User talk:Picaroon/Archive 4

Helpful reverts

Thank you for reverting my change I couldn't figure out what i did. (Thedjatclubrock)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 10 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Abdulsalami Abubakar, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 08:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler game

It's good that you later removed it, but very poor play on your part. Not to mention the blatant falsehood that no reason was given for deletion. 0/2, be much more careful in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start backing up your threats, or stop making them. Picaroon (Talk) 21:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please review something for me?

Sorry to bother you. I would like you as an uninvolved admin who (as far as I remember) I haven't had much to do with previously, to look at something and tell me what you think.

I closed what I saw as a slightly frivolous 3RR report between two users I slightly know. You can read what I said at User talk:Vintagekits and User talk:SqueakBox. Best wishes, --John 21:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your contribution there. I am quarter-Irish myself if it makes any difference. Appreciate your support. --John 22:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I considered mentioning "Guinnog" sounded more Irish than anything else, but your Scotland-project userbox gave me pause. :-) Picaroon (Talk) 22:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! I blush to think how little actual help I have been to that project... Thanks again. --John 23:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Picaroon, I'm sure you have better things to do but can you please review this, this this and this of Vintagekits' recent edits. I do have a long history with this user and any commentary on the incivility in the edits might come better from you than from me. I want to put it on record that I applaud Vintagekits' devotion to countering systemic bias wherever he sees it, and I've tried to support him in his time here, though I'm not sure he's always seen it like that; but in routinely labelling me in an ethnic way, and in visibly allowing that to colour his judgement of me (I am not for example currently a Hibs fan; WP:BLP and all that), he has crossed a line that will make it difficult if not impossible for me to exercise admin privileges with him in a way that will be seen to be fair by all. I'll obviously leave it entirely up to you whether admin privileges are even required, or if another warning will suffice. If you can add anything to what I have said to the user already then please do. Best wishes, and I'm sorry to trouble you again, --John 05:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications

For future reference, most clarifications are copied to the talk page of the case, as here, and especially when they bear on enforcement issues. Cheers. Thatcher131 01:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry about that. Will do in the future. Picaroon (Talk) 01:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 24 11 June 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor
Privacy report lists Wikipedia among best sites, but needing improvement Board candidacies open, elections planned
WikiWorld comic: "Why did Mike the Headless Chicken cross the road?" News and notes: Ontario error, no consensus RFA, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war?

Per this thanks for not treating me in a balanced and fair manner. How can it be on rulew for one and another for Irish people? I think it out of order not to treat people equally.--Vintagekits 19:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard

I hate you. No, I don't. Up until four days ago, Billboard redirected to Billboard (magazine), so I was under the impression that leaving it as Billboard would still redirect there. Now it means there are a ton of improper links that I've created and I or someone else will need to fix. Thanks for letting me know. ShadowHalo 22:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User categories

Per your recent deletion of around 40 political categories, I remain to be convinced why these categories are, as the speedy deletion reason was given, "divisive advocacy category of no encyclopedic purpose". There was no discussion of this, and the last CfD nearly a year ago closed "no consensus". Furthermore the deletion of Category:Wikipedians by political party per CSD C1 was invalid, as it had not been empty for four days. I request that you restore these and put them to a consensus vote on CfD. I've actually got no problem at all if that discussion deletes them (the community may well have moved on since this time last year), but I think things should be done by consensus on a matter as widespread as this. Orderinchaos 02:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 4. Picaroon (Talk) 19:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Vote

Hi, I wanted to wait until the RfA was over to avoid inflaming things (and I always thought until the end that something would happen and I wouldn't make it), but I understand where you are coming from, and I will be VERY cautious on such things while I get used to having the mop, and I will take your comments very seriously as something to avoid. Thank you for hopefully making me a better admin. SirFozzie 18:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For proving my point on the talk page right, within 60 seconds. Neil ╦ 20:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice you had protected it. After the first of my two edits, I realized I had screwed up the formatting of the page by leaving out a |} from the column. So I immediately clicked edit again. And then I noticed some vicious uselessness masquerading as text, so I removed it too. Thanks for assuming bad faith and wasting my time by forcing me to reply to you. Don't bother apologizing. Picaroon (Talk) 20:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked you for 1 hour, for edit warring on a protected page. I accept the first may have been an honest error, but not the second. Neil ╦ 20:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Picaroon (Talk) 20:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that, presumably to reduce drama, Picaroon has not appealed from the one-hour block. Had he posted an unblock request I would have supported granting it. Newyorkbrad 21:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As would I. There was no edit warring, and it was a bad block. Majorly (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks are no big deal, and one hour is only, what - the time I could've written some stub in? Not many people read our Nigeria articles anyways; I know this because typos of mine (like the one I got blocked for fixing, but in article space!), sometimes remain for weeks on end, until I stumble across the article and fix it myself. Tourism in Nigeria, which I had intended to get started on, won't be missed. Picaroon (Talk) 21:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocked now. Call it "time off for good behaviour" (and for politely accepting the short block in the spirit it was intended). I am sorry that it was you who got blocked. Neil ╦ 21:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Regarding [1], looking at the list of "parties", I doubt the title Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 is appropriate here. It's clear that practically all users involved are Persian, however, others maybe added to the case. Also, would be nice to leave a comment on the pages of those claimed to be involved in this new case just for information. Thanks. Atabek 17:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The case does not go beyond Atabek and I, Atabek added people who have nothing to do with our dispute, but since I guess other people are being involved then User:Grandmaster and User:Dacy69 should also be added. But again, this is an issue between Atabek and I, its not a content dispute like Atabek is trying to make it out to seem. But whatever, it'll make things more complicated but I guess what has to be done has to be done.Hajji Piruz 17:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't agree with new title of the case. It is not about Armenia-Azerbaijan. Even though there is some edit dispute on Armenia and Azerbaijan related pages, basically major problems are resolved. This case is more related to Azerbaijani-Persian dispute and should be renamed accordingly to refelect different nature of the dispute. The only linkage is that user:Hajji Piruz was involved in previous one on the side of Armenian editors and now he is attacking azerbaijan related pages with a group of Persian editors. It is pity we should distingiush editors by ethnic affiliation but that is important to understand the nature of the problem. --Dacy69 18:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this case should be changed, because not a single Armenian editor is involved in this dispute. VartanM 19:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How would Iran-Azerbaijan sound, then? I confess to not really caring what the ethnicities of involved editors are, but I suppose it matters. Picaroon (Talk) 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I opened the case centered around user:Hajji Piruz.I can't understand why my case went as a subsection of user:Hajji Piruz harassment on Atabek. Anyway, the current title should be changed. Regarding your proposal to change it to "Iran-Azerbaijan" - it might be but both current Arbcom application involve user:Hajji Piruz and somehow it should be reflected in the title.--Dacy69 19:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the committee has previously declined to open two separate cases which largely concern the same user. because one of the jobs of clerks and clerk helpers is to maintain WP:RFAR and make sure the arbitrators don't have to wade through redundancy or confusion while arbitrating, I merged the cases. The statement from Ghirlandajo makes it clear that there is continuing conflict beyond Hajji Piruz, so I'm wary of that name. Anyways, I have asked arbitrator Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) his opinion on the naming, among other things, so I trust him and the other arbs will sort out the minor issue of what they want the case to be named and what scope they feel is appropriate. Picaroon (Talk) 19:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a misstatement by User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani above, as I haven't formally added any people to the case, you can check my edits of the ArbCom page. I only stated that the edit conflicts, which User:Hajji Piruz is trying to elevate to personal basis, involve larger group of contributors as the parallel ArbCom requests show.
It's difficult to give a certain name to the case. The fact that it's not Armenia-Azerbaijan this time is for sure, yet some new editors uninvolved in previous case still continued to revert conflict on various pages after ArbCom. At the same time, there are some Iranian editors who are on the opposite side of the conflict or take independent stance, so I don't think Azerbaijan-Iran is appropriate title either. I think a more general title, like Edit Conflicts on Armenia-Azerbaijan-Iran-related pages, or something along those lines would be more appropriate. Atabek 20:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop canvassing (both you and Dacy69). Those users are involved parties, as much as anyone else. At first I thought the arbcom would be between you and I, but apparently the arbcoms scope was broadened and these other editors are just as much involved as anyone else.

