User talk:Theresa knott/archive19

archive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

---

Welcome to my talk page. If you've come to complain, whine, moan, question my judgment, my intelligence, my sanity, or tell me off in any way, that's fine. I'm a big girl who can take it. If you've come to chat, compliment me, have a laugh, or discuss articles that's even better.

for theresa knott: Can you explain to me the reasons why you delete my page about my band telling : "you can't promote a band, it's not myspace" as where as on wikipedia, we can find lot of pages to promote artists?

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soft Not Soft (talk • contribs) 22:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yoshih9

Hi, I recently noticed that in this user's talk page you subtlely warned him/her not to vandalise. Recently, he has uploaded a rather disturbing, pornographic and copyrighted image. This is it. I put a speedy deletion tag on it, but I'm not sure if that is the right move. Please advise me on this matter. Thank you.

By the way, your talk page had 100kb so I'd archived it. =) σмgнgσмg 05:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watt balance/Kilogram picture

Theresa. I need your advise and (hopefully) help. I think I’m in the right here and suspect I’ve been dealing with someone who has been anointed with great Wikipedia powers but I don’t think he has been exercising his powers properly at all. I’ve been working on the Kilogram article. I created the image of the IPK at the top of the page because the original photograph (something I had nothing to do with) was copyrighted and was yanked. I also placed the Watt balance image in the article. Here is an old version of the article as I had the picture originally placed; please click on that link and then click on the 7.2.1 section to see how I had used it.

User User talk:Swatjester deleted the picture. He left no other commentary or discussion anywhere other than a cryptic edit summary stating “bad fair use image.” I had a lengthy discussion with him (full account here). I think you will find that exchange most illuminating. The link I provided here is a history file of his talk page because he created a Twinkle to automatically delete my last response.

Swatjester stated “The problem is that people are coming to the kilogram page to learn about kilograms. A watt balance, while similar, is not the subject of the kilogram page. For fair-use purposes, that makes it too far attenuated.”

Actually, his first argument was “It still fails to meet the requirement of ‘significantly increases reader's understanding of the subject, and more importantly, it's omission is not detrimental to the understanding of what the subject is.’ ” I replied that no common person has any notion of what a Watt balance is so a picture of it is crucial to understanding the basic, essential nature of what a new, electronic kilogram would be. His claimed basis for deleting the picture has varied as fast as I addressed them.

In a nutshell, my position is that the Watt balance is current government research into a new electronic definition of the kilogram. Given that the International Prototype Kilogram (the artifact upon which the kilogram is based) has proven unstable and there is currently intense interest in finding a new definition, the Watt balance is obviously germane to the topic of “kilogram.” Further, according to the NIST’s policy, the picture is free to use whenever it is used to discuss NIST projects directly. I currently have the Watt balance picture being used in the Watt balance article, and I had used it in the Kilogram:Watt balance section (a section of the Kilogram article directly dealing with the project.

I think the Watt balance image fair use rational clearly supports and explains my reasoning for why the image is proper fair use in the Kilogram article.

Can you help(?) or at least articulate, better than Swatjester has accomplished so far, as to why an picture of a current U.S. government project to develop a new kilogram standard doesn’t sufficiently discuss the subject of “kilogram”? Greg L (my talk) 02:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now how about the real story: I was looking at the Kilogram article, and noticed that the picture was fair use. The picture is of a "watt balance", which to the immediate observer has nothing to do with the kilogram, unless they read through the article. Apparently, the purpose of the picture is that the watt balance maybe one day will be the new standard for the kilogram. As of right now, it is not. I did not delete the picture, I removed it from the article, citing that it was not a good fair use image, which it fails under WP:NFCC numbers 3(a) and 8. The Kilogram article already has quite a few pictures; it does not need an additional one that is non-free, and of a topic not directly related to the Kilogram, i.e. it's a non-free image where a free one would suffice. Its omission does not hurt the encyclopedia; its inclusion does. After removing it, and explaining why several times to Greg L, he increasingly became irate, began accusing me of shifting my reasons, and I did not wish to continue the conversation on my talk page anymore. I therefore reverted his comments on my talk page (after asking him not to comment further), and he not only reinserted the image, but copy/pasted our talk page conversation to the article talk page (no attribution). I reverted those as well.

If you will look at Greg L's page, he has an extreme problem with incivility and ownership regarding the Kilogram article, see for example: "Whats your problem...People like you make editing Wikipedia so un-fun. That’s fine, I’ll play your petty game. Do you just go around in the world angry over something and take your frustrations out on others?" in response to a good faith comment from another user; this Wikiquette alert on his editing on the kilogram article, this uncivil response, this even more uncivil addition to it, this attack on someone who just attempted to explain how he was working in good faith to help Greg L,[1],[2], this personal attack on another user on his talk page, etc.

The guy has severe WP:OWN issues, I've done all I can to explain to him why he can't have his image in the article, if he can't take it civilly and rationally, I'm not going to discuss it further with him (which is why I reverted him on my talk page). If he can't continue to be civil following that, and attempts to be disruptive on the kilogram article, he'll be blocked. I've warned him already (I didn't want to do it, you'll note the several exchanges we had first discussing the issue,) but that's how it is. It may also be worth noting that he didn't bother to inform me of this discussion either; I stumbled upon it through my article watchlist. That's good faith for you right there....⇒ SWATJester ^Denny Crane. 03:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I placed the image in the Watt balance article because after Swatjester deleted the picture from the Kilogram article, it was orphaned and Orphanbot flagged the image for automatic deletion. After Swatjester indicated in his discussion that he thought the Watt balance article was perhaps a suitable place for the image, I placed it there so if he again deleted it from Kilogram article, the image itself wouldn't eventually be deleted. I was not trying to be provocative with the additional placement. In advance, thanks for you attention to this matter. Come to think of it, the only way I learned Swatjester had deleted the image from the Kilogram article was by receiving a message from Orphabot. Even if Swatjester’s judgment about the image proves correct, was his method of dealing with this image the proper way to do this? You may recal that the last time I sought out your help was this instance with a Z machine picture. Based on that experience, I thought there are special pages where these issues are posted for discussion in a more managed manner with input from others to reach a consensus or a decision by someone who is specially charged with these matters. Is he following proper protocol? Greg L (my talk) 03:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you earlier, there is nothing wrong with it being on the Watt balance article, which has no other pictures and clearly is relevant to the subject. It simply cannot be in the kilogram article, which has plenty of other pictures and is not relevant enough about the subject. And once again, I didn't delete it....I removed it from the article.⇒ SWATJester ^Denny Crane. 03:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content from an article is something that anyone can do. It takes no admin powers, it simply involves going into the edit page and removing the content.⇒ SWATJester ^Denny Crane. 03:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rebuttal: I’ve never before had any issues with an administrator until you came around. Your conduct and entire method of operating calls your judgment and maturity into question in my opinion. First, above, you stated “…if he can't take it civilly and rationally…” and you wrote above “…and [while explaining my reasoning] several times to Greg L, he increasingly became irate, began accusing me of shifting my reasons, and I did not wish to continue the conversation on my talk page anymore.” The record (full account of our discussion here here) speaks for itself. Nowhere am I “irrational” or “uncivil” whatsoever to you unless one equates disagreeing with you as being “uncivil” and “irrational”. Furthermore, your above dredging up old history of exchanges with other regular contributors shows that 1) that you are absolutely obsessed with getting your way at any cost, and 2) are willing to resort to the very sort of prohibited conduct (assuming a lack of good faith and engaging in personal attacks) that any other administrator would admonish other contributors against were they to do so. Your behavior was the only reason I couldn’t believe you could really be an administrator. Fortunately, Wikipedia has remedies for administrators who give Wikipedia a bad name. Whether that remedy is indicated in this case should be left to others; I certainly have my reservations. Greg L (my talk) 07:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, fair use is a strict standard. For the kilogram article, the picture did not meet those stringent standards which must be met. For the Watt balance article, it does. This is not a personal matter of Swat's, it's a matter of us all following the fair use standards so Wikipedia doesn't run the risk of copyright violation lawsuits consuming the money needed for more servers, etc. (Hey, it's not like Swat and I haven't clashed in the past.) Please assume good faith here; he's in the right on this one. --Orange Mike 14:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Orange Mike: Did you even read anything I wrote above? What I wrote above has nothing to do with the merits of the Watt balance picture being in the Kilogram article. I certainly hope that you weren’t trying to simply divert the issue. What I wrote above pertains to the issue of the manner in which Swatjester operates. It appears to me that the rules of conduct of being truthful, assuming good faith, and not engaging in personal attacks—all of which are totally irrelevant to the issue at hand—don’t apply to Swatjester. First, I was writing to Theresa Knott, not him. But in the process of editing my message, he chimed in and started addressing both her and me. Secondly, rather than address the merits of the issue (suitability of the picture for that article), he waded into a long rant of past history he dredged up in my dealings with other editors and wrote what amounts to “don’t agree with Greg L’s position because he’s an all-around poopy head.” Hogwash like that wouldn’t be tolerated from any normal contributor for one second. Further it shows that rather than dealing with the issue of the picture based on the merits, his judgment was more-than-tainted by a dislike for someone who had the chutzpah to disagree with him. That this sort of behavior came from an administrator and that he resorted to it to such an extreme on the talk page of another administrator is most telling. Do you think he has demonstrated the sort of maturity and judgment necessary to be Wikipedia administrators? Obviously not.

  And a last point, as I stated above, I've never before had problems with administrators, only regular contributors. Political correctness aside, some regular contributors can act like morons in a hurry. Obviously conflict will arrive on occasion in a collaborative writing environment like Wikipedia. Administrators are here to bring calm to chaos. In his above ‘Greg L is a poopy head’ rant, Swatjester cited a Wikiquette alert. I’ll have you know that that dispute was resolved and the lady who posted that alert ended up giving me a Barnstar for my work on the very article (the Kilogram article as a mater of fact) that was the source of the conflict. Orangemike: so if you respond to this, please try to stay on-topic and don’t throw around that “assuming good faith” business like you did above. I am assuming good faith on his part (as far as he is looking out for the interests of Wikipedia). I am simply stating that someone who demonstrates zero regard for the rules has zero business being in a position to enforce them.

