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.
Hmm, unfortunately I'm not sure I can help much here :/ I do remember some confirmed sockpuppets participated my RfA for reasons I never could fathom, given that I'd not really participated in anything controversial prior to that; I'd always assumed they were trying to grow their puppet-farm participating in random RfAs and happened to hit mine. However your hypothesis does sound like a very likely one, good luck tracking them down :) krimpet✽15:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. :) If anything comes to mind, feel free to post it at the CheckUser. I think someone may be starting an SSP too, not sure. --Elonka15:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured that's what "courtesy deletion" was, my curiosity stems from the fact the subject's lawyer just eMailed me to ask why it was deleted and cursed WP for deleting it...Is there an OTRS ticket or something for the request for deletion? Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 20:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, OTRS ticket #2008042710011139 - it was forwarded from the requester to OTRS by Jimmy Wales, who made the deleted comment in question and suggested a courtesy deletion. He may be the best one to ask about this issue. krimpet✽21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It got included on Tangobot's last run here. It's under WP:Requests for adminship, but wasn't included until just now. Anyway, it's pretty misleading as it is now. The name is essentially a candidate's RfA, as if "BAG" were running for RfA. Enigmamessage19:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Krimpet...Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. Through it I have become aware of a great many people who can help me in my future editing endeavors. Even though I was not promoted, your support shows that I still have something to contribute to Wikipedia, even if it is minor edits to fix spelling and grammar to working in WikiProjects to help others make great articles. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12).
Noble Story (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk·contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April 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!
GA Topic
Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article.
There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth.
Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories.
Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Good articles without topic parameter is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter.
That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it.
GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses )
Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process.
From the Editors
There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
AN/I is the place for behavioral incidents that require additional review. I originally wanted to discuss the article with OrangeMarlin on his talk page, but he instantly reverted me, and he immediately started ballooning this into a multiperson revert war. krimpet✽02:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Behavioural incidents? You mean your refusal to discuss your edits? Or your smearing one editor when there were three different editors undoing your whitewash? Have you even read the article talk page? Guettarda (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I have already explained this on AN/I - OrangeMarlin _did_ solicit folks to help him game 3RR. Please continue this discussion there. krimpet✽02:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I see you edit warring. I see you bringing a content dispute to AN/I. I see you refusing to discuss your proposed edits. Why not stop being disruptive and try behaving like a member of a community? I see threats and smears on your part, but none of the kind of behaviour we expect of Wikipedians. Guettarda (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
And, by the way - if you don't want to be mistaken for a sockpuppet of a perma-banned editor, why not try to not behave like that editor? Guettarda (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want to be mistaken for a meatpuppet viciously turning your articles into a WalledGarden fortified from any outsiders, well, I think you know how to rectify this. Now, please, bring this elsewhere. krimpet✽03:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You know, if you don't want to be mistaken for the meatpuppet of a permabanned Wikipedia Review troll, why not stay away from that cesspool? Many people don't take regulars from that cesspool seriously. Guettarda (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I find this absolutely hilarious. This is almost like McCarthyism. If any notable person has ever breathed a thought against evolution, their article becomes an attack piece and anyone who objects and attempts to keep that aspect of their life in focus is meatpuppetting for one or banned users, because, after all, at least one person who has been banned probably made a similar change at some point in time. --B (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I'm a "Wikipedia Review troll"? Considering I can't stand those loons, at least three sitting arbitrators are more "regulars" there than I am, and what few posts I've made there have been met with people like Jon Awbrey calling me an idiot and Brandt telling me to "shut up"... you're grasping at straws. You and your friends' tactics are tearing this project apart at the seams, and are antithetical to everything this project stands for. I strongly suggest taking a long, hard look at your actions. krimpet✽04:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, sorry for the misunderstanding. You're a WR editor. Moulton is the banned editor from WR - and even there, I shouldn't have called him a troll. All I was saying is that when one WR editor shows up out of the blue and makes the edits a banned WR editor was making, I'm suspicious. Maybe undeservedly, but I really see no reason to trust any WR editor, not when they are making suspicious edits.
