User talk:Terrakyte

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Terrakyte! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

John McCain

My apologies. I removed it in error. I have restored your comment. My mistake. JodyB _talk 00:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Mieczyslaw Jagielski

No problem, I should have waited more so you could've restored it yourself. I can look on Polish net in the future, but for now, check this.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So... why Jagielski? Not the most notable figure out there :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving such a marginal article. It is efforts such as yours that truly make this project worthwhile! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Print is a wonderful resource, I am sure you'll find it very useful in the future.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is little more we can do till we get GA reviewers reply, so yes, let's go ahead and do it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further collaboration

Have you considered using WP:BABEL to declare languages you speak? Perhaps we can select another figure to destub and DYK based on our common interests? Collaboration is so much more fun than doing it alone... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further collaboration... I guess I have too many ideas :) As long as is something related to Poland or sociology, count me in :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. That's a much more prominent figure, and we will certainly have a ton of materials.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed's Tower

No bad blood; however, I would have expected for you to have replaced my tag with a Speedy Deletion-notability tag given the flimsiness of the article.

ttonyb1 (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and thanks for the explanation. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mieczysław Jagielski

On 25 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mieczysław Jagielski, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wojciech Jaruzelski

I was not aware of specific policy for infobox pictures. The photo you found is pretty good, and you can upload it to commons under commons:PD-Poland and into WJ category :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Disruptive user

Reference to de Zayas, hmmm? Seen it before :( I haven't run into this user before but I've run into some of his friends. Usually I've my hands full of trying to deal with various POV pushers on Poland-related articles (which earns me much wikistress...); if that user becomes more disruptive, you may ask User:Moreschi or User:AGK for more advice.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations

Dear Terrakyte,

You wrote:

"When I read the above post, I thought that I should write a statement explaining well why this edit ([4]) to the Germans in Czechoslovakia (1918–1938) article did not comply with WP:NPOV. However, after reading several statements made by other editors on this talk page stating why many of your edits do not comply with WP:NPOV, I decided that there was no point in re-iterating something that you have been told many times."

OK. Please note:

What you are doing, is a very unpolite way of talking to people. "I have told you many times", this is the way that parents speak to their children and i think it is very impolite of you. I am sorry to tell you, dear Terrakyte, but you do not have any right to talk like that. Well, first thing: From now on, please try to remain polite, thank you.

You wrote:

"I was surprised by the fact that, after being reported to the admins for breaking NPOV several times, you were not blocked. However, having discovered the discussion in which that particular period of NPOV violations was discussed by the admins, I can see that you were not blocked not because the admins thought you didn't deserve it, but because the discussion went inactive, though all recommendations posted stated that you should be blocked, some even suggesting indefinetly."

Please stop making offensive personal remarks against me, and again: Please try to remain polite. Speaking of me, "deserving" anything, seems very offensive and abusive to me, and i ask you politely to stop making personal offensive remarks towards me. If this continues, i will have to report you to the Admins. Please try to remain polite and balanced, thank you.

Also, what you are saying is not true. I wonder how you want to know what the Admins think or don't think? Of course they have not blocked me because of any "inactivity" of any discussion as you claim. But because they simply do not seem to share your point of view. I am involved in many other discussions, too, which are not inactive.

You wrote:

"Follow the rules from now on".

When you talk to me, please dont give me orders. You are in now way entitled to talk to me like this. "Follow the rules" is an order. I would appreciate very much, if you add the word "please", and you will see that it is not difficult to always remain polite, thank you.

"I'm sorry that you feel like the warnings are abuse, but the warnings are justified."

Well, they are not and i think you know that very well. Everything i have written is veryfiable, and unlike some authors, i do not interprete facts, but just state facts.

For example, in the article about Czechoslovakia - which seems very controversial to me due to some quite biased authors - one Author wrote that the Lord-Runciman-Report was expression of "Failure" of Britain. Well, this is complete nonsense. If these Authors had taken a closer look at this report, they would have noticed that it is not expression of failure of the British Government, but of the Benes-Government. Lord Runciman delivered a devastating indictment of the then Czech Government, accusing them of "tactlessness", and we all know, that Official Government documents are written in a quite euphemistic manner.

