP:PLACE? The edits you and your friend do are VANDALISM. Enforcing wiki rules you call anti-Hungarian, do i need to say more? You must understand that Hungarian names in that form may be in Hungarian wiki, not English. Even an administrator confirmed that in his first crusade in Romania with forcing Hungarian names and he still continues, that is vandalism after he was informed of his constant violation of wiki naming policy. iadrian (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Rokarudi sent me his message at 17:24. How many edits did I make at John Hunyadi after that? Maybe zero?
Please quit with the lying and just continue to delete Hungarian placenames from Wikipedia in a very neutral way. And continue to misuse the word vandalism regarding my edits. Squash Racket (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I said everything i had and for me this is closed. I don`t need to repeat the naming policy again. I apologize to Excirial again that you had to witness this. Greetings to everybody. PS: I apologize to Squash Racket for this this, it was out of the order and uncivil of me so i corrected it right away, i did`t expect somebody to "dig" thorough my edits so i did`t apologized for that since it saw the light of the day only for a couple of moments. Anyway, i apologize for that, it was rude of me to say that. iadrian (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Ahum, what did i say again about civility and turning my talkpage into a warzone? Keep in mind that i saw this edit as well. And to repeat myself - take this to ARBCOM. Every side in this conflict seems to be entrenched in such a way that a self guided peaceful resolution seems to be extremely unlikely. I am not an mediator, arbiter or expert of the discussed subject so i cannot really help you solve this matter in a structured way - for that the issue is simply to extensive and deep-seated. I would equally point out that i am acting as an editor and not as a sysop. Unless there are more 3RR or civility issues i will simply remain another random editor voicing his opinion and therefor my comments carry no extra weight whatsoever. But again - get this solved in a structured and guided manner. If this issue continuous on its current course i foresee nothing but more reports, blocks and bans. And that won't solve the issue. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
@Squash Racket: No problems, I surely agree with the checkuser. However, I hope that in the future you won't start personal attacks against me by mentionig my blocks caused by the disputes with Xasha on issues that are not related to it. Such attempts of you are only intended to disqualify me with arguments that are not related to the topic. Keep in mind that next time I am going to report this on an administrator because, as I already said, it is a personal attack of you against me. --Olahus (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a checkuser would clarify this. I don't know how mentioning your block log (a FACT) presented as a factor in a relevant discussion can in any way be considered a personal attack, that kind of accusation (and threat) actually resembles the behavior of Iadrian yu.
Next time feel free to report the mentioning of your block log in a discussion on possible sockpuppetry as a personal attack. You have already used an IP for block evasion (I hope I can mention that without being reported). Please also add the fact that there have already been a few (dozen?) sockpuppetry cases among Romanian editors involved in Hungary-related topics, so sometimes it's difficult to decide who you're talking to. Squash Racket (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to make one short comment. Whenever Iadrian yu feels he is under the threat of a ban with John Hunyadi, he comes over to Transylvania-related geography articles where his only contribution is deleting Hungarian placenames. As the articles I edit are mainly stubs or small articles on villages or mountain brooks that currently I try to expand alone, it is quite frustrating to see that Iadrian makes 100 reverts overnight then put 5 reminders on my talk page on civility, then report me. (Like now with tributaries of River Mures, earlier with Harghita, Covasna and Mures County. He is in co-peration with zero edit User: Amon Koth who only votes at discussions created by Iadrian and sockpuupet legend Umumu/Iaaasi/Bonaparte/Contest. I must add that although sockpuppet Umumu/Iaaasi/Bonaparte/Contest was less sophisticated in gaming the system, and somteimes lost his head, he was uncomparably more tolerant and much less agressive.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 19:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the article was terrible. I did not see a CSD category allowing speedy deletion, and was in the process of posting a PROD on the basis that it was a content fork of iPad, violating Wikipedia:Content forking. Help me out here: what is the CSD category allowing speedy deletion of an "opinion piece" which is the basis for your action deleting this opinion piece? Was it just WP:IAR? Thanks. Edison (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. A10 looks like a winner for such as this, where the subject is the same and the info is unreferenced and does not improve the existing article, or g10 if a company or its gadget is a "person" or "entity." Some of the others are good for PROD or AFD but not so clear as CSD. Edison (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Whack-a-mole
I'm tagging NewPages and getting some edit conflicts... User Excirial (talk) deleted this article after you started editing it, with a reason of: G3: Vandalism. It's like our own little game. Anyway, nice job. — Timneu22 ·talk16:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Edit conflicts tend to be positive when tagging pages; it kind of confirms that a deletion / tag is placed correctly. By the way - am i correct when i think you are placing CSD and maintenance tags manually? If so you might want to consider using Twinkle and Friendly for that purpose. Those tools tend to be quite a bit faster, while also requiring less clicks to place a tag and warn a user :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)16:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Archbold Medical Center
Hello, I am new to editing and creating wikipedia articles. I created a page for our hospital Archbold Medical Center but few minutes shortly after posting it deleted it citing the information I copied from our website to the article. Is there something I am doing wrong?