The simple fact is that you chose to edit war on the article. You refused to discuss your edits. And then, while still refusing to engage on the article talk page, you ran to AN/I. That's the sort of behaviour you see from tendentious SPAs. I don't think I have ever seen that sort of behaviour from an established editor. Certainly never on a topic area that they had never edited before. The most logical explanation was that you were acting on behalf on Moulton. Since you are a WR editor, it made sense. I got as far as your user page there which said you had 20+ edits in the last year or so (funny, you've been there almost as long as you've been here...), and your last log-in was 8 minutes ago. I didn't go further - I stay out of that cesspool. But a couple seconds on Google show you contributing anti-SlimVirgin threads. Participating in a hate site like that is bad enough, but taking part in their sliming of SV - that's despicable. At least Brandt is honest enough to admit his anti-Wikipedia agenda up front.
Coming from someone who chose to edit disruptively instead of acting like a normal Wikipedian, your claim that "You and your friends' tactics are tearing this project apart at the seams" is just laughable. Expecting people to participate in talk page discussions. Yeah, that's really tearing the project apart. You do realise that Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopaedia, right? You've got 2000 mainspace edits in the time you've been here. For God's sake - I've been inactive the last year (mainly because of disruptive editors like you) and I have more mainspace edits than that. My friends' tactics are to write an encyclopaedia. OM has over 5000 mainspace edits in that timeframe. Without WR participation. But he's tearing the project apart? And how is he doing that? Not by running to AN/I every time someone reverts one of his edits. Filll has over 7000 mainspace edits in that time period. And he writes articles in user space. And, amazingly, he also managed to do that without becoming an WR editor. That's "tearing the project apart"?
Why don't you try acting like a member of a community - you know, not engaging in attacks against Wikipedia admins on hate sites, actually discussing your edits when others revert you... Maybe if you actually edited articles a little more you'd understand that articles have talk pages and talk page archives for a reason, and that when someone reverts you, it isn't personal. And seriously, try reading those talk page archives. Then at least you'd know why people confuse your edits with those of other WR editors. Guettarda (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps reading WP:CIVIL might be something good for you to do Guettarda....unless you intend for your entire contribution here to be attacks on editors who happen to use WR.⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender12:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, Guettarda, all I can say is... you're wrong. Your clique is wrong. And the fact that you're grasping at straws and trying to turn this into a smear-fest and childish edit count contest makes it abundantly clear you know you're wrong. If this is the way you treat an editor who comes along to tweak a BLP, you have no right to edit any article with a {{BLP}} tag; for someone claiming to write an encyclopedia, you seem blissfully unaware of the real-life considerations. The goal of this project is to create a real, respected reference, not an online pseudo-encyclopedia nobody takes seriously.
Welcome to Guettarda. Apparently, he thinks I like to out people and hurt them (while conveniently ignoring that I'm up on Hivemind, and have a convicted felon stalking me from there). But anyway, civility and NPA don't apply to him, so it's ok. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender16:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I tried to post to the ANI thread yesterday but I was having internet problems and kept getting edit conflicts and couldn't get my comment up before my internet access totally crashed out. I don't want to restart the dispute, but I just wanted to tell you that I thought the way you were treated was utterly outrageous. If we treat our admins and established editors like blatant trolls and vandals undeserving of so much as an explanation, it's no wonder we have such problems with retention and so many folks leaving the project in disgust. That whole thread was a shocking eye opener and I'm sorry you were treated like that. Sarah03:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words :) At the very least, I'm glad to see the biography seems to have improved in the end, so perhaps something good did come of this. krimpet✽06:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
BAG?