  P.S. During the course of revising the Kilogram article, I exchanged dozens of e-mails with Richard Steiner at the NIST to check facts and get more information. Last night, I e-mailed Richard asking for non-copyrighted pictures. I just checked my e-mail and see that he sent me some non-copyrighted (free) pictures. I would appreciate it if someone would tell me exactly what license tag I use in this instance. I would also very much appreciate it if someone would make sure Swatjester’s Twinkles won’t interfere with my editing. Greg L (my talk) 16:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Greg, if you are assuming that I am looking out for the best interests in Wikipedia, and you understand that what you did was against policy, why did you fight so hard on it? The answer is, because you have a SEVERE WP:OWN problem. It's VERY bad. It got you in trouble with other editors before, and now it's getting you into trouble with me. And rather than accept that you have a problem and attempt to fix it, you attack anyone that agrees with you? You're getting mad at Orangemike now? Your behavior is really getting disruptive Greg L. There is only so much that we can attempt to reason with you before you simply waste everyone else's patience and time. And please, stop bringing the fact that I used WP:TW into this. It is a script. Anyone can use it. I used it CLEARLY within the bounds of propriety. As for emailing the Richard person, he will need to contact [e-mail] and explicitly license them to us under a free license. ⇒ SWATJester ^Denny Crane. 17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your above response proves my point Swatjester. And you should stop confusing disagreeing with someone as “getting mad.” Greg L (my talk) 17:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following was (mostly) copied from User_talk:207.190.198.130, where an issue arose because Swatjester thought another anonymous contributor, who backed my position on the use of a photograph and reverted Swatjester, was blocked for 48 hours because of it. I’ve include that unanswered monologue here, in this higher profile venue because a number of other editors backed Swatjester in his block; I’m speaking to them too. I’ve corrected some text after finding it is simple to track the contributions of an anonymous editor. Greg L (my talk) 20:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is Greg L writing. For the record, there have only been two anonymous edits to the Kilogram article and I made one of them: difference here, which I made on 16:15, 14 October 2007. And for the record, I happen to have been traveling and was in Leavenworth Washington for their Oktoberfest festival. As the new location gave me a unique I.P. address, and since I saw that Swatjester had placed a Twinkle on me, I decided to not log in when I reverted Swatjester’s edits. I thought his reasoning flawed (and still do). And at that time, Swatjester’s method of operation had lead me to believe he was a rogue editor, not an administrator. I also believed my edit comment that accompanied my reversion made it abundantly clear it was I who was behind it. I couldn’t possibly anticipate that less than 24 hours later, someone else would make the exact same reversion citing similar reasoning. As a matter of fact, this Whois I.P. trace on 68.116.23.6 comes back to Kennewick Charter Communications: the nearest big city to Leavenworth. I am G*d-damn sick of this dispute and there is now a substitute picture that will suffice. I can see that “207.190.198.130” is no fan of my work on the Kilogram article. Fair is fair though, and from what I can see, he is being unfairly treated for one single act of defiance.

Why do I think this is the case? I see in the Kilogram history that the second anonymous edit to the Kilogram article was made by “207.190.198.130” (difference and edit comment here), which was made on 08:05, 15 October 2007. After checking this contributor’s edit history, it appears that over the course of three hours after having made one edit to the Kilogram article that was contrary to Swatjester’s desires, Swatjester posted four messages on that page, the last of which resulted in “207.190.198.130” being blocked. I note that the block came 47 minutes after “207.190.198.130” liped off to him and doesn’t seem to correlate with any further edits. This is unfortunate because a simple I.P. trace would show that “207.190.198.130” traces to the other side of the country, to Massachusetts, and to a particular location that helps one understand why “207.190.198.130” might like to remain anonymous (a mistake in the long run, registering protects your identity better). It is doubly unfortunate because this dispute isn’t over a violation of a black & white issue; it’s over a grey area, where the issue is whether or not a photograph of an electronic kilogram pertains sufficiently enough to the subject of “kilogram” to merit the use of non-free content in the Kilogram article. Clearly, reasonable people can disagree on that subtlety. I haven’t looked at the rules, but I’m sure that official Wikipedia policy is to give a warning and wait for a repeat of the behavior. I can see that this was not the case in the Kilogram article and the block was placed due to the perception that Greg L and “207.190.198.130” were one in the same, and that “I” liped off to him.

Administrators should be advised that they

1. should clearly identify that they are an administrator who rightfully posses the powers to block users, and
2. that their reasoning should be clear, rational, measured, mature, should adhere to Wikipedia rules of conduct (such as “assuming good faith,” “not engaging in personal attacks,” and “sticking to the crux of the dispute), and
3. should stop equating and labeling the reverting of their edits as “vandalism.”

That last point addresses a situation where some administrators come across as if the force and righteousness of “Truth, Justice, and The American Way™©®” has gone to their heads and they equate reversion of their edits as “contempt of cop” (it’s time to bust some defiant hippie skull now). When any other two regular contributors have a conflict, it’s called an “editing or reversion war.” When a regular contributor disagrees with an administrator, the “vandalism” paintbrush is whipped out too quickly as a justification to block someone; particularly when there is a debatable grey area. And doubly especially when administrators don’t even identify themselves as one and don’t behave at all like one. The “you heard my threats and felt my billy club on your head so who might I be?”–technique doesn’t go far in my book. Administrators should also be patient. Waiting an extra few days and first going to a Fair-use review isn’t going to hurt anything; we’re not trying to extract critical intelligence out of a top Al Qaeda operative to save lives here. I think administrators should suggest reviews on their own, rather than having a frustrated contributor have to discover that venue themselves. What started all this out on the wrong foot was the fact that Swatjester simply removed the photograph from the Kilogram article and left only an edit summary saying “bad fair use image”. Orphanbot alerted me that the photograph was scheduled for deletion because of it. I’m sorry, but many reasonable editors would assume those were the actions of a rogue editor, not an administrator.

Lastly, to “207.190.198.130”: In response to your post on my talk page, I did e-mail Jimbo after incorrectly thinking my post on his talk page had been deleted (it was a database catch-up thing I think). I rather unwisely publicly declared so here on the talk page of the person I (incorrectly) thought responsible for the deletion. I don’t think it proper to comment on what may or may not have transpired after that. However, I deeply regret that so much stink has come over so little sh*t. Wikipedia has been an enjoyable hobby for me and I did not have fun over than damned photograph. The whole experience has highlighted several areas of Wikipedia that could benefit from some changes. Greg L (my talk) 02:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I see here on the Kilogram talk page that Swatjester still thinks that “207.190.198.130” is User:Greg L. Well, how about a little common sense and detective work? Posts from “207.190.198.130” are elsewhere on that very same talk page on this“C-12” topic and on this “FG-5 accuracy” topic. I argued against “207.190.198.130” in both. Who in their right mind would think I would start arguing with myself fourteen days before this latest incident?!?  Would it be because I wanted to pre-establish a contrived alibi in case I ever had to resort to using my secret alias that had been cultivated via carefully crafted, fake arguments with myself? Further, “207.190.198.130” made a couple of contributions to the Kilogram article, one of which (edit changes and edit summaries here and here) I thought was unsupportable so an edit war occurred (here, here, here, and here). Do you think someone could possibly advance a plausible hypothesis that I would engage in an edit war with myself (and debate myself while doing so) in preparation for using a hidden sock puppet at some point in the future? Industrial-strength preposterous. Greg L (my talk) 13:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from my edits, I've been away for the past 7 weeks and know nothing about any of this, so this is a hellova lot of stuff for me to read through. From a brief read through I can see you are upset, but I'm not sure what this is about. Can you briefly summarise, in two or three sentences only which issues have yet to be resolved? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spark that lit the fuse of another, more important issue was over a grey area of Wikipedia policy with regard to non-free content. The issue was whether or not a photograph of an electronic kilogram pertains sufficiently enough to the subject of “kilogram” to merit the use of non-free content in the Kilogram article in a section dealing specifically with that topic (scroll down to 7.2.1). The powder keg on the end of the fuse was what I perceive to be unprofessional conduct by Swatjester and institutional “circling of the wagons” by administrators, rather than proper policing of their own ranks. I should add, that Hank-wang very politely made suggestions to Swatjester. There is now a substitute picture that will suffice. I think Swatjester and I are pulling singed tail feathers out of our butts after working to flame each other so hard and are sick of it. My latest post is to address the bigger issues I cited. Greg L (my talk) 21:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm glad to hear that the picture issue has been resolved and a compromise picture added that you can live with. That at least is one thing. As for unprofessional conduct, I think it is pertenant to remember that admins are volunteers, not professionals and so whilst expected to behave politely (same as everyone else) threy are not expected to behave professionally. Having said that, I can't actually see what he did wrong. The initial exchange was pefectly polite. He could have written a longer edit summary but he is only human, no one is perfect. I will read your lasted post in more detail. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would really appreciate your thoughts on the merits of the fair-use rational. The current picture is of much lower quality. I understand the volunteer part. I think I’ve made my point regarding the behavior expected; administrators mustn’t resort to name calling and personal attacks that are dismissed in a nanosecond by most other administrators when regular contributors do it. I think I’m done on that point. I’m feeling much better now, thank you, and am no longer a danger to myself or others. ;-) Greg L (my talk) 21:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I have no expertise in that area at all, having never uploaded a fair use picture myself. I do know that as Wikipedia has a "free" mission our policies tend to be very strict, overly strict IMPO in fact, far beyond that any lawyer would judge. As a general rule, a free image is always preferred over a non free one even if the free one is of a much lower quality. A low quality free image encourages the creation of a better quality one. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“…overly strict IMPO…”: I second the motion. Thanks for looking into it. Greg L (my talk) 21:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds closed