ArchboldMedical (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
For legal reasons we cannot accept copyrighted material licensed under a non compatible license, even if you are the copyright holder. Due to the nature of wikipedia content is added, removed, altered, cited and republished, which can cause copyright issues. We take copyright violations quite serious, and therefor content that seems to violate these regulations is removed. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as using it literally. i hope this explains. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jim, i noticed you removed the above page as a copyvio, but i cannot figure what site it was infringing. Any chance you still remember the site in question? Since the page was heavily modified from the original article i hope that i can remove the G12 issue with a few minor tweaks. Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)01:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I took the view that the article was largely a copyright infringement. The enrolment details were apparently verbatim from this site — there's no problem using the data, just tweak the wording a bit. There is no indication of where the words of the school song are taken from. In the absence of a source, I've assumed that the school owns the copyright and that it is not PD or CC licensed. I don't think that the article is beyond salvation, so if you need a copy of the deleted text to work on, just let me know Jimfbleak - talk to me?05:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that you are an admin anyway, so if you think I've got it wrong (not unknown!) just restore. I won't wheel or revert, since on looking again, my deletion may have been a bit harsh. Jimfbleak - talk to me?05:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I rarely revert an admin unless i am certain there is an error somewhere. In this case i couldn't find the copyvio, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't there - cluebot often surprises me with links that i didn't find myself. Besides, asking me pointed me to a link that i should keep in mind when restoring the page, which is always a good thing. Thanks for clearing this one up. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The article was removed under criteria A7 of the Speedy deletion policy. A7 is intended for article's that do not contain a claim to notability, which is required for inclusion on wikipedia. Also keep in mind that any biographic article must cite references which verify the notability claim. Since the article contained no notability claim nor references that could help establish it, it was removed. I hope that explains :). Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Helping Hand Barnstar
Hey Excirial, i herby award you with the Helping Hand Barnstar for your efforts in helping me with HTML coding. Your work is very much appreciated. Even though i'm not a new user, this was the only barnstar related that i could find. :) Dwayne was here! ♫00:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, editor (User:Inuit18) is again doing reverts without explaining after you had left this message on his talk page. He appears from no where and helps revert for editor (User:Tajik) who is placed on one revert per page per week. I have reasons to believe that the Inuit18 user name is created for that purpose only, and I'm not sure if this is allowed in Wikipedia but if not then something should be done about it.
Ahmed shahi (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Ahmed shahi (talk·contribs) has been reported to admins twice in the past week for deleting academic sources, for violating Wikipedia's WP:NPA (by insulting other users, i.e. by calling them racists, etc.), and for propagating ethnocentric POV. He has been warned by various other users. But he is stubbornly continuing his disruptive behavior. So far, no admin seems to be interested in his case (not even in his countless violations of WP:NPA). But please refer to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ahmed_shahi. Tajik (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Trying to pick your brain
I think that this username violates WP:U, in that it appears to be an account created exclusively to promote Carlos's website. Furthermore, the user has only been editing his userpage and uploading three paintings of his.
The point is that it's not a blatant violation. It looks more like self-promotion, even though he has not edited any articles. So, where do you think I should report him (if a report is even warranted)?
Thanks and sorry for bothering you. Salvio (Let's talk 'bout it!) 14:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The promotional part of the username policy only applies to usernames which "promote a group, company, product or website" - given names are explicitly not included. The reason for this is that WP:ORGNAME is based upon the principle that sharing accounts is forbidden. User accounts which seem to represent a group are therefor blocked indefinitely because they give the impression of account sharing and group based promotion. Using a real name is less of a clear case, though recurrent self promotional is still disruptive and blockable under the normal blocking policy - but not under the username policy which just deals with offensive usernames.
