This is an archive of past discussions with User:Fran Rogers. 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.
This user has a history of blanking celebrity bio pages and replacing them with profanity, or insults. Recently, he he slipped profanity into the Dane Cook page.
Mercury has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
Reviewer of the Month
Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GAReview Template
Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer.
To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article.
GA Sweeps
After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details.
At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep.
Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA.
Did You Know,...
... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000?
... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"?
... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed?
... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star?
From the Editors
Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA.
OhanaUnited
Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers!
Personally I'd rather keep it full-protected due to the unique status of being one of the few pages that directs people to install software on their computer; I would not object to another admin unprotecting though, if you would like to make an unprotection request. krimpet✽01:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
If you're convinced he won't cause further disruption upon unblock, go ahead, but I advise you take a look at his prior block log, which really suggestss to me that he doesn't get it. :/ krimpet✽01:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked at that, i was considering applying a block myself, but warned instead. I will unblock, and strongly urge him to go abotu complaining in an appropriate manner. I don't think he will immediately start up with the disruption again - doesnt come across as silly. ViridaeTalk01:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Krimpet, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget.15:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Krimpet, I made these changes to your Ch2 importer to make it work on Safari. The changes are based on the importScript() function used in MediaWiki:Common.js The bug i was experiencing with the document.write() is that Safari (and the ecma spec as a matter of fact) do not guarantee where in the document you are writing. With Safari 3's multithreaded JS loading this means that sometimes stuff ends up randomly in the HTML. :( The DHMTL method of importScript seems to work with all major browsers. P.S. also made it load only when on the "Image" namespace. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, good to see others needed this as well :D If you ever have more scripts with issues on Safari, just let me know Alison. I have fixed quite a few already and am happy to look at more of them (Lupin's AVT being exempt, which has too many problems to fix). --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much! This was the big one for me. Basically, CH2 was dumping script into other files I happened to be editing and this happened without warning. I only got to find out when I saved it and found that I'd mutilated an article :) Between both you and Krimpet, this makes my life much easier as I spend quite a bit of time moving good images to Commons and interwiki'ing them. This is awesome :) - Alison❤20:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! :D I've added the fix to the main copy of CH2.js. The funny thing is, the document.write() method is a very common idiom for user scripts, especially ones that are intended to be portable across wikis since not all of them have importScript() - I'm surprised this issue hasn't come up more often with other user scripts. krimpet✽07:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem also used to be present in the Popups, Twinkle, WikiMiniAtlas, WikiEdDiff and Catwatch scripts. So yes it was quite a common problem. Thanks for including the fix ! :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Was just looking at the changes again, and i think I made an error. The error arrises because the importerscript on Wikipedia has the same name as the true CH2 script on commons. This might lead to unexpected results in the importedScripts table. As such I think the following change is required diff --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It says "user request". Which user? If it was the uploader, then that makes sense. Greg at WR requested at WR that it be deleted. Is it deleted because Greg talked the uploader into the request? At WR they are acting like any image of a child uploaded under a copyleft copyright is immoral because it can be altered and used for evil purposes. Which is nonsense and an attempt to throw sand in the gears of Wikipedia and the free culture movement. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Both that image and the other image I deleted were uploaded by MyWikiBiz sockpuppets a while back; I noticed he tagged them for user-requested deletion when I was cleaning up after his latest sockpuppet, User:Spanking Art will crush Wikia, today. Considering they were both clearly his photos and they both contained his young daughter, it only seems proper to honor his deletion request, even if he's been rather trollish about this otherwise. krimpet✽11:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I agree that it is totally appropriate to delete images when requested by the up-loader for any remotely good reason. I did not suspect that the images were uploaded by Greg because I see too much deletion of everything a banned person's sockpuppets ever contributed to expect that. I suppose it is a point in wikipedia's favor that they had not been deleted on that ground yet were deleted upon request. Good for us. Thank you for your efforts in helping wikipedia and in helping Greg in this matter. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The St. Louis signer again
Hey, Krimpet. The St. Louis signer is back again. I had another admin (User:TwinsMetsFan) block the range, but the user seems to have shifted to a different range, and TMF doesn't know how to determine ranges. The newest IP is 24.217.225.187. Thanks a lot for your continuing help. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY]04:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to thank Wizardman for nominating me, Fran Rogers/Archive 7 and everyone else for their support and comments. I'll continue with contributing to the encyclopedia's content (hopefully writing an FA here and there :) and will help out with admin-related tasks which you just entrusted me with. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask!
Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been wonderful, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hey Krimpet, I just wanted to give you a quick thank you for your support at my RFA. I was taken back by the amount of support I received and will work hard to live up to the community's expectations. If you ever need any help or have a question, feel free to come and ask! Thanks again! Gonzo fan2007talk ♦ contribs18:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Because the WP:AN discussion has been resolved, I have deleted this page, per the intention you stated when undeleting it that this was temporary. Feel free to refactor this action if there is any sort of misunderstanding. JehochmanTalk20:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good, I was planning to delete it after the end of the discussion but it looks like I was cut to the chase :) krimpet✽04:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Pls find below the content I would like to write an article on Fiorano Software and everytime I write I get it blocked.
Pls find below the article and suggest,
Fiorano Software
Fiorano Software Inc. is a software company, with headquarters in Los Gatos, California. Fiorano sells business integration software.
History
Atul Saini founded the company as Modena Software in 1995 with the vision of bringing an architectural revolution in the realm of business integration.
One of the first entrepreneurs to realize the power of Java and JMS, Mr. Saini led Fiorano to become the first company to release a commercial Java product based on Sun Microsystem's Java Message Service in 1998. Today Fiorano's messaging product, FioranoMQ, is the acknowledged leading Java messaging server in the high growth messaging middleware market.
Mr. Saini has over 15 years of experience in the software industry. He has been a contributing member of the C++ Standards Committee and published an authoritative work on the subject "C++ Programming with the Standard Template Library" (Addison Wesley). Prior to founding Fiorano, Mr. Saini founded Modena Software Inc. which is a leading provider of C++ and Java Test Suites and Libraries. Prior to that, Mr. Saini led compiler development at HAL Computer Systems which was later acquired by Fujitsu of Japan. Mr. Saini holds a Master of Science degree in Computer Science from Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, and a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) at Madras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorarshi (talk • contribs) 07:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, we've been inundated with Fiorano Software spam:
I took and uploaded the photo at the above location and noticed today that the history now claims the photo was taken by someone else. I was poking around the discussion logs and noticed that you had deleted the picture at some point?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Mont_St_Michel_with_sheep.jpg
May I ask why? And may I ask your help in fixing the attribution problem. I've tagged the image with copyvio on commons but am not really sure what to proceed. This was my first image contribution (I only know the guidelines for text contributions and vios).
Our sincere apologies, the image was copied over to the Wikimedia Commons at some point and whoever did so didn't use the proper attribution templates (they just copied/pasted the {{self}}, which they shouldn't have). (A bot later tagged the image as existing both here and Commons so I deleted the local copy, not noticing the discrepancy.) I've updated the licensing information appropriately - once again, I apologize for any problems this may have caused. krimpet✽07:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with it so quickly! My faith in wikipedia has been restored. :) Just a quick question -- is there anyway to fix the file history as well? (And looking at the user talk page for Ale Flashero, I wonder if this has happened with other people's work as well...) Janet13 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, one more question. The new copyright info box doesn't mention attribution and the license seems to only cover back/front cover uses. Do I need to change the license its under to make sure a) attribution is required and b) any derivative works are also under the same license? Thanks! Janet13 (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I fixed the licensing - it should be the proper terms now. Indeed, it looks like "Ale flashero" transwiki'd a whole load of images from en .wiki to Commons incorrectly - cleaning this up should be fun :/ krimpet✽18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Something needed to be done - he's been given chance after chance to stop soapboxing, yet he only decided to escalate things :/ Now, about my sudden urge to join the Navy... krimpet✽20:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
heh, love the pic...thanks! I was at my wits end (I had a copy of that poster on my barracks room wall when I was *in* the USN too!)...Legotech (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this is another bug that is not fixed yet. The user is correct in his assessment of the bug. Opera shows the same error. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
On Hold versus Failing an Article
This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article:
Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{failedGA}} to the article's talk page.
On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page.
Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page.
So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be:
the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory).
minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes.
mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references.
a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags.
On the other hand, an article should be failed if it:
is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section).
contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose.
there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} tags.
has evidence of an active edit war in the article history.
has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places.
Did You Know...
... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days?
... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA?
... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)?
... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles?
... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles?
... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status?
From the Editors
Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
I noticed that The Teacher has been protected since last July because of edit warring. As I am not an administrator, I was hoping to convince you that the page should be either be redirected to Leigh Teabing or Teacher. Teacher (disambiguation) currently holds the same office as The Teacher, and does so with a more appropriate title. The only article I know of currently on Wikipedia that is known as "the teacher" rather than simply "teacher" is Leigh Teabing. If the spoiler aspect of this type of redirect is generally considered inappropriate, a redirect to Teacher is preferable over a duplicate disambiguation page. Leigh Teabing can then be listed on Teacher (disambiguation).