The above-linked arbitration has closed, and the committee has recognized that the SevenOfDiamonds account is a sockpuppet of NuclearUmpf. It has been blocked indefinitely in accordance with this decision. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hdayejr is evading a block

Figured I'd post this here because you were the one who extended his block to indefinite: He trolled my user talk page from an anonymous IP almost a month after a discussion between myself and another user ended. I know it's him because of his accusations of me trolling on a Usenet group, the bringing up of Steve Gavazzi (with whom he has a longstanding disagreement), and the fact that he's threatened to report me again. I would like to see the entire IP range blocked, if possible, because he will continue to do this if left unabated. --ChrisP2K5 04:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twice now, in fact...this user and this user are quite clearly Hdayejr. -TPIRFanSteve 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked both IPs for a month. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Desk talk

I replied to your comment about bowdlerising swear words. --Dweller 16:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic J. Solntseff

He's put back his insult on my talk page after you warned him [3]. Maybe now you'll do something. He clearly wants to be blocked.--Atlan (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the block. Thanks for the quick response.--Atlan (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antipotter

Thank you. He was causing a fair bit of havoc around the place. asyndeton 13:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah he was just being a silly kid. I block 'em for breakfast. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice

nice block here. Can I add that one to my quotes? Kwsn(Ni!) 17:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you liked it. Of course you can quote me. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning on User talk:StoeticKing

May I humbly suggest that your warning to User:StoeticKing was not as civil as expected from a Wikipedia editor, yet alone an administrator? There are templates available for warning neardowells and I would suggest that it is better to use those rather than let your behaviour be called into question alongside the vandals you are warning. B1atv 21:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I disagree. It wasn't incivil, but simply more colloqial. There is a world of difference between the two. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal tags used only for vandlas

Thank you. I did leave a message on the page, but it was erased. Basejumper2 04:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is User:Yidisheryid up to here?

Hi Theresa, please see this [4] and this [5] by User Yidisheryid (talk · contribs) and my responses at User talk:Basejumper2#Aish Hatorah and User talk:Lookzar42#Reminder what puppets & co really evoke, and finally my last at User talk:IZAK#Sockpuppet?: "NOTE: I must now suspect that perhaps User Yidisheryid (talk · contribs) is involved as a possible suspect since he has also recently been blocked for sockpuppeteering, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yidisheryid, and of all things he finds it worthy to leave messages of "comfort" to both User:Basejumper2 [6] and to self-admitted sockpuppet User:Lookzar42 [7]. So much for his antics. IZAK 13:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)" Maybe a Wikipedia:Checkuser of all three, User:Yidisheryid, User:Basejumper2 and User:Lookzar42 would be helpful and in order. Thanks a lot, IZAK 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser for what though? What exactly have they done wrong? I'm pretty sure they have to do something abusive. (and the moment they do I'll block) The advice you gave about not feeding trolls applies to you as well. If a troll's aim is to get a rection then they best way to no feed them is not to react.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I guess I'm coming to you because you seem neutral. I was very concerned this would happen, which is why I was so concerned with the user:Shia1 situation. It's also why I opened up user:Looklizard42 to handle that situation. Unfortunately I forgot to change accounts when I responded, so now I'm being harrassed.

It seems that any editor involved in editing articles in wikiproject:Judaism who tries to get contorversial articles neutral like I've done with Aish HaTorah, Jews for Jesus or ones on controversial figures and Israeli politics, is farely quickly accused of sockpuppetry, and banned by one of the admins from that project. Now I am also being accused of it. (Take a look at my talk page and as you see here.)

Can you please use the checkuser to examine my present account, my previous account User:Basejumper which I lost the password to, and confirm with me and user:IZAK that my dual account User:Lookzard42 which I opened to handle the Shia1 issue, particularly to compartmentalize my wikipedia life to avoid what is now going on now right here, is not a sockpuppet but a legal use of a dual account as allowed here:

"Keeping heated issues in one small area Some editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere, or to avoid harassment outside of Wikipedia. A person participating in a discussion of an article about abortion, for example, might not want to allow other participants an opportunity to extend that discussion or engage them in unrelated or philosophically motivated debate outside the context of that article.

If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action."

I would really like to see this kind of thing stopped, as I truly suspect it is a case of an "owned" wikiproject. After confirming that my account is not a sockpuppet, or has ever been used negatively, can you advise me what to do to make sure these admins and users do not continue to wiki-stalk and harrass me.

I edit Christian articles, science articles, sometimes things about the gay community, and I also like to edit Jewish articles quite a bit; but I would like to be able to edit Jewish articles without being harrassed or unjustly accused of sockpuppetry.

Thank you so much. Basejumper2 19:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, when someone is blocked for sockpuppetry the often (in fact usually) come back with another sock account and try to defend their old account. This happens so regulaly that admins are automatically suspicious of anyone who tries to defend an old sock account. You made a big mistake in creating a sock of you own but you don't need me to tell you that!

Anyway, what to do now. If you want to edit articles I suggest you simply do so. The best way to convince people that you are not a sock of a banned user is not to act like one but simply get on with editing articles. As for checkuser, it cannot be used to prove innocence I'm afraid. In fact it doesn't prove guilt either it is simply a tool in the arsenal. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the looklizard ISN'T a sock. That's a fair use of a double account in the policy. And I was smart to use it, because had I continued to for that one issue, I would have avoided that issue spilling into my usual account. We've seen from that discussion, that users can be blocked for sockpuppetry without a hearing. I'd like to open a case against myself for being a sockpuppet of the gentleman user:IZAK insulted on my talk page, have evidence brought, including a checkuser and editing history, as well as IP info. I've been editing wikipedia for months and months now, and haven't done anything except benefit it. I do not believe anyone can really see the recent action of IZAK as good faith. Is there a way to bring a complaint? Basejumper2 20:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"We've seen from that discussion, that users can be blocked for sockpuppetry without a hearing." No we haven't seen anything of the sort. Don't believe your own hype, and don't get worked up over something that happened in the past just because you don't understand it.

As for IZAK's accusation. Ignore it! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If sockpuppet User:Lookzar42 poses a question about the fate of User:Shia1 (who is suspected of using one or more accounts abusively), and in turn User:Basejumper2 admits that he created User:Lookzar42 as a sockpuppet (with whatever rationalization) in addition to his previous account at User:Basejumper, and is in turn "defended" by User:Yidisheryid who was blocked for usage of sockpuppets, it makes for a very confusing situation. Why should User:Basejumper2 not be called a sockpuppeteer? Hence requiring of a Wikipedia:Checkuser of all of them to clarify who they are and what is really going on here, and that maybe this is just one huge farce and waste of time, and that they should all just be blocked for their violations of WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT and more. That is not "harasment" it is a requst for clarification. IZAK 02:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because asking a question on the AN/I is not an abusive use a second account, that's why. We are required to assume good faith unless we have evidence to the contrary and I haven't seen anywhere near enough evidence in the case of User:Basejumper2 to think he is lying. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways...Thank you for your help and advice. I'm just going to go about my normal activities as you suggested, and if any strange happenings happen, I hope I have your permission to make you aware of them. Thanks. Basejumper2 08:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 08:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LookingGlass REDIRECT

Thanks for trying to fix my "lookingglass" redirect. Unfortunately, it didn't get the job done.
I think there is a problem with the editing software. If you try to edit #REDIRECT, the software thinks you mean # REDIRECT. I have tried this on several redirect pages, and the result is the same. If you actually Save the edit, it wrecks the link. (I Saved ONLY the lookingglass page BTW, to avoid damaging innocent pages).
I have reverted the lookingglass redirect to the original file, which works.
Thanks again Rhampho1949 02:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it does work I just checked it! The software does have a "feature" where the does what you describe the first time you save or if you look at an older version. Perhaps that was what was happening to you? Try clicking here Through the lookingglass and see if it works. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just clicked it. It works just as it should! Curiouser and curiouser...
Rhampho1949 12:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology but I am scared

I am sorry, but this WAS person is truly scaring me. There appears to be overreaction on both sides. I just want this person to stop blanking my edits and leave me alone at this point. All I did was to start out by suggesting to two of the main editors of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture that they shouldn't feed the trolls, because the discussion was getting pretty hot over there, he was blanking other people's stuff and accusing them of "ownership". When I did, this person has placed a threat on my talk page, blanked all my attempts to send messages to other editors, calling them "personal attacks" and is now calling in reinforcements. I am only asking for help because I have never had someone go in and blank everything like this before. I have also never been threatened like this on my talk page before (people yell at me all the time for edit stuff, I don't care about that so much, this is different). I won't bother you again, but I only contacted Guy because he recently replied to this person and seemed to be tired of him, anyone else I contacted are admins who have helped me before. Please, I am making good faith attempts to have someone look into this situation. Montanabw^(talk) 19:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are scared then step away from your computer for crying out loud! Go and have a cup of tea and calm down. The situation has been looked at on the AN/I please take the advice of the people there and simply stop. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and while I was writing, note This Montanabw^(talk) 19:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's his own talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing notices

Sorry about that. I had heard that from others elsewhere. Also, as the warning was placed by me, inaccurately I admit, someone else has linked to it, as evidence of his own position. Considering I had been responsible for the move, I thought it made sense to ensure that anyone who saw it knew that it was withdrawn by the person who posted it. Sorry for the mistake, but I wasn't sure how to ensure any other way that it was known my removal of the comment was known. Things have been going a bit fast here lately. Personally, I'm leaving it alone and replacing the now-unusued Webcomics banner for the rest of the day, I hope anyway. :) John Carter 19:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible. This will all settle down once those involved calm down. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am calming down. Some. The blanking of comments on discussion pages all over the place was a new one for me. My intention wasn't to spam, I was just trying to find SOMEONE who was actually online. John is one of the lead workers on WikiProject Agriculture and I have a lot of respect for what he and Doug are doing there and was trying to help. What I intended as a friendly, about half-joking comment about trolls, trying to cool down a heated discussion over there just backfired and blew up into something I never intended. Montanabw^(talk) 20:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These things happen from time to time. Everyone occasionally handles a situation badly. I myself has done so on a number of occasions. So nothing to worry about. I'm glad things have settled down. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you should know...