As per the name, I think Iran-Azerbaijan would be fine, as most of the editors are Iranian or from Azerbaijan, although most of the articles I guess that are now involved are Iran-related. Oh, and as much as Dacy69 and Atabek would like to portray this as my fault and the arbcom about me, its not. But I refuse to canvass or try to influence the administrators before the arbcom even begins, so I wont even go there, I just want everyone to be clear on the fact that Dacy69, Grandmaster, and Atabek have tried to influence the administrators before the arbcom has even opened. I wont go there though, I'll wait for the arbcom where hopefully the objective admins can based their decisions on the evidence. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 22:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


RE:Image licensing

Hi. You are absolutely correct about the licensing. I mistagged them. The first two were taken from documents I got from the Abuja cultural center. While the last was from Tell magazine. Please feel free to adjust accordingly. THanks.

Thanks for clarifying the licensing. I have more photographs of people who like Ironsi qualify under the fair-use rationale you specified (JEA Wey, Babafemi Ogundipe, Adekunle Fajuyi, and David Ejoor). Pls let me know if this is okay, and I'll post these pics. Thanks.

Re: Question on acceptance vote

I'm not particularly picky on which way the case opens, although I think that limiting the scope to the parties that were already involved in the first case would be a neater approach. Given that nobody else has accepted it, though, it may be a moot point either way. Kirill Lokshin 01:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerkship

I'd like to submit your name to ArbCom for appointment as an official clerk. Are you interested? Thatcher131 04:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there is a clerks mailing list, and clerks have write-access to the closed committee mailing list (bypassing the moderation queue) so make sure I have your current e-mail address. Thatcher131 15:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Canadian Green & Template:User Ontario Green

Would I be able to get the deleted content from these so I can put them in my user space? GreenJoe 04:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 25 18 June 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor
Wikipedia critic's article merged Board election series: Election information
Admin account apparently compromised, blocked Controversial RfA withdrawn, bureaucrats fail to clarify consensus
WikiWorld comic: "They Might Be Giants" Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An observation

Hi, Picaroon9288. You deleted the Category:Wikipedians against Monarchy. That's alright, but i just don't know why you didn't delete also the Category:Monarchist Wikipedians. Are you afraid of the Queen or what? :)

--Bluedenim 00:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it is currently on WP:UCFD; I believe it had already been deleted, and then restored by some other admin, and then sent to WP:UCFD. I do wish that all these categories, including Category:Monarchist Wikipedians, are deleted, but we will have to wait and see how the discussion turns out. Picaroon (Talk) 00:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK

OK, be cool.

--Bluedenim 00:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD AutoReason

I was informed earlier today about a bug in IE6. I've since fixed it per the suggestion and IE6 is working fine again. Just thought I'd let my spamlist know that they need to purge their local cache (Ctrl+F5 on most browsers) to get the latest version of the script. Regards, ^demon[omg plz] 16:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Quick question

pl:Specjalna:Strony według prefiksu would appear to be it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said

I just have to say, reading over your Armenia-Azerbaijan arbcom statement, that you have explained the cause of many of Wikipedia's conflicts very well. The statement almost deserves being attached to {{controversial}}, just so more people could see it and realize how silly, overblown - and even preventable - some of these conflicts are. Again, very well said. Happy editing, Picaroon (Talk) 23:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot; I'm glad it made an impact on you. I can only hope it makes a similar impact on the involved parties. -- tariqabjotu 23:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three points

1) I was unaware the abuse was off-wiki,so admittedly, that was my fault.

2) By packing up and quitting he's simply giving them what they want and showing them that threatening someone works.

3) He's already quit, so it's already a moot point.

And rolling over simply because someone most likely several hundred miles away says they'll do something to his family frankly just pisses me off. HalfShadow 17:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

image

Direct me to this policy where the image can't be on a WikiProject's page to ask a question. Chris 02:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blessthefall

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Blessthefall. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Chubbles 17:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 26 25 June 2007 About the Signpost
Board election series: An interview with the candidates RfA receives attention, open proxies policy reviewed
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer" News and notes: Logo error, Norwegian chapter, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and comments at my RfA
Hi Picaroon, Even with old wiki friends such as you it still amazes me that otherwise "anonymous" editors take the time to place !votes and comments on RfAs. Whilst I would have normally thanked you at the time of you leaving your message, the importance of my not appearing to be canvassing prevented me from so doing. Now that everything has progressed successfully I can finally thank you. I intend to uphold a style of good adminship and will welcome your further comments at any time in the future, even if they are in the form of admonishment. I will be happy to help as an admin wherever and whenever I can --VS talk 23:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hi Picaroon. Thank you for your support and kind words in my RfA, which passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance.

Jreferee (Talk) 07:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R. Weldon Smith

That's a funny looking Highland Cow. It's horns are long enough to resemble a Texas Longhorn.


The articles still under construction with edits were also erased by User:Wafulz 24 June 2007. Parts have been recovered, and additions to improve the notability policy of encyclopedic content can be reviewed at the protected reconstruction site 

   R. Weldon Smith .  Also see the Wikification going on of other articles began

that were also erased at these pages under construction: A Modern Wilderness, and A Future Wilderness After reviewing the additions and ongoing construction if you want to leave discussion, please do so on the various articles talk pages there for your input. This ongoing construction addresses the many issues raised earlier during the initial naming conventions for inclusion as notable encyclopedic topics being developed. StationNT5Bmedia 20:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of R. Weldon Smith. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.136.108 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 30 June 2007

File:Lesymuralccsf.JPG

Why was Image:Lesymuralccsf.JPG deleted? The reason give was "CSD I8", but unfortunately, that's not a very clear reason at all – what does that actually mean?

I'll note that the picture in question is a photo of a public mural – that is considered a fair use derivative work. Peter G Werner 03:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The da Vinci Barnstar
For your effort in improving Nigeria related articles

Arbitration clerk

The last I heard from the Arbitration Committee, there were 6 in favor of promoting you and no objections; after allowing a further week for comment and hearing nothing, I have officially listed you as a clerk for the Arbitration committee. Congratulations. Thatcher131 03:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me as well. Newyorkbrad 14:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 27 2 July 2007 About the Signpost
IP unwittingly predicts murder of wrestler: "Awful coincidence" Board election series: Elections open
German chapter relaunches website, arranges government support WikiWorld comic: "Cashew"
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jega

This guy makes some beautiful melodic glitch music, I want to know why it was worth deleting his page. Have you ever listened to "Geometry" or "Subdivision Surfaces"?