Ah, good point - I had forgotten all about that protection, and hadn't realized it had stuck for so long! I've unprotected and made the merge - though, now I have the song "Teacher" stuck in my head :p krimpet✽00:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Panorama of Humbug with Jenny Lind.jpg
Hi. I notice you deleted the version here on English Wikipedia of Image:Panorama of Humbug with Jenny Lind.jpg. PLEASE take second to check images on Commons before deleting versions here. The version here had a detailed description and information on author, and source-- NONE of which were listed at Commons. The version on Commons merely made referece to en:Wikipedia as the source (bad practice by the uploader there). I've taken care of copying the info from the deleted version on to Commons for this one. Thank you for your attention to prevent more of this sort of thing. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I was using this script earlier today and it seemed okay. I have a local version, so I just updated mine with the patch shown on the CH2 page. Should this be okay? - Alison❤21:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I recommend unblocking. He says he's the same as User:John5Russell3Finley. His logfirst edit shows he created the newer account after forgetting his password. His old userpages match. Most telling, his deleted contributions for both accounts line up on the History of West Eurasia article.
It is possible that he is nevertheless User:MyWikiBiz but I think that if in doubt we should give him the benefit of the doubt. If I'm wrong, well mostly MyWikiBiz has been a minor irritant, not a big problem, in the last few months. I think it's better to live with the risk of a low-level MyWikiBiz presence here than to lose a productive editor. In any event, if this is MyWikiBiz, blocking won't stop his creation of a new sockpuppet. (Another observation -- many of his socks have been anagrams of something else but I'm not sure this user name is).
mywikibiz.com has slowly been adding content to its wiki; we'll probably see regular editors add more of their links over time. We've had a couple of regular editors also establish accounts over there.
Finally, it may be possible to check user both John Russ Finley accounts if the John5Russell3Finley data has not already been ditched.
If they are the same, why do they need two operational accounts? This one has been used for trolling. Let it remain blocked, and let them use the other account. Additionally, I recommend making a formal WP:RFCU or WP:SSP report prior to any sock puppetry blocks. JehochmanTalk20:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
As per my block summary, I blocked him not primarily because for being a sockpuppet of MyWikiBiz, but because he's being disruptive to the project with this account (see e.g. Special:Undelete/Image:Metros Talking.gif), not using it to build an encyclopedia. That his behavior clearly suggests that he's a sockpuppet of a banned user is secondary; were this the sole reason I would not have blocked right away. krimpet✽20:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
All those black feathers scattered about … they're from the crow I'm eating. Talk about AGF taken to the point of naivety -- give me a duncestar for this one. --A. B.(talk)03:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
As a female Wikipedian I too found it particularly disgusting. :/ I guess it just goes to show how professional a business Mr. Kohs is running over there... krimpet✽13:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Samiharris and Mantanmoreland
Please do not tag editors with histories going back one and two years respectively; the CheckUser came back inconclusive and was registered by a CheckUser blocked sockpuppet of a banned user. Feel free to post on the talk pages that the CheckUser is in process, but tagging editors on the basis of an allegation made by a banned user with a history of paranoid abuse is a seriously bad idea - even if it were right. Note that if it is proven, several people will be upset, angry and extremely disappointed. Sensitive handling is called for. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict with JzG's revision) Even though the initial request was made by that nutter WordBomb, the CUs have indeed indicated that there is substance to it, particularly as it's been proven that at least one of them has been breaking our policies on open proxies. Unfortunately even some established and respected users are still able to abuse sockpuppets on the sly - Runcorn, for example, was able to deceive the community over a very long period of time. You do raise a very good point that this has potential to upset a great deal of people, though. :/ I agree that it needs to be handled sensitively. krimpet✽19:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I realize that this account's recent image-related vandalism of Muhammad was utterly despicable, but the account has a history of constructive edits prior to this incident. Would you object to reducing your indefinite block to a one day one? I think that would still send the message that bigoted behavior is not allowed in any form on Wikipedia, while offering the account holder another chance to contribute productively. Regards, ˉˉanetode╦╩03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, the reason I blocked indef was because their edits abruptly stopped several months ago only to resume today messing with an extremely visible page, suggesting they might be a sleeper vandalism account. :/ If they request unblock agreeing that they will contribute constructively I will gladly shorten the block. krimpet✽04:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anywhere near the level of disruption there to justify an insta-block...