Hey, I think, you'd be a great asset to WP:BAG. Therefore, I have nominated you for membership here. If you would, please indicate there wether or not you accept this nomination. SQLQuery me!06:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support, and good luck on the BAG nomination! -- Avi (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
untitled the musical
Hey, my article on a show got deleted due to suspected copyright infringement, but I cleared it up and proved that I had the rights to the material and permissions. Can you get me a copy of the article before it was deleted? Thanks Jjbalcou (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, looks like it was copied over to Commons, but someone removed the licensing info at some point and it was mistakenly deleted. I've restored it on Commons with the original licensing info intact. :) krimpet✽17:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Krimpet. Can you please check the content of the deleted description page Image:WolframEschenbachj.JPG. I am almost sure that it has been transfered to Commons without providing enough information about the author, source, as well as the original upload log. (Please, answer here, I watch your page) Thank you in advance. →Spiritia18:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not quite sure what happened there - looks like the Commons uploader mixed things up. I've fixed the page on Commons to reflect the original's information - for one, the image is actually public domain, not GFDL. krimpet✽14:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
My recent RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace and talk space, so that is what I will do. I have made a list and I hope I will be able to get through it. I will go for another RfA in about three month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been about three months. I will not be checking back to this page so if you would like to comment or reply please use my talk page. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont06:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You might want to check out David's attempted rebuttal to your evidence on the C68-FM-SV evidence page, a clear lack of AGF with more of the same old meatpuppet canard. >_< --Dragon695 (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you offer input on Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Eyrian#Eyrian? To me this is convincing enough to block as sock of a banned user (old info is stale unless a CU saved info and offer s it up). I'd like more input, but I am tempted to block as an obvious sock. Post on the RFCU page please. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for supporting and helping me with my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Uprotection
Greetings Krimpet,
Could you please unprotect the Australian International School, Malaysia page as I would like to rewrite it from a neutral point of view and bring it up to date.
Considering that less than a week ago I was unblocking and apologizing to a user I blocked as an obvious sock after the RFCU came back negative, this makes me very happy :) --jonny-mt04:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear, thanks for letting me know - looks like the central directory server I was relying on, "dizum", seems to have gone down. I switched the tool to use the server "tor26" instead, and it should work now. krimpet✽22:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Your vote in the 2008 Wikimedia Board Election
Hey there. I'm a member of the 2008 Board Election Committee. Unfortunately, due to some technical problems at the start of the election, the ballot that you submitted is invalid. Could you please visit Special:Boardvote and vote again? Your prior (invalid) ballot will be automatically replaced with your new one. Thanks for your patience. - Mark07:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, no - no method of detecting Tor IPs that I am aware of can easily determine if traffic exits from an address other than the one advertised. :/ krimpet✽00:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Moving images to Commons
When deleting images under CSD I8 please make sure to follow the procedures outlined under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#I8. Specifically, you must verify "All information on the image description page is present on the Commons image description page, including the complete upload history with links to the uploader's local user pages." Thank you. --Pascal666 (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You are seriously in error
I realize AGF is less frequently applied on IRC than here; however, you are in error as to my motivation and what I was doing. If someone asks "Did I miss something about this candidate?" from those who have the opposing view, AGF (and indeed, accuracy) is that they are, as they (in this case, myself) stated, wondering if their position is correct. At the time I asked for the rationales of those supporting, I was one of very few opposes on an Rfa which appeared to be certain to pass resoundingly. As one of a tiny minority, I naturally wondered if I was in error in my position (and judgment of the applicant.) Your subsequent assertion that I was "looking for opposes" is inaccurate. I was looking for supports, and asking for their rationale to double-check my position. Had you bothered to ask me about it, I would have been happy to clarify and explain what to me was very clear. KillerChihuahua?!?13:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 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 categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11)
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
Giggy (talk·contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk·contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May 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!
New GA Review Process - Review Subpages
In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable.
When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category.
When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter.
At this RfAR, you've expressed an interest in a RfC on behaviour of editors at articles related to intelligent design. As an outcome, User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC provides a Workspace, with discussion at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. We also must try to resolve the dispute and as a first step my suggestion is developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved amicably. Your assistance and comments will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk14:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I would think that the most obvious reason would be that I'm the shit, but sure, whatever helps you sleep at night... EVula// talk // ☯ //03:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Virgin killer
I was leafing through the IfD and DRV on Image:Virgin Killer.jpg, and I see you closed the DRV as "overturn, per strong community consensus." However, I see the consensus differently:
Yes, there was strong consensus on the DRV not to endorse; however, there was very weak consensus regarding whether to relist or overturn.