You see, some articles in Wikipedia really do need some closer scientific examination. I think many people are very glad, that i am willing to help ameliorating the quality of Wikipedia. We all should strive for the best quality, dont you agree? I am very willing to help you, too, whenever i can. But please, remember to remain polite. Thank you.

kind regards,

Peter

--PeterBln (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• second that Rktect (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder

Have you really joined this project on November 17, 2008? Or are you one of those users who like to change their usernames? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. It's addicting... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello and welcome Terrakyte! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with our community.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Medal

Thank you. Positive reinforcement is so rare these days :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I try not to let certain things get to me too much. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tadeusz Pyka

Sure. In the future, try to add categories and interwikis to new articles you create.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nom: could use more ilinks.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tadeusz Pyka

On 5 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tadeusz Pyka, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Ryszard Reiff

Hello! Your submission of Ryszard Reiff at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ryszard Reiff

On 16 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ryszard Reiff, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article somewhat, although to late for the DYK readers. How exactly my links led you to him? I know he's not directly listed on my page (I also know I've never heard of him before you brought him to my attention). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Kostiuchnówka

Perhaps you would like to take a look at this article, which I think is not far from reaching the A-class status? I am looking for a native speaker to help with some copyediting issues in it as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Merry XMAS from User:Piotrus. 00:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Zimbabwean cholera outbreak GA?

Thanks for message, and no worries on your earlier comment, I took it in what I assumed was the spirt offered: explaining a procedural point I had somehow missed. There's some work we still have to do on the article, based on some toher comments I got, but I will definitely renominate at some point in the next month or so, assuming no further rapid change. That said, there are still daily updates coming out of the UN, so it might be abit longer. Babakathy (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having inputted the latest data (cases up from 22 to 28k since last edit), it seems the rate of increase in cases has not changed since early Nov, I guess this is still "rapidly unfolding". Babakathy (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Menendez

Hi, no I think it's great that you created the article, I wouldn't of suggested it otherwise. It looks good too, it would've taken me ages to get around to making it, as I'm currently working on another article. I thought I'd reward you with a barnstar for your efforts, you can decide where you want to place it yourself etc. (Barnstar moved by Terrakyte to Terrakyte's userpage) I also went to the trouble of tagging the article to it's associated wikiprojects and assessing it. If you do any future work on it and want me to re-assess/de-brief, just ask. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing noms from Template talk:Did you know

Generally I do not think it is a good idea to remove noms from Template talk:Did you know, unless they were your own self-noms. Best to let them sit on the suggestions page until at the least a day or so after they get moved to the "expiring noms" section of the page. Cirt (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh oops, my mistake I had not realized they had been sitting at the December 20 date section. I guess let them sit for one more day or so and then they could be removed, yeah. Sorry about that. Cirt (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just self-reverted, so since they were from the December 20 section - feel free to add them back, or leave them out - I'll leave that up to you. (Generally I just remove an entire old date section, instead of one hook at a time). Cirt (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Cirt (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish culture during World War II

I am looking for a native speaker to copyedit this article, now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Polish culture during World War II. Perhaps you'd be interested? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific w/regards to the DYK problem? Do you mean the backlog of DYK updates at T:TDYK? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to create DYKs, and always felt I should leave selection of them to others (a little bit of conflict of interests here...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mario Menéndez

On 2 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mario Menéndez, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Little Sark

Hi Terrakyte - you made comments at Talk:Sark#Merge Little Sark about merging the article on Little Sark into the main one on Sark. I've made a few changes to the Little Sark article - could I ask you to have a look at it now, to see whether you still think it should be merged? Thank you, Grutness...wha? 22:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments - it was a bit of fun research, and I found out far more about the area than I knew before! Grutness...wha? 22:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor

Thank you for contacting me about the Zachary Taylor article, as I posted on the talk page, I agree with your proposed change. --omnipotence407 (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You can count on me for help. However, im not so good at general improvements. If you give me something specific to work on, id be more than happy to help out. --omnipotence407 (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Im not so good with history. My major focus was on anti-vandalism. But I guess I would do best on formatting, or link verification, or something alongthose lines. just let me know. -- Omnipotence407 (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. Just let me know. --omnipotence407 (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Thank you for the review! JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rarańcza

Thank you for the article; don't forget to nominate it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest and at T:TDYK. PS. Unfortunately, majority of refs for this event are in offline Polish publications, so I am afraid we may find it hard to expand article any further easily. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strensham Services