I'm going to respond on ANI, but I am strongly inclined to grant the unblock request on his talk page. This is overreaction. Nobody's done anything like enough good-faith discussion / work to see if he can be a positive article space contributor, or if his edits are sufficiently disruptive. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Per extensive ANI discussion, I have unblocked Zenwhat and put him on more explict and less bitey probation and warnings of escalating shorter blocks if disruption continues. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Could you help this user out or comment on his autoblock? It's not immediately apparent to me why his IP needs to be blocked as abusive open proxy. Sandstein (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This IP was an open proxy being used by spambots back in September; the IP appears to be dynamic, though, so I've undone my block. :) krimpet✽14:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Krimpet
Your offer for help is thankfully accepted.
Your CommonsHelperHelper: I don't have a userscript page yet. Do I just create this on Wp for instance? Just type in title user:Name/userscipttitleyourecommended and save? I think I'll manage from then on. Thanks LouisBB (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Compwhizii
I think it might be time to reevaluate whether this user should have access to rollback. I'm seeing a lot of complaints on their talk page about invalid reverts. Pairadox (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... I warned him that his rollback permissions could be removed yesterday, but it looks like he didn't actually have them yet - he had been recklessly reverting using the tool Huggle, yet an admin nevertheless decided to give him rollback today without even reviewing his talk page first... -_- Looking through his contribs even from the past hour it seems he's still reverting constructive IP edits mixed in with vandalism reverts; unfortunately something needs to be done, I'll remove his rollback and disable his access to Huggle for 48 hours. :/ krimpet✽23:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, Krimpet. I'm genuinely sorry about this infraction, this is the first out of all the people that I've changed rights for, where a problem has occured since the addition of the rollback flag. I personally had reassurance from a few editors on IRC over about 1 month period, where he was known to come up in conversation in a positive light and therefore to make Compwhizii a good candidate for receiving rollback, I'd also seen him around en.wp quite a few times where he had reverted correctly with the undo botton, albeit back to square one now. I assume that it has been removed now? If there is anything more I can do in this situation feel free to ask. Regards, Rudget.11:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting me!My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers! Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺17:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Compwhizii
I think it might be time to reevaluate whether this user should have access to rollback. I'm seeing a lot of complaints on their talk page about invalid reverts. Pairadox (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... I warned him that his rollback permissions could be removed yesterday, but it looks like he didn't actually have them yet - he had been recklessly reverting using the tool Huggle, yet an admin nevertheless decided to give him rollback today without even reviewing his talk page first... -_- Looking through his contribs even from the past hour it seems he's still reverting constructive IP edits mixed in with vandalism reverts; unfortunately something needs to be done, I'll remove his rollback and disable his access to Huggle for 48 hours. :/ krimpet✽23:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, Krimpet. I'm genuinely sorry about this infraction, this is the first out of all the people that I've changed rights for, where a problem has occured since the addition of the rollback flag. I personally had reassurance from a few editors on IRC over about 1 month period, where he was known to come up in conversation in a positive light and therefore to make Compwhizii a good candidate for receiving rollback, I'd also seen him around en.wp quite a few times where he had reverted correctly with the undo botton, albeit back to square one now. I assume that it has been removed now? If there is anything more I can do in this situation feel free to ask. Regards, Rudget.11:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting me!My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers! Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺17:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That's too formulaic an answer, and I could just as easily cite Wikipedia:Disruption (which would really be far more appropriate). I can't tell for sure if you have been following the situation at the article, but it's quite clear that much of this "back-and-forth reverting" stems from drive-by users removing images against consensus and ongoing discussions on the talk page of the article. (I'm also not sure if you're aware of the petition.) Many of these disruptive editors -- Micromubi (talk·contribs), Alimustafakhan (talk·contribs), and Someguy12356 (talk·contribs), among others -- have been blocked, and rightfully so. Granted, there was a brief period of reverting that could certainly be called edit warring (around 10:00, February 10 (UTC)), but that alone is hardly worth protection. There are people who want to make productive, good-faith edits to the article, and we shouldn't allow disruptive users whose actions are mischaracterized as "edit-warring" to prevent them from doing so. -- tariqabjotu16:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Mantanmoreland/Samiharris RFC
My point was that RFCs are supposed to be about the dispute, and I see nothing about it in the RFC. Nor do I see a RFC being certified by people actually being in dispute with the user. What I do see is people interpreting 'being in dispute' as being the mere act of alleging improper behavior which the accused disagrees with. This is, I feel, what the intention of requiring certification was exactly to avoid: problems being brought up by third parties not actually involved in the situation.