There was strong consensus to keep on the IfD; however, much of the consensus revolved around these three points, which I shall address in turn:
That it is not our role to ensure legal compliance, but only the general counsel's, or the government's, etc. That was a strong consensus, although I am wondering what the general counsel's actual decision was – that is, do we have actual documentation that he reviewed the matter and deemed the image not to be unlawful, or are we just assuming this?
If the image is not unlawful, then WP:NOTCENSORED governs.
Because of #1 above (that we cannot really judge for ourselves that the image is unlawful), and because of #2 (that if the image is not unlawful, then Wikipedia is not censored), then it follows that we should keep the image. This thinking strikes me as having an implicit assumption that the image should be presumed lawful unless proven unlawful; I would argue that the contrary applies, that even if there is no moral question, or we are not to judge morality, we should err on the side of lawfulness.
Regarding other aspects of the question of legality,
one editor repeatedly cited to a Supreme Court decision in support of the assertion that the image is lawful, both in the IfD and the DRV. However I am not clear whether the editor is an expert on the matter or not, or whether his views are legal advice or not. A glance at the headnote of the Supreme Court decision shows that four of the Justices signed the majority opinion, and the other five Justices were split in various ways.My reading of the Supreme Court case shows a far more uncertain result. What is the precedential value of this? Though I could write a Wikipedia article on this, I am not a lawyer, and cannot apply this decision to the concrete set of facts in question.
Two editors performed a thorough search for answers to the question of who actually "banned" the image from album covers in the United States. Insufficient information was found on the Internet.
There was insufficient discussion on the IfD whether fair-use applies, but this is remedied by the discussion on the DRV, where most editors expressed one or two of the following three opinions:
That the use of the image is clearly fair, and therefore allowable, or
That article should be relisted to inquire as to fair-use, or
That the fair-use policy itself deserves wider discussion.
In conclusion, I do not see the strong consensus to overturn and not relist; rather, I see a strong consensus to overturn or relist, with the consensus leaning towards the former. And to reiterate my earlier question, has the general counsel actually reviewed the matter and determined that the inclusion of the image is lawful? The absence of an office action may or may not imply that the office has reviewed the matter thoroughly, and I would prefer that it has. By the way, please put {{talkback}} on my talk page if you reply.
69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 23:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you please tell me what exactly is wrong with anything I've done that would lead to being blocked? I don't believe that I am being treated fairly, and haven't had any reason to think otherwise so far. Ichthyosis (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.24.181 (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Krimpet, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey Krimpet, I left this message on Alison's talk page, but since she's taking a Wikibreak, I decided I'd try here. It's also because I believe that the issue is being overlooked at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.
I also normally don't leave messages on the talk pages of WikiAdmins, but I feel compelled to do so in this case.
On June 17th, I had been left a rather terse (and what I took as rude) message left on my talk page by User:WikiDon in regards to a copyright concern on the Kenworth page, in regards to the text featured here at the Pacific History section of a website titled GilligCoaches.NET. The copyright concern notice also went up on the Kenworth page itself that day, and was listed two days later on Wikipedia:Copyright problems under the June 19 heading. To help illustrate the problem, I'm posting the text in full that I posted on WP:CP, and you're invited to read the dialog between me and WikiDon as well, if you wish.