This seems highly inflammatory, coming from an editor previously blocked for harrassing others and poking with sticks. ThuranX 22:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good writin'

You wrote this when you blocked Dominic Soltsneff for a a week: "Childish personal attacks. We are here to wrote an encylopedia. Are you?" Compelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.167.209 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, my spelling is terrible :-( Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to add references to Jess Margera. — Ocatecir^T 01:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, part two (more than just me thanking you for something!)

I appreciate the attitude you have taken toward me given my juvenile lapse yesterday. I apologize for both the spirit of spite that was behind my comment on the talk page, as well as the inadvertent deletion of your helpful comment that mine caused as well. K. Scott Bailey 11:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Thanks for the heads up. As the main offended party, it makes sense for you to do it. I hope he'll learn his lesson and improve his behavior. Time will tell. Crum375 13:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I think it's clear--both from my previous contribs, and my subsequent contriteness--that this was an isolated incident. As I said in the thread on my page, I could understand the instablock, given that you thought I had intentionally blanked Theresa's note. I do appreciate your not contesting this unblock as well. The block, in my opinion, was hastily created, but was done completely in good faith, which is why I never posted a request to unblock, preferring to try to help you--as the blocking admin--understand my perspective, and that the most egregious aspect (blanking Theresa's contrib) was unintentional. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 14:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The webcomic vandal

Looks like he is now in 3RR on a few of them and does not intent to stop. He removed my AIV report. Spryde 14:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea

Too late. You entered my lair. MBWA-HA-HA-ha...*choke*... *cough*. So, it's always nice to meet a fellow idiot. There are so few of us these days, what with the immense power the internet and television have to educate and enlighten without providing the first clue about how to actually think. Now, back to our program. --Milkbreath 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid I'd screwed that up. I was in a hurry. The new sig was a one-time thing just for you. --Milkbreath 15:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wtimrock

Since you are the admin who actually got Wtimrock to actually respond to someone, could you please have him notice that the "minor edit" button shouldn't be used for every single edit, especially the ones that aren't minor? Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 22:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's obviously not checking the button each time but has it set in his preferences. I will email him but generally take the view of "Dont sweat the small stuff" Theresa Knott | The otter sank 02:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for taking care of the personal attack in AFD. Funny how he points me out but accounts that stated keep that actually are single purpose accounts he totally ignored.Ridernyc 05:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Theresa

This is HolokittyNX - we met working on the Justin Berry article. Would you mind taking a look at the [talk page] for Pedophilia Article Watch? Posts are being vandalized, and direct profane insults are starting to show up. - HolokittyNX 03:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obscene and trolling comments like this one clearly need refactoring as we are not here to either promote pedophilia or troll other users and this was clearly both. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, but your instructions on the WP:PAW talk page have been ignored. (link) -HolokittyNX 00:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't believe Theresa knew what your trolling comments consisted of, they are obscene and have been removed for that reason. if you wish to graphically talk about child seual abuse in this kind of deliberately provocative pro-pedophile way I suggest you do so off wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did look into the matter before I commented and was perfectly aware of what the comment said. You are being oversensitive here. There is no reason to remove such a comment. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 05:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squeakbox, after studying some of the PAW talk pages, it's interesting to note that you tend to obsess with a couple of problematic words/sentences of users you happen to disagree with while displaying full tolerance of all kind of profanity, personal attacks and other tasteless behavior of editors that appear to support your position. For example, why didn't you object to this? Is this really that much better than this? Just a thought. Albert Wincentz 01:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, this is a voluntary project, as long as I clear up any mess I make to the main space you cannot expect anything whatsoever from me. If you don't like these comments please refactor them. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No! No one should be refactoring anyone's comments. Refactoring should only be done in the most extreme of circumstances. Please leave other people's comments alone. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 05:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comments were clearly highly provocative and meant to be so. I thought such rude behaviour was not allowed in wikipedia? Pol64 00:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rude behaviour is frowned apon, but then so is editing someone elses comment. So things need to be done sensitivly. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 05:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have recommended a checkuser on users Pol64 and Squeakbox - writing styles are very similar and posts by one are quickly followed by posts from the other. -HolokittyNX 00:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a bad idea as check user has already shown that he and I are unrelated. I believe he lives somewhere in the Caribbean and WJBscribe and Deskana have both confirmed that I am wediting from a different continent, certainly true. Pol64 00:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence can be found at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SqueakBox (3rd). Pol64 00:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theresa

You wrote this "but if you ever find yourself in a position that Sunder King is in now you'll be glad to have an irritating so and so like me pestering the admins involved in the blocking and block review" in response to my question about Sunder King, its exactly the point I was getting at. The template on Sunder King's userpage pointed me to evidence that wasn't there so I asked a few questions. If they say he's a sock, I believe them, but the point I was making was a procedural one, I would hate to think that there is even the possibility that an innoent user could be blocked and have their talkpage protected on the basis of evidence that is invisible to people like me. I'm glad someone could see my point. Kind Regards. King of the NorthEast 00:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

70.121.30.137

Sorry about this but as you removed this as a content dispute I blocked the user after reading his edits and seeing he was pretty much going after a user page and blanking sourced edits and considering the previous block it seemed like disruption. Do you think I should review my choice as you came up with the opposite answer? –– Lid^(Talk) 14:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difficult one. I don't think it is simple vandalism, which is why I removed it. But it is disruptive. I chose to leave a warning on his talk page, you chose to block. I don't really have any problem with that. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sp

This page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Guerilla_UK_spelling_campaign has gone. Jooler (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unsatisfactory

{{cowbell}} 86.44.4.103 (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How very cryptic! The template has never been created so I have no idea what you are trying to say :-( Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply that the page needs more cowbell. 86.44.4.103 (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I shall add one. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish is my command Theresa Knott

Still need a little mo...actually that will suffice ;) 86.44.4.103 (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiet Nam

Apparently Fiet Nam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) did not believe your warning [8]. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Characters on 24

G'day, wouldya couldya kindly summarize the changes you made to the various 24 articles peppered in this wikidome? I received a comment from a user named Angelriver to refer to his/her talk page for information, but it doesn't exist. Thanks. TunaSushi 21:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the merge tags from them. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Is that a tacit admonishment of the merger chaos created by user Lucy-marie? TunaSushi 21:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wouldn't go as far as that. There appeared to be little community support for any of the proposed merges, the proposals themselves seemed to be causing some heat, and Lucie-marie's comment about being vitually forced to add them lead me to believe that she didn't necessarily want them merged herself. in the light of that I felt it best to stop the drama by removing the tags. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone remove merge tags from an article or is that an admin thing? TunaSushi (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No anyone can do it. Admins do not have any extra authority over anyone else. Every member of wikipedia carries equal weight, theoretically anyway. Generally users with a long standing good reputation are trusted more than newbies, and it was in that capacity that I acted. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

- for the block, ma'am. Appreciate it. :-) Scarian^Talk 21:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change of plan for Wednesday

Wikipedia:Meetup/London#Informal_socials - go to WikiWednesday rather than split between Jimmy and Sue - David Gerard 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your kind note on my User Page. I don't believe that there is anything you can do to help me. I'm pretty annoyed with the system here. There seems to be a major disconnect between the stated goal of producing an encyclopedia and the actions of the majority of editors and admins with whom I have interacted.

I suppose your note was prompted by my, admittedly, somewhat snarky message to WP:ANI. The culture here seems to favor self-aggrandizement largely through the creation of fiefdoms. On the other hand, when I dare to clean up my IP user page (see User_Talk:70.173.50.153, note that the warnings are largely bogus), I get yet another lecture about WP:OWN.

I have threatened to leave before, not that anyone would miss me, but now I'm actually going through with it. As such, I've reverted all my edits. I was interested in helping to produce an encyclopedia. I am not interested in perpetuating yet another facile bureaucracy.

Metastasize 01:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a thread on the AN/I about your IP userpage. Whilst I do not approve of the way you habdled things, (being stubborn and rude gets you nowhere fast), I am not happy about the way you were treated. I think people should have spend more time talking to you and less time templateing you. We shall see what other admins think. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, again. I've entered my 2 cents worth (the devaluing dollar notwithstanding) there. I doubt it will do anything but provoke the defence mechanisms of all involved, but I appreciate that you took the time to empathize with my position. 70.173.50.153 21:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point discussion

Hi Theresa, I've got a question regarding the WP:POINT policy. Over at User_talk:Angelriver#WP:POINT, there's a discussion about Wikipedia talk pages used to make a point. While I see the guideline as helpful for agenda-free articles, this is in regards to a talk page, not an article. Isn't the purpose of a talk page expressly for raising topics for discussion and making points? The talk page should then address the points made to reach a consensus. Am I misunderstanding the use of the talk page and point policy, or is the original complainant on the user_talk page off-base with a misapplied policy? 70.22.154.184 18:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copying ans pasting the same text to multiple talk pages is rarely helpful though. If a point needs to be made, than doing so in one place and putting links to that discussion and other talk pages as appropriate is the best way of obtaining concensus. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the rationale to limit identical multiple postings. Notwithstanding their argument, I was hoping for some greater clarification of whether the WP:POINT was correctly applied (or should even be applied) to a talk page. 70.22.154.184 (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not into arguing application of policy. I don't go in for polices really except WP:BOLD and WP:DICK. If everyone followed those we wouldn't need the others. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anagrams

Your usage of anagrams for your talk page is neat. Your name provides hundreds of variations, but I liked "Token threats", "Shaken totter", and "Skate then rot". My username reveals some disturbingly funny ones. TunaSushi (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like "I shunt USA" or "A sinus hut" if you want to be really offensive you could go for "U Anus shit" but I wouldn't recommend it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Janetpic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Janetpic.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

[accidental warn removed by author]

What are you on mate! Don't template an admin who is warning a user to take tests to the sandbox. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong person :S --Nn123645 (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love the drawings...