I don't see SirFozzie and Durova as legitimately involved in any dispute with Mantanmoreland or Samiharris - or if they are, it's not even discussed in the RFC. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
What else is two and some years on the arbcom supposed to teach one? Seriously, though, I hear knives being sharpened for the settling of old scores in all of this, and that's not something I particularly like to hear. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI
Hi there. A new user posted this comment, mentioning your name. I already left a message on his talk page, directing him to WP:AGF, but since it regards you directly, I thought you might want to know. Regards, Tiamuttalk15:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Why do you consider this user a sock?
Hi there - can you tell me why you consider or are certain that 129.7.146.249 (talk·contribs) is a sock? He is asking to be unblocked and I am tending to agree with that request - but if you could provide your evidence that will help me make a clear decision. Thank you.--VStalk23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
He's been trolling and disrupting with various dynamic IPs, all geolocated to Houston, TX, for the last few days both here and on IRC where he was harassing people. He's not a "sockpuppet" per se, rather just yet another reincarnation of the same exact user. krimpet✽23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You might want to put a header or something on the CFD to let people know a deletion review has already been opened on this one. I've never closed a CFD before and don't know how it's done. --Veritas (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence
The Barnstar of DiligenceThe Barnstar of Diligence Ribbon
The Barnstar of Diligence
I hereby award you this barnstar in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service particularly in dealing with the removal of pointy categories. -- Catchi? 04:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I wish my experience of Wikipedia allowed me to unreservedly believe that. Still, this one worked out OK thanks to a helpful checkuser. MastCellTalk05:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for !voting in my RfA which resulted in the collapse of civilization with 92 (94?) support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral. Blame jc37 and Hiding for nominating me, everyone who had questions or comments, everyone who !voted, everyone who tallied the numbers correctly, and WJBScribe who closed without shouting, "No mop for you!"
Seriously, your response has overwhelmed me. I am deeply grateful.
Hi,
I saw your post on my discussion page and figured you would be the person to contact about this.
Should I file some sort of complaint about this person stealing my identity ?
or maybe ask that maybe somewhere something get posted or deleted or something ?
I did post a MSG on my discussion page denying that I was the same as John Russ Finley.
Not real clear what the person's purpose was...I know I was taking a break, and am still none too sure that I'm all that happy, though I am still willing to try to maintain the articles I have already posted.
Any assistance or input appreciated.
John5Russell3Finley (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
OTRS
Hi!
I saw that you worked on OTRS Ticket#: 2008020110012458".
I have worked on wiki on and off for three years and have never seen an OTRS before, I found the wiki page on OTRS, and its links, but found most of it procedural (like who can work on them) and not substantive.
Is an OTRS a request from a person to remove their own wiki page? I thought the subject of a page could not have final say over whether a page exists for that person. Any guideline pages or a quick paragraph explanation would be appreciated.--Jayrav (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
OTRS is basically the team that answers the Wikimedia Foundation's e-mail, including many sensitive queries from living persons we have biographies on. In this case, the person writing in was a professor who expressed some important and reasonable concerns about her privacy, and while handling the ticket I decided it would be best to remove the article. Actions taken by OTRS volunteers are not "official" per se, and you're welcome to ask for review if you'd like - which is also why we cite the ticket number, as you can provide it to any other OTRS volunteer for confirmation and review, or to ArbCom or ComCom to which we are accountable. :) Please treat it with care, though, as situations involving BLPs can become rather sensitive. krimpet✽21:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick reply. I have no specific interest in this person or topic and it only showed up on my watchlist through the removal of the links on other pages. I am just interested in the wiki editing process for future reference. I did look at the version of the page in cache and saw that half the article was a bio from a a university web page and the other half was a story with a clear referenced footnote from an interview.SO what was the problem? I do not need details of the case or the OTRS request, I am not interested in review. I just want to know how an article with two short halves both from sources can still be a problem, especially when the person has many links within wiki.--Jayrav (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Help with user 69.76.52.74
hihi
I don't know where to go for help...tried the IRC channel and there seemed to be some heated bot related argument going on and I couldn't get anyone's attention :)
Anyway... If you check out the edit summaries on this guy: [[5]] you can start to see the problem...then if you go a little deeper: [[6]] Anyway, is there a warning or something I can put on his talk page? I know its an IP, but it seems pretty stable...perhaps a couple of people, one vandalizing strange articles and this guy who seems to be pretty steady on the dino stuff? Anyway...help? THANKS! (Oh, have you seen the latest on Tedius Z's page? he's "undecided" about getting unblocked:) Legotech (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Animum/monobook.css may be offensive or unwelcome. If you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. You had me worried! >:-I —Animum (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
RFA thanks 
:.
reverse.jpg){kind=link}