The copyright concerns with the Kenworth article stems from a section that was formerly titled "Kenworth's Involvement in the Transit and School Bus industry." The contents of the entire section were of my own writings, which I had published on the world wide web on my website GilligCoaches.NET. The writings in the Kenworth article were a condensed and derivative version of the text featured on the Pacific History section of my website. Upon completion of the writing of the section in the Kenworth article itself, I then uploaded and expanded the text for my own website. Immediately afterwards, I placed a marker on the bottom of the page, reading as follows: " I've authored a condensed and derivative form of this text for the Kenworth article on Wikipedia" (with a backlink to the Kenworth article on Wikipedia) as a courtesy, and to avoid this issue in the first place. User:WikiDon, without even giving that notice on the "Pacific History" page a glance, posted a rather disrespectful remark on my Talk Page also without ever investigating my user page itself - which makes a rather blatant and obvious reference to GilligCoaches.NET and what my hobbies are. While I appreciate the fact that someone would look after my own writings and perceive them to be in violation, they in fact were not in violation at anytime. Furthermore, WikiDon failed to investigate the manner properly, instead outright accusing me of copyright infringement without any knowledge and proper investigation of the situation beforehand. For those in doubt, here's the Network Solutions WHOIS lookup on GilligCoaches.NET as proof that GilligCoaches.NET, and the writings in question on the Kenworth article (section now titled "Bus industry") are of my own, and are technically one in the same. With sincere regards, Steven A. Rosenow.
The reason I'm posting this, is that it appears that the issue is being turned away by a blind eye on WP:CP and it's dragging the integrity of the Kenworth article (which I have been working on rewriting to bring into compliance with WP:MOS) down the drain. Had WikiDon properly investigated all avenues before going on the attack if you will, this wouldn't have developed into the major "shitstorm" that it has grown into (excuse the language). I'm not sure what to do at this point, so I thought I'd try taking the step a bit further. Feel free to contact me on the issue, and I would like to see this resolved.
I note that the photo of Maud Menten has disappeared from her article (in both English and French). On clicking on the image I see that you deleted it on Nov. 15, 2007. May I ask why? Was there some sort of copyvio? Did you ask the original poster about permission? I am disappointed as it was a nice photo of a rare early woman scientist, which made the article more attractive. Is there a possibility that it can be restored? Dirac66 (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain why, exactly, the Tor check tool says that "193.11.177.69 exits to WMF servers", when I'm pretty sure it does not? As you can see, 193.11.177.69 rejects a lot of Wikipedia's IP addresses, and what I can see does not miss any. What should a Tor exit node administrator do to disallow traffic to Wikipedia so as not be blocked? What networks, addresses and ports should be rejected in the Tor configuration? --193.11.177.2 (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, good, the old 193.11.177.69 address is now unblocked, so if you did that: thank you. However, the original question remains. What should a Tor exit node administrator block so as to block outgoing connections to Wikipedia? --193.11.177.69 (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, that's good, but you did not answer my question. What networks and/or addresses should be blocked? As it is, I've had to guess and shoot blind and wide. That's not good. --193.11.177.69 (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Recovery of deleted MySpeed page
Hello Krimpet, you can follow the discussion I've been having with Blowdart about the speedy deletion of a page called MySpeed. The page was posted by User:Enounce which has also been blocked. If it's possible I'd like to try to recover that deleted page so Blowdart can review exactly what was posted. Thank you. --Rosso1876 (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
___________________________________
/ It took an amazing feat of \
| self-discipline for me not to use |
| 'cowsay -f sodomized'. >_> |
\ krimpet✽ 05:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)/
-----------------------------------
\
\
^__^
_______/(@@)
/\/( /(__)
| W----|| |~|
|| || |~| ~~
|~| ~
|_| o
|#|/
_+#+_
Hey there. Trita Parsi was fully protected in March. I was just wondering what the article's status is and if it can possibly be unprotected in then near future. If you have a minute, can you let me know? Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I prefer my talk page be semi-protected. The vast majority of IP edits I get are vandalism. It's been semi-protected a few times, and those have of course expired. Could I ask you to semi-protect again for whatever duration you see fit? Thanks, Enigmamessage06:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Done, indefinitely for the time being. You can let an admin when you think it's OK to unprotect :) krimpet✽06:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thanks! I appreciate it. By the way, if you see that IP-hopping vandal again, be sure to semi-protect the talk for the duration of the block. His modus operandi, like many vandals, is to turn to the talk page when blocked. Enigmamessage06:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Tor check, "exit to WMF servers"