No, I haven't. I've undeleted the article because it does seem to assert notability after all. Picaroon (Talk) 17:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Case on Attachment Therapy

Is there some article or material I can read to explain to me: 1. What are the different pages and which should I respond on and how? 2. Is it "good form" to respond to accusations or is it best for me to only focus on my direct concerns? 3. Since the ArbCom does not address content disputes and that was the focus of my initial description, may I now raise "violations" of Wikipedia policy regarding certain editors? Thanks DPetersontalk 21:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

419

The 419 topic is a blasphemy and racist attempt to tar the generality of Igbo people with that vice and it should be rejected intoto. Besides it has no relevance whatsoever with an issue that deals with the history, culture and language of the Igbo people. I hereby insist that the topic should be permanently removed or i will call the attention of hate organisations and forward a protest to the wikipedia administration. Anybody is free to create topics on 419 but it should be separate from the Igbo people social and cultural colunm on wikipedia.

LaRouche arbcom matter

Thanks for moving my complaint to the proper page.--Cberlet 02:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Trevglaad.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otto4711 17:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Apologies. I tagged an entry thusly awhile ago about a vanity press book author, and it was deleted, so I wasn't aware this was not acceptable. I was following a link spammer, deleting the links, and found a number of these articles that lack sources and are of unnotable subjects. What approach would you recommend for such bios that are essentially advertising. -Jmh123 21:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you--I fixed all the tags I'd placed. The one you recommended is the one I used before. I looked for it to use again, and came up with the wrong one--sorry again for the mistake. -Jmh123 22:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Question

Please see the reply on my talk page. Thanks, (→zelzany - review) 18:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Jocker City

(Copied from User talk:DESiegel): Hi DESiegel. The comment you made at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 7#Jocker City would appear to be based on a misconception - the "city" in question doesn't exist, so it will be actually be impossible to find sources for it. Now that I have made this clear, I assume you no longer want to send it to articles for deletion, right? Picaroon (Talk) 00:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, although I am not going to make a major fight over this one, and the likely outcome of DRV is already clear. IMO to speedy delete as a hoax, something should be a confirmed hoax, that is, there should be actual evidence of its non-existance. You havnt't cited any. DES (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence in Attachment Therapy

Apologies... in this case it's not possible to trim it down. I don't think it should be a problem; it's clear and readable, and very much to the point.

It's about 2000 words at present, and almost complete. If you read it through, you'll see there is veryt little "fat" on it. It's just a very significant size apparent sock ring, with some 7 or 8 members, that has taken around a year to identify. It's more than 1000 words to provide evidence that each and every one of those 7 or 8 editors is a sock of the same person, and not an independent editor, and I'd ask that in light of the case, this time around you allow the evidence as stated to stand.

If despite this, that's still seen as a problem for you (and I know the recommended length, but at times when justified theres a need to break that rule) please email me to discuss.

Many thanks :) FT2 (Talk | email) 18:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced

I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 28 9 July 2007 About the Signpost
Seven administrators request promotion to bureaucrat status Board election series: Elections closed, results pending
Wikimedia Foundation hires consultant, general counsel Newspaper obituary plagiarizes Japanese Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Ann Coulter" News and notes: FA stats, top information site, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk

So, are you sorry you decided to clerk that arbcom? More than you bargained for? Heh. I duno what to make of the length of FT2's post, but he damned sure put some time into it. I'm not familiar with arbcom, so I don't know what's normal there. Peace.Lsi john 21:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked arbitrator Jpgordon about the evidence length, and he said there was no rush to trim the sections, although a comment he made to the evidence talk page shows he also thinks some sections are too long. The arbitrators won't be voting, and therefore looking over all the evidence, for a week or two at least, and more likely a whole month. So I'll start trimming the evidence page down once it seems everybody has posted what they have to say. Picaroon (Talk) 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised by the length of FT2's post. Though it seems on-point and rather relevant. In a case like that, do you end up creating a sub-page in order not to lose content? Its an interesting case.. Ive been following it for some time. Peace.Lsi john 21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specialized Transportation Inc.

The article I was writing on this company was a work in progress. I spent ALL afternoon on this and now I have nothing to show my employer tommorow morning. I logged on to wikipedia tonight to spend more of my personal time on the page, and you deleted it for no good. Mike Denney. I am extremely upset and want a valid reason. Denney.mike 00:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specialized Transportation Inc. vs. FedEx

How can you say that my article was a clear attempt to advertise our company. The history section that I was working on clearly connected back to 3 other companies that are currently listed on the wikipedia. Your oringal reason was that the article was too short, and now it's that I was trying to advertise.

Look at FedEx's page, they clearly have a history section, but they also cleary state all their services that they provide. This is starting to seem like a one sided story.

America's greatest companies were all built on core mission statements and values. To people in the business industry learning about what other companies value in the start of their company is very educational.

I am looking for a better answer Picaroon9288


Denney.mike 00:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being labeled as an advertiser?

The fact of the matter is there was nothing advertised about my company on the site though. What I was simply trying to do was connect our company's past history to other company's listed on the website. We are a company with a deep history in the truckiing business. I said nothing about the services we offer or what our company even consists of today.

What my job title is should not factor into your decision of deleting the page that I created. Could you not be in the marketing department and not try to market your past history?

I'm not going to go to my employer and tell them that some "evil" admin deleted our site, because that's childish. I would much rather go to your employer and have them evaluate your decision skills on deleting articles. You ran the original decision that the article was too short. Not true. Now you claim that you know I had intentions of advertising due to my job. You don't even know me or my intentions.

Denney.mike 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was labeled as an advertiser

I, like, the people above me was not at all advertising about the company in my article. The biggest section was the history one! In my talk page I continually asked what was blatant advertising and I got no answer. I would have gladly fixed it, but instead I got no response to that and a deleted article. While I understand the argument that just because Article A exists therefore Article B should too, if I sit here and list you the names of other articles just like the one about Dimension One Spas would you go and delete them? I think not. I feel cheated out of something that was unfairly taken without an explanation. Please help me understand your reasoning. The article was the one about Dimension One Spas.

User:Tuny 423 01:32, 11 July 2007

why did u delete the SOS allstars article

Thanks

Thanks for your input and actions on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Request for enforcement on St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. Makes my life easier not having to revert that disruptive editor all day. Thanks again! Leuko 00:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI blanking.

Thanks for the removal. I'm just really seething right now. Will (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend a break, then. Picaroon (Talk) 02:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rotary Arbitration Trimming

Please do not trim too much...I feel sometimes that you remove my args... As far, JpGordon is not involved anymore. Thank you for keeping args...and please let me my way to defend my own request (complexity). Thank you.