Love the child drawings. Donate $100 to the Wikimedia Foundation and receive a 2008 TK and Kids Calendar. :-P Miranda 07:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll tell the girls you liked them. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The otter sank

May I ask why the link to your talk page reads "the otter sank"? I have a romp of otters that edit Wikipedia along with me, and I don't waant them sinking. Ten Pound Hammer • ^(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I get it, it's an anagram of your name. Cute. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!

for unblocking me! dothebackstab —Preceding comment was added at 15:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

AfD nomination of Organisms that are dangerous to humans

An article that you have been involved in editing, Organisms that are dangerous to humans, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organisms that are dangerous to humans. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIA health and economy article

I'm a bit concerned that a message about speedy deletion arrived, seemingly within a very few minutes of creating the article by cloning the heading from an article that demonstrated there was no place to put quite important intelligence activities relating to human survival (as distinct from human rights) issues, such as the impact on stability and survival of Africa's HIV epidemic. It puzzles me that some stub articles seem to have lasted for a long time -- one of the reasons the Military History task force has set up an Intelligence Task Force -- yet some new work in active progress gets an almost instantaneous warning.

Perhaps I'm a little sensitive about this, since, on the one hand, I have had people complaining, rightfully, that the main CIA article was impossibly long. On the other hand, this is the third warning, the other being for different topics, where I received a deletion warning within short minutes or even seconds of creation. In some cases, the new article was created as a result of red tags in a different article, the two artices needing synchronization.

I do appreciate a warning rather than an immediate tagging for speedy deletion, but I'd venture to suggest that it might be appropriate to give such warnings after hours or days of inactivity, not minutes or seconds. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the person who tagged it was a newbie editor and so probably didn't take the time to review your recent contributions to see what you were up to. Unfortunately as we are now up to around 150 edits a minute on recent changes speedy deletions tend to get tagged immediately or not at all. One way to avoid this is to userfy the articles by putting them temporarily into a sub page in your userspace. That way you can work on them in peace and move them to the main space when they are up to a reasonable standard. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

But I just want to fit in :( anyway I thought it was the thing to do around here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by This is serious mother (talk • contribs) 09:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, only with lamers! You will notice that most of the old hands do not use them,(except the language ones which are actually useful) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But they look cool and make you feel wanted... This is serious mother (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel wanted? Eh? That doesn't make any sense. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. What does make sense is the trusty userbox. This is serious mother (talk) 09:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For lamers. Yes ;-) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, almost as lame as using the word lamer. ;) This is serious mother (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok

I will keep out of trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nat (talk • contribs) 20:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is good to hear. Welcome to Wikipedia! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Hayes (24 character)

Hi Theresa, I hate to bug you, but I'm looking for a little guidance. You've helped out with merger tags not too long ago, so maybe you could share your thoughts. The Karen Hayes article had a merger tag added to it without discussion on November 4. The tag recommended a merge to Minor CTU agents in 24, but she was never an agent. Since the tag was added, consensus argued against a merger. You can see all this in the talk page section. When I noticed that the target article wasn't a proper fit, I removed the tag and documented the removal accordingly. It has since been reverted twice to a different target article by the same user who went merge-happy not too long ago. She rarely responds to comments, and when she does, it's not easily understood. She usually falls back to a defense of Wiki policy, but it's always an arbitrary interpretation of a guideline, and I've found her in violation herself a few times. Anyway, you removed merger tags she sprayed before, so I was wondering if you might comment. Thanks in advance. TunaSushi (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm growing weary of this - Lucy-marie's at it again. Check out Talk:Chase_Edmunds and Talk:Mike_Doyle_(24_character)#Merger. She also commented on my talk page at User_talk:TunaSushi#Merger_Tags when I removed the merger tags from split articles. Doesn't consensus for a split warrant the removal of the merger tag? TunaSushi (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's annoying, but keep it in perspective. All she is doing is adding the tags, and that alone doesn't do much harm. If her behaviour escalates let me know, I'm not happy about her deleting talk page discussion for example. If that kind of thing continues then I will take further action. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask one small question have the arguments on some of the discussions been read and given their appropriate weight based on policy and facts. After all if policy and facts are ignored what is the point of having them? I would like to draw the Talk:Mike Doyle (24 character) as a prime example of this.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIA article rationale, and advice extremely welcome

As you may know, there had been a single article growing impossibly long on the CIA, and also frequently drifting away from NPOV. While I tried to fix some unsourced things in the original article, it was taking forever to load, and also having one article was leading to edit conflicts.

So, I tried to come up with a rational way to break off manageable sub-articles. In doing so, I also wanted to respond to what, at the time, seemed largely unsourced conspiracy theories. Some simply didn't make sense, such as an assertion that CIA would train UK SAS (the reality is it has been the other way around), or Switzerland was subordinating itself to NATO. In some talk page conversation, I found that most of the Operation Gladio and police training assertions all came from two books.

As you may know, there is an Intelligence Task Force in the Military History Project. Previously, I wrote the first pass at a series of articles on the process of intelligence, as opposed to what country had operations in some other country. While the CIA series was the starting point for country-specific articles, I had a concept in mind where there could be articles on other major countries' intelligence and special operations forces, with links to the "how" in the other hierarchy beginning with Intelligence cycle management.

In the articles of that hierarchy, there was constructive feedback mostly from Military History people, although one other article had an admin do a speedy deletion within minutes of the draft going up; the deletion has been reversed.

Frankly, I am puzzled about the different social dynamics here. With a second deletion request, while simultaneously getting useful advice, this seems a very emotional topic. Good faith and NPOV don't seem to be in the mind of people that make immediate deletions.

In retrospect, I suppose I should have done much of this in user space before putting them into the main space; my (perhaps flawed) rationale was that CIA had gotten so large that edit conflicts were frequent and things were getting updated in different places.

If you would have any suggestions on getting this work on a more socially acceptable footing, I would be very appreciative. I believe I am adding information, which, as far as possible, is neutral and informative. Certainly, as some sections first develop, there may well be a "meta" flavor about them, but that is where constructive criticism, rather than deletion demands, would help. I find it hard to believe there is zero useful content in even a flawed article written in good faith, where I do have some experience in the subject matter.

Thanks! Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the topic I'm afraid; I only ever removed a speedy tag from a proto article, so my advice is pretty general. I suggeast you go to the main CIA talk page, suggest that the article is too long and start a discussion on how best to deal with it. Once you get some agreement there, create some articles in your userspace and ask for for collaborators. When the articles are in reasonable encylopedic shape, move them into the main encylopedia. By having other people involved from the start you will likely produce articles that are uncontroversial and unlikely to be deleted. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London buildings

Since you have recently moved the page Tower 42 per consensus on the talk page, could you also look at the 32 London Bridge/Shard London Bridge and 22-24 Bishopsgate/Bishopsgate Tower talk pages to see if you believe there is also consensus to move the pages back to their original names? Thanks and cheers, Rai-me 16:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both done. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But could you look at Talk:22-24 Bishopsgate? Apparently, the article was moved, but the talk page was not. Cheers, Rai-me 18:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it has been fixed. Thanks again, Rai-me 01:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:This is serious mother

May I ask why you took no action regarding the Nazi userbox on this user's page when you commented on their talk page regarding userboxes the other day? According to the time stamps, if I am reading them correctly, the box was on the page when you left your remark. Jeffpw (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think it was. I figured it was some fool trolling, who'd probably be blocked soon enough and his userpage replaced by the indefblocked template. (I still figure that actually) I can't get myself too upset by what some kid does. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case, you hate kids don't you? Please explain why IPs for companies like UPS, the United States Postal Service, 20th Century Fox, the United States House of Representatives, and many other IPs which are probably being used by a total of zero minors under 18 since you automaticly assume all vandals are kids. You're not fair Theresa. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Static IP block conflict

Please see my comment - [9] thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 20:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Troll

Moldopodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Theresa, that person, after he got unblocked started to be again disruptive. Look at his block log and his edits. Ungurul (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Space Baby

Hi there: You're certainly correct that this article doesn't seem to be nonsense (I'm reading your edit summary) but as near as I can tell, it was tagged because there's no content other than a series of external links -- no article, per se. Is there something I should have noticed? I re-tagged it before noticing your edit summary and scanned the history of the article, just to be certain. My understanding is that a series of external links with no written content falls under ((db-nocontext)) but I wanted to be sure you were okay with that. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the new edit summary -- as long as you're keeping an eye on this, I'm totally fine with your judgment. Thanks for making it clear. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EC I'm watching the page and will delete it myself in 10 mins if it doesn't improve. It's just they he may have added the refs first and the body next. It was only 2 mins from creation to tagging. I just want to ensure he has a little time.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your judgment -- giving the newbie a little time is a good idea and I apologize if I was too quick off the mark. Thanks again for making it clear what your wishes were, and if you want help, I'm nearby. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's working on the article. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy newyear

<3 64.230.4.137 (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Happy new year to you too. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This attack