There was a request on your talk page for the precise definition of "exit to WMF servers" regarding the Tor check tool. You archived the discussion without replying. I would really like an answer. --85.228.151.57 (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand the need not to specify it too precisely, but what is actually needed is an IP-range that may not be minimal, but is guaranteed to be enough (while still not blocking the entire Internet). Now you have given me an answer here, but I strongly suspect that every single person being blocked for being a Tor exit node would like to have this information; that is, a guaranteed way to be eligible for unblocking. Therefore I suggest that this information, or a link to it, be added to the tor template. --85.228.151.57 (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you undelete this, please. If it's been speedy deleted, then you should say what criteria it fails, not just a one-word comment like "Inappropriate". If you simply find it inappropriate, you should list it at MfD for discussion instead. PC78 (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't appear to be one of the criteria for speedy deletion. It also doesn't appear to violate WP:UBX guidelines, or at least, not in any way that couldn't be solved by editing. Saying I like olives on my pizza also serves no purpose in helping with project collaboration, along with most other userboxes, really. PC78 (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The criteria for speedy deletion is a widely accepted standard, but not the final say. A userbox like "olives on a pizza" isn't helpful either, but these userboxes about "finding (group of people) sexy" can directly harm collaboration. Imagine if you were in an office, putting a print encyclopedia together - it wouldn't be appropriate to have "I find transwomen sexy" posted outside your cubicle, especially if you had transgendered co-workers. krimpet✽20:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... to be honest, I'm not that bothered about the template, I'm just a bit narked by the oh so brief "Inappropriate" comment (which I would say is inappropriate, ironically) and the fact I received no notification of deletion (which would have been courteous). That said, I don't see anything in WP:UP that this would violate, and I do find your deletion rather subjective. It might not go down too well if I posted this on my cubicle, either. PC78 (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Krimpet. You recently changed the name of the 'autoconfirmed' group to 'established' (on Wikipedia:User access levels, MediaWiki:Group-autoconfirmed-member, and MediaWiki:Group-autoconfirmed). I've restored the default name because this conflicts with a common term for long-time community members, and there doesn't seem to have been any discussion for the change. However, I also changed the description to explicitly point out that different wikis have different criteria and benefits for the group; does that correct the confusion you mentioned? —{admin} Pathoschild 03:57:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there something going on with my account? I haven't heard from Persian Poet Gal in quite some time. Ichthyosis (talk)
Aldrich continues his attack after the block
Hello Krimpet. I see you gave Aldrich a temporary block for his personal attacks. Unfortunately he is continuing to edit and enhance his attacks against Sticky Parkin on his user talk page, and they are becoming more personal and offensive. It's like he's creating a disturbing little story in his head to rationalize why he has been called out for his inappropriate behavior. I don't believe that he understands why he was blocked and it's sad that he is continuing his attack. Rob Banzai (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Next time, why not discuss this with me first instead of bringing it straight to AN/I? It says in big honking bold letters at the top of the page, "Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page." I've already explained why I re-deleted this; it was firmly grounded in policy and community norms. krimpet✽05:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It was already discussed with you, then taken to DRV, and you still re-deleted it. I don't know why you're so hell bent on deleting these userboxes, but it's going to really come back and bite you in the ass. -- Ned Scott05:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
As I have already explained, both before and after your AN/I thread, I only re-deleted one userbox that shouldn't have been conflated with the others, because it was far more inappropriate than the others, yet got lumped in after someone copied and pasted my deletion log into one mass DRV; I am not going to waste everyone's time and energy dragging this point through our processes when the outcome is obvious. I am not going to touch any of the other userboxes, and will of course let the community itself decide if it wants to become a dating service. But the "shemale" userbox stays deleted. krimpet✽05:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Ned, what on earth is going on with this? You're defending the existence of a userbox which is based on a slur, an epithet? Try substituting in a racial epithet instead: how does it sound now? Or is that somehow "different" & it's quite okay to use derogatory terms used by the sex industry in userboxes? - Alison❤07:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
.svg){kind=logo}