PierreLarcin 84.102.229.154 19:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is, you don't need all your arguments on the requests page. The requests page is for convincing arbitrators *why the case should be accepted.* If the case is accepted, you may use the evidence page to expand on your arguments. If the case is not accepted, then the point is moot. Picaroon (Talk) 19:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah Okay. You know I react on strong insults that I may not accept

It seems you removed my defense against antisemitism allegations by french wiki User Bradipus 1/ This claim is the same on French and Englisk wiki. 2/ The allegations of Bradipus are still there 3/ in France, antisemitism is a penal prosecuted crime 4/ I cannot allow this kind of insults, look to what I wrote. Thank you for restoring at least that, please. Pierre 19:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand your point. So I'll compromise: you can readd a denial of antisemitism, as long as it is kept to five sentences or less. If anyone tries to remove it, I'll point here and explain why you feel it is important. Remember, just deny the accusation, no need to go into depth. Picaroon (Talk) 19:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hello Could you give me a link to the decision on my claim. I noticed activity of BridesMill, I supppose it was closed ? I had no time to edit this one on en.wiki, and I regret it.

Thank you for the info, I cannot find it Pierre 00:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..playing nice...

Eh, in general, I was implying that there are a number of deletionists who contribute nothing else to the encyclopedia (if deleting things can be categorized as a contribution.. it is actually a subtraction...). I'm sure there are exceptions. I'm sure you're probably one of them. :-) I should play nice and retract the statement... despite the fact that it reflects my true opinion... :-) Ling.Nut 19:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


FayssalF Note

On the contrary, I have no addiction problem, but I plan to report you and your gang of buddies, FayssalF, Ezeu etc. who are working in tandem with each other, breaking all etiquette, as FayssalF has by: wikilawyering, article owning, favoritism, allowance of POV Extremely original research, inflaming, blindly reverting pages without checking content etc. I am not surprised that you are familiar with fayssalF, as you have I am sure waged a war, blindly, together to protect articles and certain editors. The greater amount of time you've spent here does not grant you a license to retain the distortion that these articles contain. If you or FayssalF went about it the right way and focused more on the content from the very beginning, this would not be happening. You have, however, chosen to play a game instead, and keep ignoring the main problem, which is inaccurate information, original sources, and favoritism. I not only intend to report you, but will continue to edit as it is my right, as I was unfairly blocked in the first place, and inflammed from the beg. by a gang of editors/admin.

Maybe you should report me to a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey. Picaroon (Talk) 05:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas?

Our friend seems to have a bit of a problem with wikiaddiction, and exciting as it is for her, I'm sure I'm not the only one who is bored of these antics. Every IP she uses is a new one, and they are so far apart range-blocking wouldn't work. (I assume the underlying IPs for the various accounts are also widely varying, although I've yet to file a checkuser.) If Wikipedia were a movie, someone would come up with an ingenious idea right about now, but aparently it isn't one, because we don't seem to have anything. :-) Picaroon (Talk) 05:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Parillaud as Nikita. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I checked your contributions, I actually did NOT add that reference "tag" on the berber page, which is sad isn't it? the fact that you have removed someone else's objections. Pity it is. Well, I think I've had my nightmarish fun (read nightmare) on wikipedia, I don't intend to waste the rest of my life on this really scary fascist dangerously OCDlike site that I thought was created for the dissemation of "knowledge" and once I noted the lack of knowledge and tried to amend it, ran into you and your fellow mechanical administrators...wow! And you probably still haven't looked into the source eh? which is of course what I have been pointing to for the past 3 weeks? and probably never will..because you're not here to better content are you? just to oblige your OCD impulses and retain a dictatorial grip on certain articles of interest. Collousbury has further distorted reality on the Maghreb page lol..I suppose he feels he, as a british hooligan, has the right to rewrite history and facts. Unsurprisingly, he too must suffer from OCD and perhaps maniacal delusions (I am better than the UN.) what a bunch of crazies..actually, I feel sorry for you and do not in anyway wish to become like you, esp. as it's quite clear what a joke wikimania is. Truly, its aim is not information but a freaky twisted psychological game wherein the admins/users vie for control over nonsense? good luck! delete this and archive it as per the P:OYU and O:IJK and POB and DHG. Enjoy wasting your life on utter bs.

Jocker City

The creators weren't sockpuppets of banned users as you stated on a user's talk page, but university students. I know this because someone posted about it on their personal homepage (hosted by the University!). It seemed to be a sort of in-joke for the geography department, albeit a not very funny one. I remember someone telling me about the hoax two years ago, I thought it was a bit silly - trying to fool people with a fake geographical place in an encyclopedia. (Back then, I thought Wikipedia was a novelty site, the same way YouTube or MySpace are seen nowadays by some!) Per WP:HOAX I have to endorse the deletion. It's a silly hoax, why it should be undeleted is beyond me. --SunStar Net talk 14:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cameroon

Hi! I think I had it right, but I've tried another version which might be clearer. I also posted a comment on the article's talk page which explains why I found the original version to be confusing. If you say someone is "the ninth fastest out of ten runners," that means they were one of the slowest runners. So if you say a country is "138th most corrupt out of 163," that makes it sound like its government is actually quite honest! PubliusFL 20:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


RFC discussion of User:Daniel

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Daniel (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel. --   j    talk   04:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel has a request for comment? I never knew! Thanks for keeping me informed, J. Picaroon (Talk) 04:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Had :) Daniel 08:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese comment

Do you know anything about Japanese? It's not racist, or a stereotype, it's a linguistic difference. Look at り。 Now look at　り。 That's the exact same character, which is more of a 'Ry' sound than anything else. Anyone who knows anything about Japanese language would agree with me that there is no way to distinguish a direct translation of "R" or "L" from each other. Since this sound sits between R and L, translations can be very inaccurate. If I were going to be racist, the Japanese would be last on my list --Laugh! 11:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Trimming

Advice needed please.

I asked before, but in light of todays notice I'm asking again.

Obviously I'd like to comply, but given the number of accounts and number of allegations present, I'm having a hard time figuring how to trim the evidence down by much. It is written for readibility, and is pretty readable. As you can see, none of it is "spam" or wordage. Proving a major sock ring without simple IP matching is always a matter of collating multiple forms of evidence across many edits, rather than one or two example diffs. There are some 7 accounts to do this for. It's a far cry from the usual case where a few sample diffs might say it all.

As a result, I'm a bit unsure how to comply. I'd like to, but I don't have much of an insight how it might be done, in this case. Rather than cause conflict I figure I'd approach you directly this way to ask, and to see if you would be willing to give me some example of what kind of stuff might not be necessary, that I can work from, or a bit of a hand to start doing the job.

It'd probably be much better than differing over what matters and what doesn't, to ask for input and assistance up front.