Please refrain from personal attacks. Thank you. OrangeMarlin ^Talk• Contributions 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how that is a personal attack? You do realise that someone critisizing your actions is not the same as a personal attack don't you?Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticizing without the facts is most definitely a personal attack. However, allowing you some leeway because I don't exactly post my personal background in big bold letters, please read my reply back on my User Talk. OrangeMarlin ^Talk• Contributions 18:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know I'm taliking about your comment on User talk: Mast Cell? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Knott, your continued harrassment (personal attacks) of User:Jim62sch and User:Orangemarlin is noted.[10][11][12][13][14][15] I suggest you take a break from this wiki. --ElectricEye (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding. That is evidence for an arbitration case. I suggest you take it to an arbitrator or a clerk. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding that you want me to detail it further. Shall I? --ElectricEye (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I'tt tell you what, as OM is online at the moment ask him, or take it to thatcher who is also online, or one of the arbitrators. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply to unbelievable comment by the eye: Presenting information on the evidence page at Arbitration is certainly not harassment, what you just did on the other hand is. Notedly, R. Baley (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out his userpage. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For you to call Jim62sch's supposed email "the original harrassment" is a personal attack. Regardless of the fact that you are basing your statements on "evidence" which you should never seen in the first place, it is still a personal attack. The contents of a private and confidential email are no concern to any Wikipedia administrator. Yet, you make even more personal attacks: "It 'irks' him to see poeple editing Wikipedia on what he supposed must be goverment computers" or "Meanwhile Orangemarlin pipes up with an abusive quip". To continue is further harassment. --ElectricEye (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have every right to state my opinion of how the events played out on an arbitration evidence page. That is what the page is for. What are you here for? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a post at ANI regarding this harassment (link). R. Baley (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa, in light of the harassment above I'm inclined to help ElectricEye carry out his stated intent not to contribute constructively to Wikipedia by indefinitely blocking his account. However, if you don't think that's necessary I will defer to your wishes. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to comment on ANI as well, but... I just left ElectricEye a warning on his talk page. I would like to invite everyone to calm down and consider ways to respond to this incident that don't further aggrivate anyone involved. While a lot of people are upset and behaving badly somewhere at some level (or were), nobody's crossed a line in the sand and has to be blocked right now. Please remember that WP:CIVIL goes both ways. We don't need to block EE unless he continues to escalate the dispute after multiple warnings. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George I think you have completely misread the situation with EE. Yes the situation at the arbcom page got heated, but this has nothing to do with that as EE is completely univolved in that. He clearly has problems, check his full contribution history. He's not angry, he is trolling. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disregard the chance that he's just trolling, but I'm trying to AGF about everone who's involved themselves in that arbcom case and do so evenly. It's more important that we try hard to be fair in cases when multiple admins in multiple factions are all upset, even to potential trolls who aren't part of the core community. And EE is credibly as involved as you are or I am - he cares about what happened. There are only three involved parties per se; the rest of us are just throwing opinions or info into the pot.

I'm willing to keep an eye on them and issue further warnings or block if they do turn out to just be trolling, but I'd rather give a chance for the blocking admin to reconsider and discuss than me just unblock. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to unblock him and keep an eye on him you have my blessing. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim McVey

Thanks for helping to keep nonnotables such as Tim McVey out of articles on little towns in Iowa! Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Doctorates

Cheers about my homepage and i will try and keep wiki doctorates alive but we will see what happens

--Dr.J.Wright MD (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemarlin

Hi, I posted on OM's talk page that he seems to be using an obsolete version of the UCMJ [16]. He immediately deleted it, but since it may be relevant I thought I'd mention it here. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now why would you do that when he specifically stated that he didn't want to discuss the matter for 48 hours and I specifically stated that people should come here? Did you not read his request? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't fly. The time stamps and the fact that you editied the section where he made the request call you a liar on your second edit. Please do not edit his talk page for 48 hours. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow WP:AGF. You might also want to actually read what I wrote instead of climbing up the curtains just for seeing my name. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read what you originally wrote. By the time I replied you deleted the comment but I didn't notice, so I went back and struck you comment. I don't actually know who you are so seeing your names does nothing for me. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I wrote about the UCMJ. Since that might partly defuse the situation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK well pesonally I think the UCMJ is irrelavent as Wikipedia is not bound by it but is bound by a no harrasment and civility rule. However the fact that the document has been revised makes an appeal to the old verdion invalid, that's for sure. Sorry to have been curt with you. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's been a long day. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia

Hi Theresa. The issue of whether 'controversial' should be in the opening sentence had been the main topic of dispute in the recent mediation and the preceding RfC. Since then, it seems things had settled down with a general acceptance to not overstate the criticism. This is in light of the sources indicating a widespread and generally official acceptance, a number of which I provided on the talk page. Some commentators do criticise it, but they appear to be in the minority, which is why I think the scope of the controversy needn't be overstated by including it in the first sentence. Regards, ITAQALLAH 22:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The only reason I reverted was because the deletion was unexplained. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turnpike Lane

That was quick. Thanks. Let's hope the brat goes away. Suddenly Turnpike Lane is being attacked over the past couple of weeks by a number of anonymous users - or the same one using different IPs. It's not even that it's a particularly good page or one I have a special interest in. Just trying to keep things ship-shape. hjuk (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London Meetup

Hi I posted the suggestion that we should have a London Wikipedia meetup next week here. Would be cool if we could get some people together. I was thinking either a social meet or maybe a collaboration meetup where we bring a selected London article up to GA or even FA status. Poeloq (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image contribs by now retired user: GassyGuy

I need help with some images that Gassyguy submitted over a year ago, they are now being considered for deletion but fall under fair use. I have tried to follow the instructions given by the bot, but they really make no sense to me. I was wondering if you could help me properly justify their fair use (my attempt is visible on one of the images pages). I'm asking you because you seem to know alot about this sort of thing. Thank you. 64.230.43.189 (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I'll write some rationales, it's all gotton a bit red tapy to be honest and not easy to understand. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no I won't since you did a fine job yourself! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

left-handed

I'm typing left-handed as I will need surgery on my right wrist due to what is known as an evulsion fracture. Then there's the ligament damage. Oh well, I suppose it is bad to call 911 on a drunken 42-yr-old neighbour who strikes one's near-teenaged daughter. At least, that was what I get out of it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that. I hope that you get well soon. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BTW, now that we've gotten the RfAr behind us (it was an iteresting lesson, I'll admit), to what does "the otter sank" refer? I love obtuse references, but this one's beyond me. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an anagram of my username. I'm fortunate in that my name yields so many. I change it fairly freqently. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it is! I missed it. Thanks for explaining. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note

FYI, a diff involving your name was mentioned in passing at an extension request that I filed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for extension of restrictions at DreamGuy 2, specifically, my extended report at User:Elonka/DreamGuy report. No action is required on your part, I just wanted to let you know. --Elonka 03:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lollypopcandygum1

Do you think the user is likely to be a sockpuppet of User:Lollypopcandygum? Best, Rudget. 21:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly. I b've blocked both accounts. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rudget. 21:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check.

I don't doubt that you're probably right. I have to double-check everything the VP program does because it has an odd glitch that once in a while causes a warning to appear on the page of someone else who edited the same article. I believe I got interrupted by someone else's message on my talk page before I could check that one. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Doczilla (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My sig

Okay. How does this look? STORMTRACKER 94 22:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks much better. Thank you. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket sockpuppetry

As you had indicated, I emailed you requesting details of your removal of material regarding abusive sockpuppetry by users User:Racepacket, User:Xcstar and _. I still have not received any details regarding the nature of the issue or of your actions. I await your promised response. Alansohn (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not get my emails? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a one. And I have received many other Wikipedia emails, including a test message I sent myself. Alansohn (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You can reply to my emails to you or send one to me via my user page, but either way, leave a note here to confirm that it was sent. Alansohn (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's weired! ok I blocked Racepacket for 24 hours and intended to indefblock Xcster after that but I see he's been indefblocked by someone else. I decided not to block the IP. The abuse amounted to one case of triple voting, nothing more so I decided to not block the IP in this instance but will monitor for a while. I don't think anything else needs doing. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked my spam folder, and found your emails. I can't figure out why yours would have gone to spam while others did not.

User:Racepacket / User:Xcstar, confirmed as sockpuppets by check user, raises issues that go far beyond multiple voting in a single AfD. Racepacket used Xcstar as part of a pattern of disruption and BLP issues. Racepacket's excuse -- as it turns out, he had posted it as Xcstar on my talk page -- that Dane Rauschenberg was "a 180 lb post- collegiate boxer with a short temper" is entirely unsupported and non-credible. It boggles my mind that paranoid fears, real or imagined, that Racepacket would be at any risk of physical harm to be so utterly unrealistic, and an entirely unacceptable justification for protection from "privacy concerns". If Racepacket can offer any credible evidence of threats from the target of his abuse, a block for Raushcenberg would be appropriate. If no such evidence exists, it would be a staggering violation of WP:AGF to use the claimed threat as justification for creating an abusive sockpuppet.

It is simply breathtakingly hypocritical for someone who had such concerns of supposed personal injury from Mr. Rauschenberg, for Racepacket / Xcstar to spend 90% of his edits deliberately provoking someone from whom he is supposedly at risk of physical injury. Racepacket / Xcstar devoted well over 200 edits, over 90% of his edit history, to articles about and related to Dane Rauschenberg that made repeated false and malicious statements, many of which are the clearest possible violations of WP:BLP. Racepacket / Xcstar repeatedly attempted to abuse Wikipedia policy in attempts to trigger blocks. Multiple efforts to address these issues at WP:BLPN and via WP:SSP were ignored or, as seems to be the case now, rationalized away. Edits by Racepacket / Xcstar, such as this one at L'Arche, which removed reliably-sourced content describing his actual efforts and replace it with claims of a "controversy" accusing Rauschenberg of improperly raising "only" $43,000 and clearly implying improprieties, all of which is based on a blog post that doesn't even support the charge, is just one of many such improper and malicious edits.

That someone could hide behind "privacy concerns" to add false, misleading and defamatory statements and then be protected from a clearly justified indefinite block raises severe questions about how we actually protect people. Mr. Rauschenberg certainly received no protection whatsoever from you or any other admin. A three-month long pattern of abusive edits, sockpuppetry and votestacking from Racepacket / Xcstar clearly justifies indefinite blocks for both. Alansohn (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is,the sockpuppet abuse amounted to one incident of triple voting. For that one incident I felt that a short block was in order. He's not hiding being privacy concerns, as he admitted the sockpuppetry to me. Since I know about it there is no need to have an evidence page and there was no need for the checkuser either. The block is recorded in the blocklog permenantly. You are not going to get him banned for one incident. Now if you have problems with his edits you need to follow our normal Dispute resolution. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me get this straight. Because you refuse to review the pattern of edits and insist that you will only pay attention to the one triple voting, and because you insist that he was straight with you when he lied about concerns of physical threats, that you feel that a 24-hour block is sufficient. Your emails indicated that you were certain that the checkuser cleared Racepacket / Xcstar of sockpuppetry ("No I don't think you have. You've been dealing with disruption from someone else and have got Xcstar confused in with it because he is as you say a blindingly obvious sockpuppet of Racepacket.