That being said: The userpage in question (User:Carlos E Jimenez) was clearly not compliant with WP:UPNOT. The page was promotional, and did not indicate in any way that it was being written to become a new quality article (It was 3 years old after all), so i removed it as advertising. I left the account Carlos E Jimenez alone for now because it has not edited in three years and can therefor be considered stale. Equally the removal should stop the IP editors involved from creating a new page or continuing their promotional activities. With some luck that should all be that is required to solve the issue. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I G11 tagged it at exactly the same moment you tagged it as under construction. I think the user's article creation history at the very least violates WP:COI, though, if not also WP:SPAM. --|Uncle Milty | talk|12:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Yep, it certainly does. Hence, the G11 tag was spot on to be honest, and a quick look at the username shows that there is a definite COI going on there. However a quick search showed a few thousand results for RiddiSiddhi Bullions, with the initial ones being newspapers. I am therefor trying to verify if i can hammer a decent stub out of the article. It will likely require a full rewrite but with some effort it may end up being somewhere near decent. If not, well, i figured i can always remove it later on. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I wish it was fully automatic, but i fear it is manual copy-and-paste work. If i reply to someone i copy the content of the entire discussion over to the other users talk page. If another user replies at their own talk page i copy it back over to my own. It is a bit more work then just replying, but it allows for easier multi-user participation in a discussion, and it creates a talk page archive that can be easily read and understood. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
DJ Silky
Could you please let me know why this page was deleted?
The page was removed under criteria G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion policy, which deals with blatant copyright violations. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images.
In this case the page you created was a word-for-word copy of http://soundcloud.com/silkydj, with no indication that this content was freely licensed under compatible copyright (Actually, the page clearly states that the content on the site is copyrighted). Besides this there are more issues, such as the text being inherently promotional, which is a side effect of copying content from a subjects own website. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I just changed the wording, can you tell me why that was now deleted?
The Silky page is a disambiguation page that redirects users to other article's. Your edits to that page overwrote a page that already had legitimate content and therefor it was undone. New content should be placed upon a separate page. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
IP:Address 142.33.96.254
This user constantly vandalizes wikipiedia. He was giving a final warning and vandalized the same page minutes later. I saw that you have warned him before so I was hoping you will block him.--JDDJS (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, he won't be vandalizing anytime soon for now, as i blocked him for a week (And seeing his edits, i presume it is a static IP). However, for these kind of cases you should normally create a report at WP:AIAV, the centralized page for reporting vandalism. The amount of admins watching this page is a lot higher then the amount on my talk page and therefor such reports tend to be actioned a lot sooner - if i would be sleeping no one might have seen the report in hours.
Regardless, thanks for reporting him. As you appear to be a new account allow me to give you some advice as well. First and foremost you may want to consider using specialized tools if you plan to spend a reasonable amount of time on a certain activity. Since you marked yourself as a vandalism patrol you might want to consider Twinkle, which allows you to place one-click warnings, among other features. Another action worth considering - if you have spend some more time patrolling - is requesting the rollback privilege which allows you to revert all edits made by a single user with just one mouseclick - as opposed to undoing which requires multiple clicks while only undoing one edit at a time.
Rollback is also the prerequisite for using most of the popular vandalism patrol tools such as Huggle. Due to their speed and the damage they could cause if used incorrectly they require this privilege which will be granted on request, provided that your edits indicate that your judgment regarding vandalism is sound. These tools allow for much faster and convenient patrol then manually monitoring the recent changes list does. Again, welcome. And if you would have questions don't hesitate to ask them. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for blocking him and the advice. The reason I asked you directly is because the last time I reported an IP address, it took for ever to go throw. By the time they were done, somebody else already blocked him for other vandalizme. This IP Address seemed determined to vandalize the Quebec City article having vandalizing it after it was reverted. I wanted to make sure he got blocked before he vandalized more. Again thanks for the block and advice.--JDDJS (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Since you metioned, I want to know when will a user be justified in asking for rollback access? I am willing to wait for it but I don't want to have to wait longer than needed.--JDDJS (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, there is no set quota a user has to reach. A user has to demonstrate that he or she is serious about doing some vandalism patrol (EG: editors who only reverted twice in two years don't exactly qualify), while also providing enough edits to allow the evaluating sysop to check if the user in question can use the tool responsibly. But as an indication, a hundred or more reverts combined with 400-500 total edits should be more then sufficient in most cases. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Please unprotect "Gymnasium Quefurt" again
Please unprotect the article "Gymnasium Querfurt" again. It's a problem with this Hans Adler who seems to dislike our school. It's like we are too American for this German. The article in its extended version is Ok. There is no advertisement in. The content is approved by the school. What this Hands Adler does is discrimination. Thank you. 74.106.205.48 (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I tapped out both IP's as they found their way to ANI. There is no chance that two unrelated IP's can figure out the same discussion location within two minute of each other, especially if both IP's never edited before. The 74.106.205.48 range seems to be a dynamic Verizon range from what i can tell, and therefor i did not block it as a proxy (to little proof). Either way the protection is in place, and therefor the article in question should be safe for now. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