All the best -- and to avoid talk page clutter, email might be sensible if you're able to advise. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to cleanup Geography of Nigeria right now. I'll soon save my initial edits, will take a look at your presentation in ten minutes or so, and get back to you after that. Picaroon (Talk) 19:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your presentation looks fine. While long, it is to the point, and does not include the fluffish, unhelpful material that is usually trimmed, ie adjectives. The 1000 word maximum, while usualy enforced in the end, is treated with exceptions from time to time, and I foresee your statement being one of these. Thanks for bringing it up. Picaroon (Talk) 19:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 29 16 July 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: Filling in with a new feature
Möller, Walsh retain seats; Brioschi elected British agency cites Wikipedia in denying F1 trademark
Two new bureaucrats promoted Wikipedian bloggers launch "article rescue" effort
Book review: The Cult of the Amateur WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 19:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I see the notice regarding MarkWood and sockpuppets...However, I don't see the evidence. Where may I find the checkuser search/evidence, or whatever is the proper term/venue, to see that MarkWood and those other accounts are actually socks? When a checkuser was run on me, I was able to find the results of that...but I don't see that listed. You can respond on my talk page, it that is ok. DPetersontalk 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so he ran the checkuser and presente the evidence to the Arb group, who confirmed his finding? Is that correct? If so, that makes sense and I understand. DPetersontalk 04:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Cat

Thanks for dealing with the White Cat deletions. I notice that you also had to restore some pages that turned out to be being used widely as userboxes. Could you also look at his talk page? He appears to be asking for User:White Cat/Ribbon to be restored. --Tony Sidaway 09:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google is not the answer

Please do Wikipedia a favor and don't use Google as a method to verify obscure historical information. Even if there wasn't a reference immediately following the history of the Bena Diemba, it was very irresponsible of you to outright delete information which was referenced only a few sentences down. At the very least you could've checked the edit history to see who added the information.

Peter Isotalo 18:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of Google's flaws; you may note from my contributions that I edit Africa articles frequently, so I know its flaws very well. If a source can be found, put it back in, but the combination of the absurdity of what was written and the lack of Google hits was just to much for me. Call me cynical. Picaroon (Talk) 18:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's your obligation to check existing source before acting on mere suspicions. At the very least you should have the courtesy of letting people know that you've made a sloppy guesstimate on the talkpage after deleting material you've simply never heard of.
Peter Isotalo 18:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No source was cited, so I checked Google. Google had nothing. Then I checked Google books. Google books had nothing. I checked whatlinkshere on the article. There were no links. Where else am I supposed to check? The Library of Alexandria? I see now that you've cited a source for the info, so I apologize for my removal, but I'd like to remind you of the words in Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." Emphasis theirs. Picaroon (Talk) 18:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The heart of the problem, I think, is that way too many people actually believe that "I've never heard of this and I don't want to be bothered with checking a print reference that is a mere four sentences down" qualifies as "material that is likely to be challenged".
Peter Isotalo 19:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that reference down there was meant to be a citation for the Bena Diemba info? Mon erreur! I'm sorry, I really am. I thought that cite was for other info. How can I make it up to you? Picaroon (Talk) 19:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARB request moved to ANI

Userboxes

Hi, I know I have asked "all content in my userspace, usertalk space on all 3 of my usernames". But I had forgotten about the userboxes I created. I would prefer them undeleted (people are using them). I apologize for the inconvenience. What I meant was "archive pages" and "history" pages which have "content". :) -- Cat chi? 19:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You had a lot of user subpages. Could you give me a list of the ones you want undeleted? You probably remember what their names were, while I certainly don't. Picaroon (Talk) 19:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do not have the slightest idea but, I'll check the deletion log (rawish list) -- Cat chi? 20:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but no. You said yesterday "I request all content in my userspace, usertalk space on all 3 of my usernames to be deleted." I deleted your pages because I thought you were exercising your right to vanish. I spent two hours of my life doing that. I am not going to spend another two hours of my life reversing everything I did yesterday. I'm sorry White Cat, but I'm done here. Picaroon (Talk) 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody else tagged them behalf of me. There was a level of confusion. -- Cat chi? 22:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Also please move User:White Cat/Newbie where it was :/ -- Cat chi? 21:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
All fixed :) -- Cat chi? 19:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Civility

I seconded your warning to Tymek. Yet... when was an ArbCom clerk when another editor has recently accused others of conspiracy and "derail discussions of mind-boggling POV that is present in your edits by attempting to cast Wikipedia as a contest in wikilove" on those very ArbCom pages? Why is it possible to fling accusations of "frequently aggressive and bullying behaviour by David Gerard and his circle"? Or is there some intricate difference between those edits, making one allowable and the other, not? Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly support stomping out incivility whenever and wherever it is found - but one should hold all editors to the same standards.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see Ghirlandajo's comments. They are also unacceptable, and if I had noticed them sooner I would have warned him just as I warned Tymek. I, unfortunately, do not catch everything, and warning Ghirla now would not be a preventative comment of any sort. The parties to the case should do their best to adhere to Wikipedia's rules on civility and personal attacks, regardless of the behavior of others. Picaroon (Talk) 20:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with one point: if one is not told his behaviour is unacceptable, he will continue it. Ghirla is acting like this all the time - just check my diffs in evidence or workshop. Community ignoring this behaviour is not helping, and it spurrs others, like Tymek, to believe they can act like this too. Unless all incivil parties are kept in check, random warning one person who happened to post in the wrong place at the wrong time, will not help.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

warning

I just hope that Ghirla also received a warning from you, for his ujust accusations about me and Piotrus allegedly conspiring together. I hope that Wiki system of justice is blind. Tymek 20:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Just do your best to behave, and ignore Ghirla if he decides to misbehave. His behavior should have no affect on your behavior. Picaroon (Talk) 20:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So in your opinion it is OK to ignore Ghirla's personal attacks but not OK to ignore my remarks? I am writing again - where is the justice? What kind of admin are you? Where is the balance? Did he get a warning like I did? Tymek 21:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tymek, please stop it. Picaroon is not at fault; he did right to warn you - and if he doesn't want to punish others because he thinks that incivility older then few days is ok, there is no rule against it. Justice, on Wikipdia, is random: most incivility is unpunished - you were simply unlucky that that you were seen. I very much doubt it it will change, as proposals to enforce civility are ignored, as seen on our ArbCom. So again, don't blame Picaroon for doing what had to be done. We can just hope that one day there will be enough active ArbCom clerks to monitor all ArbCom discussions (note, Picaroon, that there were many more incivil comments at ArbCom and this was the very first that met with any reaction).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you Piotrus and I understand Picaroon as well. But he is well aware of Ghirla's behavior and he does not even bother himself to warn him. Justice should be blind. Tymek 21:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should, but on Wikipedia, it is not; it is random. Even Ghirla wrote recently: ""You are seriously deluded in believing that wikipedians should be treated equally". WP:CIVIL is commonly broken and complains about it called canvassing or something-shopping. And as our very ArbCom shows - it is unlikely to change :( Again, please: at least don't contribute to it with comments like you left at ArbCom - please consider refactoring it. Picaroon, at least, tried to enforce the rule here - this is more then I have commonly came to expect.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will try, just as I have been the whole time. But I'm not infallible. Picaroon (Talk) 21:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(To Tymek and Piotrus) When you go fishing, do you ever catch all the fish? Of course not. I've watchlisted four cases at once, more than 1000 Nigeria related articles, and a few other odds and ends. I try to monitor everything, but obviously this is not feasible. If I catch vandalism, I roll it back. If I catch soapboxing, I revert it and link the soapboxer to to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If I see someone making a personal attack, or being incivil, I warn them. But I don't catch everything. On the topic of when to warn someone, I should note what I think on the subject: warnings, like blocks, are not to be used as punishment. If I'm two days late, there isn't any point, because warning someone for something they did two days ago is patronizing and unhelpful. I'm sorry you feel I am not being fair, but if you follow Wikipedia's policies from the beginning you won't have to worry. Picaroon (Talk) 21:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the essay :) I do think you are being fair, as you said - if you had seen the other diffs soon after they were made, you'd have acted the same way. As I wrote above, it's more a difference of philosophy. There is no wiki essay I could find, but as long as we are using nice metaphors, consider the broken windows argument. Some editors on Wikipedia are commonly breaking windows (i.e. being uncivil). They are, occasionally, warned - but warnings, even ArbCom or very recent and common, do no good, because some users apparently don't care about how many warnings they can accumulate, safely reasoning that due to various reasons they will not be blocked. Thus incivility is unpunished, and, as with broken windows, others see it and either - like Tymek, adapt it - or like others I know, simply leave the project, because they had not came here to be constantly insulted. Going back to your fishing argument - at least the officer in the story can give a fine and usually enough fines mean the offender losses a license. On Wikipedia, incivility offenders - if they are new - occasionally may be blocked, but "old hands", with friends and experience, are immune. A cursory glance at the proposed most likely decision of our ArbCom shows that we will all get 'amnesty' and that's it. Nothing will change. Uncivil editors will continue to spit venom at others, occasionally an editor will get warned (futile effort, of course), and others will either start acting the same or unwilling to contribute in exchange for such abuse will leave the project. Thus, over time, Wikipedia will become another flaming hell like Usenet. So thanks for warning Tymek. I hope he will not post incivil comments in the future. But there is an increasing number of drivers, speeding out there, and laughing at our impotence, ramming other editors off the road. And the High Court of Roads is going to... issue an amnesty. Do you know where can I buy a tank? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tank? I know a guy who knows a guy, he could fix you up with something. But getting it to Poland would be tricky, we'd have to hide it... maybe hide it in a file cabinet. Big file cabinet. Picaroon (Talk) 22:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Test