The checkuser result came back as unrelated.") and now you're insisting that the checkuser was unnecessary. The issue is not merely that I have a problem with the abuse by Racepacket / Xcstar. The bigger problem is an admin who can actually insist with a straight face that you are "protecting the privacy" of a persistent abuser of Wikipedia policy with the patently false claim that there was merely one effort of triple voting. Alansohn (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was going here is that there were two people involved. One person created a large number of socks, there was a checkuser on all those socks and most were related but not all. ( that was the checkuser I said was unrelated) Another person Racepacket created one sock. That sock was abused because he voted with it, and so that one has been indefblocked, and I blocked Racepacket for doing it. ( that checkuser was unnecessary, because he already admitted it, said he created the sock for privacy purposes) Apart from that, what I see is you two edit warring rather than following our normal dispute resolution. Had he not created Xcstar but insrtead edited under his main account what would you be doing now? Because that is what you need to do. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Users using their own username will usually temper their remarks; a sockpuppet can feel free to attack away with little fear of retribution, and such was the case with User:Racepacket and his sockpuppuet User:Xcstar. Had you dealt with the matter effectively and appropriately, there would have been no issue. Unfortunately, the failure to impose any meaningful action in the first case of sockpuppetry, definitively proven through a checkuser case you deemed "unnecessary", led to a second sockpuppet problem, which has been far more effectively addressed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (2nd) with a one-week block on Racepacket and a ban of another sockpuppet. The damage created by one sock who "only" triple voted in an AfD and was used to repeatedly defame Dame Rauschenberg did not merit any meaningful action on your part. That you can be so responsive in accommodating the imaginary fears of physical attack posed by an abusive puppetmaster, while supporting a block imposed based on WP:3RR actions perpetrated by his sockpuppet, displays a rather clear confusion on priorities as an administrator. Alansohn (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

Intro Evolution. Thanks for cleaning that up.--Random Replicator (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever.

They're not your articles. 75.25.105.57 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are everyones, and we don't appreciate vandalism. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk link...

"the otter sank"? Poor otter! (And I DID click the link on your userpage, great bait, LOVED it!) Edit Centric (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you enjoyed it! I'm starting to feel sorry for the otter too. I'll have to change the anagram soon. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the ones that I've found, interesting;

1. a knot tethers (or a tether knots, true statement sometimes!)
2. ankh otter set (mysterious Egyptian undertones?)
3. Thor takes ten (...he needed the break!)
4. Takes hot rent (...only in the seedy motels though!)
5. Stoke the rant (...fuel the fire!)

Happy anagram hunting!

Edit Centric (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming an article

Theresa, I just created an article, Freedom From Fear (painting), and then realized that its title should have a lowercase “for”, as in Freedom from Fear (painting). Can you fix that? I don’t know how to. Greg L (my talk) 23:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. For futire reference you click on the "move" tag to move a page to a new title. The history page is moved and a redirect is created at the old page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I'll make a note of it (never did that before). Greg L (my talk) 08:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx !!!

Thx for correcting romanians article Theresa :) Adrianzax (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free photo only on a biography of a living person, see WP:FU and WP:NFCC. Roodngis (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Clearly Roodngis does not understand policies or takes the time to read image description pages. If the page has a rationale and reason that the image is not replaceable, this can be disputed, and if that was the case, it would merit a response. When the tag is incorrectly applied, it doesn't merit a response. All that is needed is to remove the tag. I think we should keep an eye on this though. Thanks for acting so quickly! Rossrs (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Rumân" vs. "Român" Issue in Romanians

It was none of my intent to set a snare for you, awaiting a whole week without any edit on that matter, just to get you cought with your edit in order to than accuse you of...disruption (!!). I am an experienced and formerly active user who decided to contribute sporadically as an IP. The reason of my silence during the period the article was protected, was precisely…lack of time. Please, don’t assume bad faith or plotting. Kindly, --84.153.54.19 (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Please do the same for others though. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you can read Romanian, (I can, although hardly fluently), but the debate is just stupid. I've never seen such silliness in a linguistic debate: you did a great job in keeping the silliness under control. Vehicolul meu pe pernă de aer e plin cu ţipari.  :)

I can't, but I agree that the whole thing seems incredible. Of all the things to fight about! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lir

please stop vandalizing my user page, we can go through mediation if you wish, or proceed straight to arbitration if you are in a hurry -- lir

Please stop pretending to be Lir. I shall semiprotect the page. Please log in. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am Lir, and Wikipedia explicitly permits users to edit their page while not logged in; we all know that Lir has never objected to such a thing, that I am clearly Lir, that I can easily prove myself to be Lir, and that your motivations in oppressing me are purely political, punitive, petty, and immature. Please stop vandalizing my page, and unprotect my page as I have never requested protection and it is not your right to force it upon me. -- Lir

By all means go ahead and prove yourself to be Lir by logging in once and stating that the IP is you. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa, we all know that it is standard policy to reset someone's password when they are banned, and that I cannot have that problem fixed until I am able to communicate with more judicious admins than you -- please stop using heavy-handed totalitarian methods to oppress what is clearly not trolling on my behalf. It is quite exceedingly obvious that I am actually Lir, and you should be rather ashamed to have assumed every act of alleged vandalism was me, and yet here where there is no vandalism, you are suddenly desiring proof. -- Lir

No such policy exists. You are trolling. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa, common sense and judicial procedure certainly requires me to make the argument that my password has in fact been changed; it is clearly far too harsh to assume that my password has not been changed, and even more ridiculous to deliberately prevent me from communicting with other users in order to rectify this situation. There have always been plenty of methods to determine the identity of an individual, and it is absurd that you suddenly can't think of any besides having me do what is clearly impossible, since my password has in fact been changed by your friends. -- Lir

By all means prove in another way by email. I've blocked the IP for one month. It is an anon only block. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The password for the "Lir" account has not been disabled, and it still seems to have a valid email address. Lir: please contact me privately if you no longer have access to either the password or email address, and we'll sort out some way for you to prove your identity and get your account back. -- Tim Starling (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's emailed me and stated that he doesn't want to talk to either of since we are both 'liars'. Perhaps he could email some other developer. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to know who he'd be happy with. JeLuF? River? -- Tim Starling (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're sure it's him, you can just give me the email address he's using to talk to you, and I'll send a password reminder email to it. We'll call it identity verification by tone and behaviour. -- Tim Starling (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He may not be happy about me telling you his email address though. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the same one he's been using to post to the mailing list? [17] -- Tim Starling (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Lir to me.  :) --Merovingian (T, C) 03:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's him alright. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent. -- Tim Starling (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hdayejr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hdayejr2008

Here we go again... -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to watch him for a bit. So far all he has done is remove the cleanup tag, reading the article again, it's not that bad now so I'm fine with that. Lets see what he does next. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why not go over to my talk page and see what he did there? And isn't Wiki sockpuppetry bannable? --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evading a block by using a sockpuppet is certainly bannable, but that doesn't mean that I hve to ban. Admins are allowed to use thier judgment which is what I did. Had he wished to return to editing quietly then I was willing to allow him. However the comment on your talk page indicates that he is looking for trouble so I blocked the sock. He can request an unban of his old account. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Remote Neural Monitoring

An article that you have been involved in editing, Remote Neural Monitoring, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remote Neural Monitoring. Thank you. Amit (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

I don't know if you've been following the antics at the Mediation Cabal for the 24 stuff, but it's interesting in a debilitating way. I do have to point out something - L-m's playing tag wars again. Shouldn't a comment like this [[18]] in the edit summary be frowned upon? TunaSushi (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't been following it, but yes I agree an edit summary like that isn't at all helpful. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the constant personal attacks direct towards me on user talk pages be frowned upon as-well such as on Tuna sushi's Angelrivers and Mib-24's.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Post me the diffs. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly can, here is the main area where discussions have taken place with the sole intention of attacking me. Talk:Tom Lennox , also illustrates Angelriver's continuing attacking of me just because.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note asking for it to stop. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I've had contentious discussions with you, I've never stooped to your level of personal attacks. TunaSushi (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. I do get very frustrated with Lucy. She constantly attacks other users and then complains that people are attacking her. Since I joined in Oct/Nov, she has called me stupid, told me to shut up and even threatened to have me banned because I disagreed with her. And just yesterday she called one user uneducated, narrow minded, and a middle-aged loner in addition to the nasty comments she made about that particular user in the aforementioned edit summary. Civility works both ways, and Lucy should be made aware of that fact. Thanks for your time, and I will make a concerted effort to remain civil in any future dealings with her. Angelriver (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yeah

I guess im not famous yet. LOL! - anon112

Yep, but when you you can have an article. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

May I ask why? --Sjappé (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the AD was useful and you gave no reason in the edit summary for removing it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if I give an edit summary in which I tell why I remove it, it will be ok with you? --Sjappé (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a reasonable reason, then yes. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, let me know what you think (could you please answer in my talk page?) --Sjappé (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Greet :)

Thanks Theresa!

I hope I can become a great Wikipedian like you someday :)

Srkluver (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that's kind of you to say! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Filll comments by Igorberger

User Theresa knott what I was recommending to User Filll is to use plain English, which helps people understand each other better, in my opinion and understanding.