Already partly fixed, as part of my (starting now) attempts to improve UK service station articles, so don't go mad tagging just yet jenuk1985 (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar :) My first! jenuk1985 (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA for MJ passed

Congrats! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chesley Sullenberger

Thanks a bunch. In the meantime, I've added the AfD to today's log. 78.34.145.54 (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I offered an alternative hook at T:TDYK. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I readded it with more inline cite tags. If there's still any missing citations, please leave it for now, use {{cn}} and comments to ask for sources, then leave a message on my talk and/or the talk of the article. Superm401 - Talk 17:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iran–Iraq War

Just wanted to pop by and say great job on the article so far. It is looking much better. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit request

If you feel like it, another article to look over for copy editing by native speaker: Talk:Prehistory and protohistory of Poland/GA2. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry, take your time! Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adoptee Response

You posted on my talk page that you would like to adopt me =D. I gladly accept your offer.=D A few things you should know about me.

• I'm not on all day(an hour or so a day at most) -I have a life.
• I'm fairly new to wikipedia...but I am a tech savvy person.
• I'm a fairly easy going person
• I only speak english=D
• I'm American(Whether thats a good or bad thing...idk)

I'd like to thankyou for offering to adopt me.=D I hope wikipedia will provide to be an interesting place. ^.^ CheersSmallman12q (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure where to post questions, so I'll post them here until you tell me otherwise. My first question is mainly out of curiosity... Under my watchlist there are varying numerical values...

"(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Poverty threshold‎; 22:21 . . (0) . . Smallman12q (Talk | contribs)

(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Poverty threshold‎; 22:20 . . (-20) . . Smallman12q (Talk | contribs) (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Poverty threshold‎; 22:19 . . (+32) . . Smallman12q (Talk | contribs) "

What do they mean?(0),(-20),(+32). (Thanks again for adopting me ^.^)Smallman12q (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to create an article for US Air Force Web Posting Response Assessment, but all I have is an image... http://www.webinknow.com/2009/01/us-air-force-web-posting-response-assessment.html Smallman12q (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Battle of Rarańcza

On January 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Rarańcza, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Of Aachen