This is a test of the emergency broadcast system. o.o – Luna Santin (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock?

Is Theirishpianist (talk · contribs) a sock of MarkWood as well? If so, you might want to think about putting a block on the IP: User:64.241.37.140, as he's currently requesting unblock from the IP (I note this IP has been regularly blocked in the past for checkuser reasons). I just often have my spidey senses go crazy when I see someone asking for unblock from an IP that was autoblocked for sockpuppetry. The Evil Spartan 15:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of that account before. Jpgordon and Jayjg are the checkusers associated with the case so far, I've just done the blocking of the accounts they identify as sock puppets of DPeterson. I see Jpgordon has handled our musician friend's unblock request, so we should assume that he is unrelated for now. Thanks for telling me. Picaroon (Talk) 20:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re User:Entre-Nos

I posted the following at WP:AN/I (I think, this was spread over several forums);

*User:Entre-Nos recently filed an WP:AIV report on User:XLR8TION, which I removed as forum shopping and left this message/warning on their talkpage. If any other party wants to look this over, and comment, please do. I shall also copy this to the relevant section at WP:AN.

I notice that you (correctly) commented at XLR8TION's talkpage regarding this matter. Would you care to check over my comments? I would like to de-escalate this matter as a matter of urgency. Do you have any suggestions? LessHeard vanU 00:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AIV removal was certainly alright - that was definitely forum shopping, which Entre-Nos was already warned for. I'm not sure what the best tactic is now, since Entre-Nos seems more intent carrying on arguing than actually trying to resolve the dispute. A firm warning like what you gave was just right in my opinion. Not too harsh, but it also makes clear exactly what behavior we're getting tired of. Picaroon (Talk) 17:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was wrong about WP:AN, though, it was the RfArb (?) that you removed I was thinking of. LessHeard vanU 18:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DPeterson edits

Hi,

DPeterson has been making edits to the attachment therapy page. It's not clear if the edits are in bad faith, but he does insert references to ACT for some reason, which, given his past reference to ACT as a "fringe" group, suggests he might have bad intentions. Is he supposed to be banned from article edits at this point? Thanks for your help. StokerAce 20:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a coincidence. I was just answering Fainites' question at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence#DPeterson when I saw the new message bar pop up. I think I answered your query there. Picaroon (Talk) 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 30 23 July 2007 About the Signpost
WikiWorld comic: "World domination" News and notes: "The Wikipedia Story", visa ruling, milestones
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Alexplaugh12/Wiki issues

Thanks for any consideration, I think you are doing a good job and I do not delude myself into thinking my absence will result in some form of Sabotage or something, and again it goes against what I was indirectly trying to say, that Nigeria is much more diverse and interesting than to be known and mentally processed in cognitive imagery as a nation of 419. I think things got out of hand but there are just places or subjects that have problems and one do not see those problems in their pages, like Internet. But I will try and use other mediums of wikipedia like simple English, yeah it sounds simple, maybe that is what I need, to move out of the traffic and use a much healthier medium.

I also replied on my talk page Alexplaugh12 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Kay image

I have just stumbled upon my image that I uploaded over a year ago. I happened to notice that you have tagged it for deletion and I wasn't notified. Isn't it common practice to notify the editor in question prior to tagging something for deletion?

Therefor I'm removing the tag (as tomorrow it will be up for deletion) and asking that you plase follow proper procedure next time. If you desire, you can re-tag and inform me so that I can have the required time to build up a defence. Steve J 14:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought a bot automatically notified people when pages they created were put up for deletion. Maybe that's only for articles. Sorry for not notifying you. But speaking of procedure, note that the tag says "Please do not remove this tag." If you want to challenge the proposed deletion of the image, use {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|Your reason why a free replacement can not be found or created}}. Picaroon (Talk) 14:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... so this wasn't malicious in error. I haven't removed the tag. ^^; I'm just kinda upset because it gives you a week to make the defence and now I only have a day. Steve J 14:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have restarted the timer, so it's as if I tagged the image today. Still trying to remember the name of that bot. Picaroon (Talk) 14:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs and links on the evidence page

Hi. I've asked the arbitrators on the RFAR talk page if I could edit the evidence template to be more helpful to newbies about diffs and links. The arbs that have replied have been all for it, but UC commented that the template "belongs to the clerks". So perhaps you might like to take a look at my suggestion and post a comment? Bishonen | talk 10:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

They both look very helpful. I agree that Help:Diff is complicated, as are most help pages. But this is simple to use, and will definitely help many arbitration participants in the future. Good work. But I disagree that us clerks have possession of any pages; sure we organize them and answer questions, but at the end of the day anybody with a good idea or a willingness to help is completely welcome to contribute. Picaroon (Talk) 17:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Nobody seems to disapprove of my suggested changes so far, so I went ahead. Bishonen | talk 19:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Response

I have posted all relevant info to your question on my talkpage below your comment. NikoSilver 15:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi, Picaroon, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy UCP 04:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Beauchamp

Hello Picaroon. I wanted to inform you that I have reverted your edit in Bianca Beauchamp article regarding her orientation. The reason is the questioned information is mentioned in the referenced sources. Particularly in her web bio in the first paragraph of the third chapter. Also the book could be used as a reference, and there would be possible to reference the text of miss Beauchamp web diary too. But I am in doubt why to extra reference particularly this information in her info box. Best regards Rikapt 09:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply

My edits have been discussed on the talk page, as I have contributed to that page for over a year. I do not feel the need to assume good faith with a user clearly with no purpose on wikipedia but to stalk my edits.Bakaman 04:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also am perplexed why you condone admin abuse of a similar tool.Bakaman 04:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dbachmann was not in an edit war, he was reverting an anon who was looking for a talk page. I would similarly ask him not to use rollback or popups if he was involved in the edit war you were in, but I fail to see the equivalency of the situations. Picaroon (t) 19:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well he appears to use rollback the same way I use popups, as if to mock my participation on the talk page.Bakaman 23:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.

Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 31 30 July 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: Another experiment and Wikimania
Report on Citizendium Response: News from Citizendium
User resigns admin status amid allegations of sock puppetry WikiWorld comic: "Mr. Bean"
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daryush_Mehrjuba

This editor is making questionable edits blanking several paragraphs and sections [2] [3] [4] contradicting the links he himself provided. I suspect him to be a sockpuppet of User:Bakasuprman who was recently involved in ArbCom case. He uses tools to revert to his POV.[5] He also tampered with sockpuppet tag placed on his page. [6] Anwar 12:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[7].

[8]No contradiction.This user is clearly trolling. He seems to have a reputation for communal baiting [9][10]Daryush Mehrjuba 12:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aberra Molla

If you do not want me to create so that you do not run into copyright violations, then I suggest you create it. For information on what to write, you can copy whatever you want from http://www.ethiopic.com/Dr._Aberra_Molla_Ethiopic.htm

Thanks! Aberra Molla 16:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. I sent in a new email and then saw your response.

I am now also writing about another issue, because you also do admin jobs. Your Wiki pages have Ge'ez instead of Ethiopic as a word for the Ethiopian alphabet. Geèz is one of the names of the alphabet and the language in one of the local Ethiopian languages. Just as Latin is the name of the English alphabet, the English name of the Ethiopian alphabet is Ethiopic. You can look this up in other sources including dictionaries. By changing the English name of an alphabet Wiki has done an unwarranted error and I thus suggest you change the name of your pages from Geez to Ethiopic. Ethiopic does not exist and requests are redirected to Ge'ez. Aberra Molla 16:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 32 6 August 2007 About the Signpost
Committee makes statement on U.S. chapter About: The Wikipedia Plays
Review: The Wikipedia Plays WikiWorld comic: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Similpedia, milestones Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

If you want to remove it, remove it. During the AFD there was confusion between several people both on wiki and on IRC that it was the main article, not the pop culture article being deleted. While it obviously says pop culture in the title, it is not immediately clear that the main article exists. At first glance, this is the only article on infinite monkey theorem, and how dare we delete such a notable topic (which I don't dispute, it is notable). So this is my attempt to clarify exactly what is being deleted. Or reviewed for undeletion, in any case. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 14:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sock block

Thanks. SchmuckyTheCat

Should I start an AFD?

For User:PEAR/talkheader?

--PEAR (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want to speedy it {{db|reason}}, SqueakBox 19:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I already declined the speedy deletion because there were multiple non-trivial edits by others, thereby making CSD G7 inapplicable. Picaroon (t) 19:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming article on Ikorodu

I see you trimmed out a large portion of the text on Ikorodu, stating it was un-salvageable. The text was very bad however I think there was some useable information in there, I'm wondering if we shouldn't move it to the talk page, or maybe a sub-page linked to from the talk page so that it can be used. Also you deleted the timeline from the last section, I spent quite a bit of time organizing and cleaning up that timeline and felt sorry to see it go. Could it possibly go back in the article, should it have its own article, or do you think it should be scrapped entirely. It contained a lot of trivial stuff that could be deleted for sure, but there was some important history in it as well and I hate to see that kind of information lost. Not too many Wikipedians would be able to provide the level of detail contained in some of the events in there and I think the article is worse off without it. -AndrewBuck 21:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll readd the timeline, but I'm still quite sure most of the general text will remain useless no matter how much it is tinkered with. The user who added it was obviously quite knowledgeable, but a variety of things about the prose make me think it is as I said, unsalvageable. First, complete lack of perspective. Some of this information probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, even if all the other problems were addressed. Next, verifiability. I think the only places to verify this information would be the mouthes of the more knowledgeable Ikoroduans (yes, I made that demonym up.) Third, the bias is really in the information to the bone. Which is to be expected, but is nevertheless hard to rectify without sources to compare with. And finally, the spelling, grammatical, and tone issues.
I worked in the edit window for more than half an hour, because my original intention had not been to scrap most of the article. But as I moved down the page I realized that all the information was like this. The only parts that seemed salvageable to me were those that I left, but on closer inspection the timeline seems good too. Picaroon (t) 21:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The parts that are left originally looked exactly like the rest of the text in the article. I went through them and tried to figure out what was being said and reformat it into logical prose and remove some of the bias. Thats why I would like the text kept somewhere more accessible to others than just the history, as bad as it is there is the occasional nugget of real information and we shouldn't bury that in the history. Ikorodu is one of the pages listed on my user page as "Requiring serious work." I haven't worked on it in a while but plan to get back to it and improve it later. Also in reading online I have found other sites that seem to jive with what was said in the article so it's not all just ramblings. Information on Nigerian cities is not easy to come by and as a result I think we should look to any sources we have. -AndrewBuck 21:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Thank you for putting the timeline back. I will try to clean it up a bit more, but I still think a subpage should be made for the original text. -AndrewBuck 21:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea. I've created a page holding the content of the last revision before mine at Talk:Ikorodu/Sandbox. Picaroon (t) 21:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I know you do a lot of work on Nigerian articles, I've seen your name in many edit histories and you do good work. I just felt very bad to see this info get buried. I'll try to push it up my list of priorities so it doesn't sit too long. Thanks again and keep up the good work. :) -AndrewBuck 21:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess I kinda put my foot in my mouth with this whole discussion. I started checking a few things to begin cleanup of the timeline and came across this site. [11] Apparently the whole works that I was so adamant about keeping is a copyvio. :( I'm wondering what to do. Should I just revert to the version after you chopped all the scrambled stuff out? I think this would be OK as then the only remaining text would be the text that has been significantly rewritten, making it OK I think. -AndrewBuck 01:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've deleted the sandbox and removed all text that appears to come from that site. But please continue to help me swap words around, just to be entirely sure that this article is purely free. Picaroon (t) 02:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardblock of a bad username

You hardblocked User:Goddamn phucking Clintons!, who had made no edits and may have thought it was acceptable to express an opinion in a username. I see no evidence of bad faith -- particularly because the user hadn't edited -- and nothing in the username policy says a hard block was appropriate in this case. Can I encourage you to only use account creation blocks in the most serious cases? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian National Mosque

I saw that you speedy closed the AFD a mere 5 hours after it was started and only 2 responses. I looked at the article and the references are not sufficient to pass WP:N as "significant coverage". So, I was wondering the reasoning for the speedy close Corpx 04:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


General Jackass

But don't you think the name is rude or inflammatory? Cheers, JetLover (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3/4

yeh what ever I realy don't do the #'s I just post them. I'm not in a good mood today I'm haveing problems with a wireless router and I'm going crazy.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 04:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