All the other images are displayed on my screen, but the one named "GI machine gun crew in Aachen.jpg" is not. Using preview, I tried to display it in a different part of the article, but again, I got nothing. So, I assumed the image does not exist anymore and I deleted the reference to it. Q43 (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the image size from 300px to 301px and now it displays properly on my screen. This is truly a peculiar bug why it didn't display at all at 300px. Q43 (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Sorry you didn't like the bolding but I place a note before the bolding saying that I did it, not you. I didn't want to interrupt the edit so I placed it 1 or 2 words before and above the bolding. Sorry. Chergles (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Terrakyte (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked indefinitely because a check-user determined that I was a sock-puppet of several other editors [1]. I am not a sock-puppet of these accounts, though I am aware of them. I nominated Mastermind (Sparta) for speedy delete, and the speedy delete I added was removed by the IP address in the sock-puppet case. I then nominated the article for deletion, arguing that it should be deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mastermind (Sparta). I noticed that vote-stacking seemed to be taking place by several editors (which the check-user determined were run by the same purpose) arguing the article should be kept. I myself took no further part in the AFD discussion, other than following what was happening. Today, I found my account had been blocked because I was determined to be a sock-puppet. I can assure whoever is reviewing this request that I am not behind these accounts. I hope what I have said has made sense, I am honestly a little panicked by what has happened. Thank you for reading. Terrakyte (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC) :Additional: I have spoken with an admin, and he asked if I shared a network with people. I do live at a school, and my Internet connection is part of a shared network, and the admin told me to say that in this reasoning. I would also like to note that I feel I am an editor who does a lot of good for this encyclopedia all the time (I got an article up to GA, I have a barnstar, I have adopted a user, and I have several DYKs to my name), and I don't think this shows the type of behavior akin to vandals. Terrakyte (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining this request because normal administrators, who do not have access to the apparently conclusive checkuser evidence, cannot properly review it. You may, however, appeal to WP:ARBCOM, who can. —  Sandstein  23:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment. I'd have unblocked Terrakyte myself, but I have known him for few months which makes me not completely neutral. This is a strange case, because we have an editor in good standing whose IP suddenly sprouts socks which don't support him but vote against the main account on AFD, a checkuser swearing up and down on IRC that IP evidence is very conclusive and they have to be the same person (albeit admitting that their behavior is strange), and in the end, a good editor (author of Good Articles and Did You Knows) who gets an indef for allegedly creating socks to vote against his own AfD. Something doesn't add up here. My instincts tell me to support unblocking, and assume that somebody is playing a nasty prank on Terra. If this is the case, I am also worried that whoever is playing such pranks can be smarter next time (and for example support the main account on AfD...).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having just reviewed some of the checkuser evidence, myself, I'm struggling to find an explanation that fits it. It rather looks like those other accounts are Terrakyte, or someone with whom Terrakyte shares their web connection (say, roommates). The particular IPs I'm looking at right now don't appear to be shared by any large number of people, if they are shared at all. I'm sympathetic, in much the same way as Piotr is, but I'd prefer it if things seemed to add up. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking about falling back on WP:AGF. Terrakyte has a spotless 4-month record till today, plus the socks never intended to help the main account. This seems to me like a good rationale to unblock the Terrakyte account... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW the limited interaction I have had with Terrakyte has been civil, collegiate, and most pleasant plus he has done quite a bit of good work at Iran-Iraq War. AGF seems like a great idea in this case and I heartily support an unblock. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate to get this wrong in either direction, really; that being the case, erring on the side of AGF might be reasonable. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The three accounts were found to have operated on the same three IPs. I found you on all three of these IPs, sharing the same user agent. I also found that your edits on those IPs preceded the edits of the three accounts by fewer than five minutes. It's hard for me to pass these all off as coincidences. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user says that they live at their school, of course, this could be taken two ways. One, they actually live at the dorms of their college, or two, they spend much of their time there. I would like to have this confirmed, either or, as it concerns my next set of questions, or comments.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no checkuser ability, but on the basis only of what I see here I would have supported unblock. But will defer to those with information not available to me. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the account's first edit was 2 months and 9 days ago, and not 4 months as Piotrus said repeatedly. Sciurinæ (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