Were you under the impression that my remarks were somehow more uncivil than any of the others were? IronDuke 01:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are preparing incivility reports for any/all editors who have violated it across the range of these articles? IronDuke 01:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've not actually read through the talk pages of the articles in question? IronDuke 01:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great. It helps, BTW, to know that you’re a clerk—you might think of putting that clearly on your user page. 1) I have no idea what discussions have been had about this among those interested in arbclerking and such, but I am here to tell you it is a phenomenally bad idea for clerks who know a tiny sliver of what’s going on to start throwing around charges, baseless or otherwise. Does it perhaps make things go a bit faster? It emphatically does not, as now arbs have to read my comments as well, of which there are likely to be many. My hope was to stay out of this case, and unless and until some finding of fact or remedy directly accused me of something, I was going to, until you added me as a party to it all on your own. Now I’ve had to waste the better part of a day on this, taking me away from work which I actually get paid to do. I cannot think why it is that anyone thought it was a good idea for clerks to present prosecutorial evidence—yet another bizarre way in which arbcom manages to be more contentious and litigious than an actual courtroom.
2) Your charges are wildly off base, as I hope I’ve made clear to you in my comments in the proceeding. There was nothing uncivil at all about what I posted, but I’m willing to accept that idea that, despite your own less-than-civil contributions, you have a very low tolerance of anything less than saccharine postings from others. Given that these articles contain a miasma of seething anger, vituperation, and back-biting (none of it, again, by me) I look forward to your speeding the process along by making parties of all available malefactors. IronDuke 02:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) Of course you’ve made me a party. As soon as you placed the first message on my talk page apprising me of what you had done, I was obliged to respond. Though you stated I wasn’t a party, that wouldn’t phase arbcom if they decided to tailor a remedy to include me. I couldn’t then say, “Oh no, I’m not a party, you may not include me in any sanctions. It’s not leeegal” You know this, I presume.
2) Your evidence is prosecutorial in the same way that everyone who posts in the evidence section is a prosecutor, and everyone who writes rebuttals a defense attorney. When you “interpret” diffs in a way that is unfavorable to me, you are a plaintiff/prosecutor in the case.
3) What? “Concise editing sections?” I’m still trying to come to grips with how you can act as a clerk on a case, and yet actively solicit arbcom to sanction me and provide evidence against me. As I think about it, can you point me to a discussion/decision where you are allowed/encouraged to do this? Either the policy is deeply flawed, or you have abused your office. I hope it’s the former.
4) You may see the diffs, since you ask. I was actually thinking it might be good to add you as a party, seeing as arbcom is very, very flexible when it comes to judging conduct, and anyone who posts anything is liable to have any and all actions scrutinized. However, as I actually strongly disapprove of this tendency, and believe that it has a chilling effect and is ultimately just silly, I forbore in the interests of not being an utter hypocrite and wasting everyone’s time. But here they are.
BTW, You still have not replied to my question: are you going to be reading through all the talk pages and edit summaries of the Apartheid family of articles and presenting evidence against any and all editors who have made what could be construed as uncivil remarks? IronDuke 02:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now in your rebuttal to my pointing out your incivility, you suggest that I may not have the whole story. How could that be? Well, it might be that I’m not intimately familiar with your edits, or the edits of the people you have been dealing with, and therefore I’d be prone to make errors when casting quick judgments—just as you have done in judging my conduct without bothering to see the larger context. I recognize that’s a big job, but you seemed eager to take it on in my case. Now, curiously, you appear to be backing away from the idea that you will pursue people who have made what are, even in your own view, far less civil statements than mine, leaving behind merely my own relatively innocuous comments, and again I am puzzled why this should be, why I might be plucked out of a cast of hundreds to have my words twisted by someone who has said he is unfamiliar with the context from which they came. I won’t ask you to shed any more light on that, as I think it’s clear you were acting more or less at random. I do recognize that you were trying to help, but I hope you recognize that you didn’t.
Once more, can you show me the policy/discussion/essay that encourages/allows you to present evidence against editors in arbcom cases? This is information I would very much like to have, and I presume you are more aware of what is and isn’t acceptable for a clerk to do than I. IronDuke 03:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you wouldn’t be singling them out, that’s the beauty of providing evidence against twenty people on all sides of the debate, isn’t it? So now that I’ve set your mind at ease about that… well, I won’t hold my breath,
Moving on, thanks for providing that quote. It is interesting to note that “disputants, interested third parties, and the Arbitrators themselves” does not include you. Clerks in fact recuse themselves from cases in which they are involved, they do not attempt to inject themselves into cases they are clerking. Or at least, they ought not to. IronDuke 03:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, so I wanted to get some arb-types involved in the discussion. I left my thoughts here: [12] IronDuke 04:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 33 13 August 2007 About the Signpost
CC 3.0 licenses accepted on Commons Reviewing five software requests
WikiWorld comic: "2000s" News and notes: Meetup, milestones
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi

This is a reply to your message regarding a section on the article area boys 'outside of nigeria'. You are right in pointing out that the area boys in Nigeria are very different from the people who are referred to as area boys here in India, especially in my home state of Tamil Nadu. It is a good suggestion to spin it off as a separate article. But I'm afraid I dont have any good source to provide citations about area boys of India. It is predominantly a social aspect of our street culture that gets little attention through the press or online publications. I could infact ask my fellow blogging friends to contribute to this article, but currently I'm not able to find any online source for the article. Thanks Swamy

Christopher Columbus (whaleback)

thanks. those w:'s came from the Commons picture captions, I did the pics first :) 'preciate the cleanup. ++Lar: t/c 01:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime Lar. Not sure if you want to leave those two redlinks in place or de-link them. Picaroon (t) 01:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I vote leave them, they are needful articles. I think DYK policy says no redlinks but I don't buy it. :) ++Lar: t/c 13:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No redlinks? That's a bit silly, seeing as redlinks are how many of these articles get started in the first place (recently I started Otto Reche out of a redlink in a DYK submission). And I'm sure my submissions have had redlinks - indeed, Sam Mbakwe has three. By the way, congratulations on your checkusership. Promise not to bug you too much for the first few weeks. Picaroon (t) 18:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I might be misremembering about the redlink bit. I agree with you about the usefulness of them. And thank you! Right now DYK is backlogged... :( ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 34 20 August 2007 About the Signpost
Bad Jokes, Deletion Nonsense, and an arbitration case WikiScanner tool creates "minor public relations disasters" for scores of organizations
WikiWorld comic: "Tomcat and Bobcat" News and notes: Wikimania '08, 200 x 100, milestones
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will keep that in mind in the future. Perspicacite 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on RFAs

I'm digging through the RFA stuff right now to find out about comments, but if you have a direct link to "what is good practice" - i will gladly read it. As for the post to Jaranda's comments, those should be struck from the conversation. He has absolutely no business making that type of comment based on his involvement in the situation. If you want to have this chat on my talk page, please feel free to refractor, i like to keep these things in one place. In the meantime, i've marked this for watching. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Civil War

All the help you can provide on the Ethiopian Civil War is greatly appreciated. The article consists entirely of info taken from other Wikipedia articles and thus, unfortunately, glosses over a lot. Perspicacite 22:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbComBot Settings

The name of the case that you plan to open is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex. Will the case be posted at AN? yes. Will the case be posted at CSN? yes. Change the "run" setting to yes to start me. ArbComBot 22:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ly5

H97hgd 2402:3A80:688:B9D1:0:46:9875:2801 (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]