College networks are tricky, sharing a handful of IP addresses for hundreds of students, thus Terrakyte's story is certainly plausible. Perhaps I'm naive and granted I'm neither a sysop or a checkuser, but when I look at his contributions to the encyclopedia with multiple DYK's and GA's what I'm seeing is just not characteristic a sock-puppeteer operating a bad-hand account. I would support the sockpuppeteer argument if the accounts in question were voting with Terrakyte, not against it. Although coincidental, from my one year plus of being a new-page patroller, this looks like the work of a separate belligerent vandal. Unless a checkuser can shed some more light on this showing something to the contrary, I support an AGF unblock. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so as it is five editors, three of them admins, are supporting an AGF unblock, and nobody has explicitly opposed the unblock or supported the continued block. The unblock is also supported by editors who brought the checkuser case against the obvious socks. Barring any other developments, it seems to me like a consensus to unblock? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to support an unblock of Terrakyte at this time. It looks like someone else is on the same IP (which is very much possible in close quarters such as student dorms) as Terrakyte is. I also don't see any evidence of "good hand, bad hand" accounts, as the various contribs by Terrakyte is nowhere related to the three other socks and IP. It sounds like collateral damage. MuZemike 17:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a wider view of this situation at WP:ANI. See ANI thread. MuZemike 17:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support unblocking. Lots of good stuff out of this account. Make sure he secures his workstation, slaps his roommates with various forms of lake-faring creatures, etc. –xeno (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The situation described by Nishkid64 remains puzzling. I would like to hear from Terrakyte one more time before giving support to an unblock. If he can do anything to increase our confidence, it would be appreciated. For example, he could provide some identifying details about himself (in confidence) to a checkuser. Though our policies are clear that this can never be demanded, it would help in a situation where assuming good faith is difficult. Also find out if he knows anyone living near him who also edits Wikipedia. I'd be wary of providing him with 'rommmate' excuses (he didn't offer that as a possibility), and I'm sure that the checkusers have heard many roommate stories. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to know a fair bit about the IP profiles of schools, and his IP data is not consistent with editing from a school at all. He edits from private residential IPs, which schools never (and I mean never) have. He also appears to edit from multiple different computers, and the sockpuppets in question always edit from the last computer he used until he switches to a new computer, in which case they stop editing using the old one and start using a new one. The explanations he provides are not at all consistent with the checkuser data. --Deskana (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to follow. Terrakyte has "multiple different computers" with "private residential IPs" to his disposal and yet, he's not "editing from a school at all"? Where else do you get "multiple different computers" these days? For example, if I do not log in (on my one and only computer at home), my IP would change only if I disconnected from my provider and reconnected again, thus automatically being assigned any available number from the same service range. --Poeticbent talk 21:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely certian he is not editing from a school. Why won't you believe me? Are you accusing me of lying or something? --Deskana (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, I asked a simple question about multiple different computers. Why wouldn’t you just explain it to me instead? --Poeticbent talk 22:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already explained it. He edits from multiple different computers, on multiple different IPs, from a private residential connection. That is the simplest explanation possible. He is not editing from a school. This much is clear. I'm not sure why people can't believe what I'm saying. --Deskana (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lying? I am sure this is not what Poeticbent meant (I read his post and I cannot see anything that would make one think so). But while you may know a lot about UK schools IPs and checkuser, I don't believe you know everything there is to know about the issues involved. In other words, while I am sure you are right most of the time in similar incidents, I think it is more likely that in this case by assuming bad faith on Terrakyte's part you are making a mistake, either due to lack of knowledge about some obscure technical detail (for example about detecting trolls hacking Terrakyte's computer and using his IP) or due to the fact that Terrakyte is being harassed by a user with much technical knowledge, tricking you, than that Terrakyte, who has for over two months been a constructive user, went crazy and created socks to vote against his own AfD.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion, FWIW: editing from a residential non-static IP, having the same user-agent, editing the same pages 5 minutes later, and editing from the same different computers every time is not suspicious, it is damning evidence. The only, and I mean only other explanation would have Terrakyte having a poltergeist. From what I can tell of the sockpuppeteering policy, it does not necessarily provide for an indefinite block on the first occasion; would a lesser block (e.g., 2 weeks) be possible on the basis of a stern warning? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A stern warning to whom? As I see it, Terrakyte is a victim of a vicious prank played on him by one of his dorm buddies, who apparently knows enough about Wikipedia and computer security to make it look bad for him. Blocking Terrakyte is making some troll, somewhere, quite happy, and each hour the block is up is adding insult to the injury to a good editor, and depriving Wikipedia of a collegue that for several months has done nothing but good. PS. To clarify what may be a misunderstanding: Terrakyte, when he said "school", meant "dorms", which apparently have a different IP address, not clearly associated with the school in question. I am assuming Terrakyte will shed more light on it soon himself. PSS. And I agree that even if we assume that he for some bizarre reason created socks to vote against himself, an indef is too much. Heck, a warning with maybe 24h block would be sufficient.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(OC) I don't know if this user is following this discussion or not, but I would still like it if perhaps my question regarding his wording could be answered.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor terrakyte.=( I hope this gets resolved, and you'll be back soon. ^.^ Your hopefull adoptee.Smallman12q (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect for Sandstein, we seem to have a consensus for unblock. Declining the unblock request on the basis of checkuser, when most editors here agree it is not the entire story, is a bit, well, against the consensus. Considering that Terrakyte has alraedy served 24h for actions which 1) he might not have committed and 2) were hardly disruptive (note that users involved in original AfD and checkuser request support unblocking), I am hereby declaring that barring objections, I'll unblock Terrakyte likely tomorrow (I would also like to see a satisfactory post from Terrakyte addressing issues raised by several editors here before that).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see Terrakyte provide a more detailed explanation of what's going on. IIRC, he claims to know the other accounts. His explanations so far have not explained why he shares the same user agent, the same three IPs, and the same editing times as the other editors. There's too many coincidences to ignore here. I'm all for AGF, but I'd like to have a reasonable explanation of this strange occurrence. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, he never claimed to know the other accounts; he told me yesterday he has no idea who can be playing this prank on him, nor why, nor how.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I may have misinterpreted "I am not a sock-puppet of these accounts, though I am aware of them." Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in interpreting some of this it occurs to me that it is not unknown for a group of students at a school to share a private off-campus residence. DGG (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was told that he explicitly stated that he edited from school. Whether or not that's in dorms or in labs, that is not consistent with the checkuser data. And regarding Sandstein's unblock decline, I'd say that's correct, since the block was essentially a checkuserblock which administrators are not permitted to undo without authorisation from a checkuser. --Deskana (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I am rather disappointed with the attitude: "checkuser technology is perfect, and it should overrule a consensus of other users even in light of much other evidence". As far as I see it, Terrakyte is a victim of some hacker, he needs our help, not bad faithed criticism.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Terrakyte

I am very sorry that I have not responded more quickly to points raised by people in this discussion. The reasons why I haven't, are the fact that I am currently doing school exams and I felt that deepening myself in this discussion might induce more stress for me that I feel I cannot afford whilst doing exams; plus, I was not motivated at times to get involved because I was despondent regarding the course of the discussion. However, since many people have spent their hard time and energy in this discussion, and I have barely contributed by contrast, I must apologize again. I appreciate everyone's involvement, and I would like to thank the editors who have made their say here.

One, they actually live at the dorms of their college, or two, they spend much of their time there. I would like to have this confirmed, either or, as it concerns my next set of questions, or comments.

Currently, I live at a dorm, though I alternate between networks since I go back home frequently.

I'd already explained it. He edits from multiple different computers, on multiple different IPs, from a private residential connection. That is the simplest explanation possible. He is not editing from a school. This much is clear. I'm not sure why people can't believe what I'm saying.

I have spoken to a few people at school for info on my dorm's network (which includes a number of computers). The consensus is that my dorm network should be a part of the wider school network, whose IP addresses would be listed on Wikipedia. However, some suggested that the dorm could have its own private network, which might appear residential in nature. I plan to speak to the admin of my dorm's network to get more info.

I suppose I may have misinterpreted "I am not a sock-puppet of these accounts, though I am aware of them."

What I meant by that quote, is that I was aware of the accounts because they contributed to an AFD discussion I set up, in which they all voted against me.

I appreciate there's a lot of evidence against me, and I'm at a loss to explain all of it. I would like to stress again that I am not a sock-puppeteer, and I would like to point out why an editor like me who I believe is in very good standing and has done a lot of good for the encyclopedia, would create sockpuppets which by their actions would inevitably get me in trouble.

If I have missed any points, please highlight them. Thanks again for your contributions.Terrakyte (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for unblocking me; I will take more care regarding using a network. Thanks again. Terrakyte (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd highly advise you to get to the bottom of this, and ask for help, for example at WP:AN/WP:VPT. If somebody wants to get you blocked, all they have to do is just to do what they did again... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I have unblocked you. There is strong CheckUser evidence, but the activity of the other accounts, as highlighted by Piotrus, could lead one to believe that someone you know was stalking your edits. In the case that you might be the sockmaster, I believe a three day block is sufficient for a first-time offense. If you are not, all I can say is to please be mindful of people editing from your network. Request handled by: Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how you feel, but I urge you to reconsider your decision. Although CheckUser evidence indicated otherwise, possibly incorrectly, I still consider you to be a very valuable contributor to this encyclopedia. I hope you decide to let this experience not deter you from editing Wikipedia in the future. Regards, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Chesley Sullenberger

On January 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chesley Sullenberger, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Heart Award

Given to a wounded wikipedian.Smallman12q (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC) (Barnstar moved by Terrakyte to user page)[reply]

Well deserved.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

Terrakyte, although our editing time together has been brief you have done a great job. Sorry to see you go mate. There will always be a place here for you if you change your mind. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adoptee

Hello, Terrakyte. You have new messages at Smallman12q's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I will miss you terrakyte!!! Wikipedia will lose a great contributor. I hope that you change your mind and come back someday!!! I have really enjoyed working with you! I would also like to say that I truly appreciate the time you took to look over my edits and help me get in line with Wikipedia policy. Again, I wish you the best of luck for your future!!!I'm gonna miss you!Smallman12q (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Purple Star
		I, Piotrus, award Terrakyte this Purple Star, for the block and related troubles he received while falling victim to some hacking prank. My apologies for the (Wikipedia) system failure. You were the victim, yet you were treated like the offender. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Emil August Fieldorf.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Emil August Fieldorf.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]