We spend some much time debating and fighting with each other that nothing gets done. Sorry if I steped in. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for explaining. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single Revision Deletion

I was just reading AN/I and saw your comment that Single Revision Deletion is impossible - it's actually not. Admins can delete the whole page, and then restore the whole page minus the revisions in question. No harm, no foul. Just making sure you knew. :-) - Philippe | Talk 21:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hdayejr

I have reviewed this editor's unblock request and decided that considering his original block was only for a week until he decided to invoke Godwin's Law and leave, five months is a suitable amount of time to lift the block and see if perhaps he can be a reasonable and constructive contributor to the project. I stipulated in the language of the unblock message that further breaches of civility will be met with a reinstatement of the block. I just wanted to give you a heads up, he's on my watchlist and I will be monitoring his edits. Trusilver 04:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed on a BLP issue

Last October 27 I made my first (and only) foray into BLP territory editing the piece on Ruud Lubbers (a former High Commissioner for Refugees). After reverting an anonymous edit on 6 November which had removed my edit, my edit and its references were removed by Mikegodwin, the Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel, and the site was protected by him and remains blocked to this day. I have been unable to get a satisfactory explanation from Wikipedia authorities, but do know from the Dutch press that a complaint was made by representatives of Mr. Lubbers. A post by Fpbat pretends to offer an explanation why the page was blocked by the General Counsel, but it is clearly written by someone unfamiliar with Wikiprocedures. All of this can be seen on the Talk page which also indicates how I came to edit the page and includes proposals on how to proceed, although there has been little discussion of my proposals. I need help from an experienced admin who is able to read the Talk page and suggest a way forward. Could you suggest someone who might be able to help me with this problem. I had some useful advice from another admin last November but who indicated that she and others admins are "likely to back up Mike Godwin, simply because there may be issues we're unaware of." However, the article (which now has no references at all) cannot remain as it is forever and I would like some suggestions as to how we might resolve this impasse.--Joel Mc (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect

Judging from the calibre of discussions on the talk page, I don’t think this issue can wait and needs immediate attention. Please see my post here on Talk:Testicle (titled Redirecting from “Balls”). I’m sure you will know how to handle this. Greg L (my talk) 05:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the daft redirect. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User TPIRFanSteve

Here we go again! He is revert warring with people and I have a valid edit that has stood until his revert of this evening. The "no win" section is the area in question. Thanks. Hdayejr (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know darn well there isn't any way you can confirm that. But then, you're only re-adding it because I'm the one who took it out, so I don't really expect you to come up with a sensible rebuttal to this. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hdayejr

Theresa, just so you know, every anonymous user who's edited my Talk page since yesterday is Hdayejr. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've been following your contributions and you have a possible paranoia issue. It's not making you look too great my friend. Dgems (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I wonder who that is... --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is hdayejr again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.19.106 (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Losar

Losar is currenting happening, how may I ensure that it is flagged as a current event? Is there a News Wiki article that this Wikipedia article can interwiki? How may I progress this? Is there anything else you recommend?
Blessings in the mindstream
B9 hummingbird hovering^(talk • contribs) 05:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Apuzzo Article

Hello,

At last viewing, the article was okay except for a little cleanup? I see now it has two tags on it, and I don't understand. I thought the "fan site" issue was wrestled through last year. I know some people don't like Hdaye, but please don't take it out on the article.

Angelika 23 (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Avantipic.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Avantipic.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 13:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your professional knowledge required

You are the first actual working school teacher in UK that I came across in Wikipedia, so I would like to enlist your professional advice if you have no objections.

I have recently made a proposal for amendment to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). In researching the proposal I was unable to find information on the standard public (i.e. Government) school curricula for primary school literacy standards. I did find this [19], but it is rather ambiguous on the subject of English.

Because the standard is likely to have been either adopted or influenced similar curricula in other English speaking countries, and because primary school kids or those of the immediately following ages use Wikipedia, this seemed to me an important consideration in formulating my proposal.

Would you be able to help me in this regard?

Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣♥♦ 02:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That document is foundation stage ( under 5) so probably is not what you are looking for. Actually I don't think you will find what you are looking for in the school standards at all. These standards do not lay down the "correct" way of doing things. They lay down the expected capabilities of each child e.g. "They structure what they say clearly, using apt vocabulary and appropriate intonation and emphasis. " Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. So where do I find what is expected of the pre-teens? They too may be users of the Wikipedia--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English level descriptors can be found here At age 11 an average child should be level 4 and a bright one level 5. By 14 an average child should be at 5 and bright ones at 6 or 7. Level 8 would be for an exceptionally gifted child of 14. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is really interesting. I was wondering if the Wikipedian editors bear in mind all possible readers of the articles. It seems to me that there should be both, articles on same subject, but in varying complexity and depth of knowledge being presented, as well as articles that are written with several (3-4?) levels of comprehension required by the reader in mind. I'm sure this has been proposed before, and obviously rejected.

There's nothing formal; I believe the tacit assumption is that we are writing for someone reading at about the level expected of a normal university undergraduate or bright high school student. There is also the Simple English Wikipedia, which is written at rather a lower level of complexity. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's interesting that you should say that, because when I started it was excplicitly stated that we were writing an anycylopedia for a general audience and that was taken to be an average 14 year old. Standards have risen considerably and we now write for a largely educated audience on most topics so that most of our articles are too dificult for teenagers to read. In some topics e.g. many of the maths topics the articles are too difficult for me to read and I have a science degree! It's a problem for sure. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hdayejr again

This user is Hdayejr. He's the only person I know of who uses the word "'tard" on a regular basis and has a vendetta against the Dayton Daily News. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but as you can see from my recent editing history I'm real busy in real life at the moment. Please take this to WP:AN/I instead of here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brynne_October.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Brynne_October.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factors

Good call, though personally, I was hesitant to block: I was going to see what they did after the first edit to RfA. Thanks for that. Acalamari 19:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly deliberately trolling. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for reverting my talk page. BTW, you have quite a sense of humour; I like that. Cheers from a Yank. Jonneroo (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to thank me for that! I'm glad you apreciate my sense of fun, although it has gotten me into trouble before. Last april 1st I added a "you must now pay to edit" joke to recent changes text which many people found funny but some really did not. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An April Fools' Day joke that some didn't appreciate...I can identify with that. Have a good day! Jonneroo (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is always nice to find people with a sense of humour. Sometimes people to wiki to seriously. Enjoy the rest of your day.Thright (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)thright[reply]

User:Superdynamite

I unblocked this user -- she's not really a troll. She is an attorney representing someone who trademarked the phrase "The Helmet Catch". She came to OTRS with her complaint and I told her that we weren't going to rename the article and that besides, the ESPN guy came up with the name long before the trademark application was filed. But I unblocked her on the condition that she refrain from re-inserting the trademark claim in Eli Manning pass to David Tyree without gaining acceptance on the talk page first. Besides, this didn't really seem like a legal threat per se, just a request. Regards, howcheng {chat} 18:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But why unblock her? She had, and has, no interest whatseoever in contributing to the encylopedia. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You never know. If she goes back to any previous behavior, we can always re-block. It just seems awfully WP:BITE-y to indef-block someone trying to assert their trademark, especially when their behavior hasn't been particularly atrocious. howcheng {chat} 22:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your input?

[20]--Doc^g 14:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of my sub-userpage

Can you please explain why you deleted my sub-userpage: User:Christopher Mann McKay/comments? If you could please respond on my talk page, I would appreciate it. Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 15:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Deletion

Given that it was flagged for Deletion in 2005, with an AfD reaching a decision to Delete, and having no encyclopedic value that I can see, is there any reason why Image:Now that's a great pair of tits.jpg should be kept? Achromatic (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not flagged, it was added as a joke (by a user with a sense of humour) to the deletion of another page. It's not a copyvio, it's not offensive, it's not an orphan. Why do you want it deleted? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central Europe

Hi! I seem to have an edit war with the user NeroN BG (who hast probably also the sockpuppets Careuc and Buffer v2). Could you please take a look in the article Central Europe? --Olahus (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't know anything about central europe. Have you tried the normal dispute resolution avenues? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually User:Olahus was the victim of harassment

User above was the victim. Marc KJH (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balti Steppe

Hello, I truly appreciate the time you took back in 2007 to sort out the situation. I intervene this time basicly to get rid of total absurdity which User Dc76 keeps writing on Wikipedia, namely about imagined new name for Balti Steppe, thus ignoring not only common sense, but also Academy of Sciences of Moldova, European Commission, Britannica, etc. I live in the city, and even Moldovans who live outside know that it always existed (I know this is not a persuasive argument), it has been described in ancient works of world known travellers. In the article Balti Plain (to which redirects were made from Balti Steppe) you will find a very strange sentence at the end saying basicly that Russian speaking forced this name. It's totally strange. Steppe is an English word (yes with Russian etymology). I mean, one does not need to go to university to know about Beltsy / Balti Steppe. I put a tag for deletion of the article Balti Plain, cretaed by the same User Dc76, ignoring the consensus reached (anyway why would one need to look for consensus for something as evident as Balti Steppe, it's like seeking for consensus whether we should call Black Sea - White Sea), ignoring presented sources and scientifical research works, and presenting one source, an internet site with porn adds on it, which mentions the phrasing Balti Plain, although not specifying where do the sources come from). User Dc76 also modified sections of Geography of Moldova, to support his invention. Another user, I guess administrator, closed the whole discussion on the nomination for deletion page in couple of minutes the deletion log, harrassing me with allegations of POV, disruptive editing and threatening to "be wise" generally. No diff was presented for POV. Personally I do not appreciat ethis kind of approach, moreover, the renaming problems were discussed in 2007 in detail and I do not see why that user comes back with these insinuations. I am not editing so far anything and would like to see what you and other users will say. For references:[21] and [22] the user's last message at the end of my talk page.--Moldopodo (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that another admin is already interviening. I trust Future Perf. at Sunrise's judgment and do not intend to get involved at this time. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/header

Good stuff. Way more readable—I like it ;) AGK § 12:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the temptation is with pages like that is to keep adding to them. Every now and then though, they need streamlining. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Whale Theory

Super Whale WILL return with more scientific evidence to back him.

Once you have science evidence I'm fine with the creation of an article. But without it - no. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Mold & Engineering, Inc.

The "gushing" came back and I removed it. Think this should be afd'd? -WarthogDemon 18:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it seems to be a legit company. I notice that it wasn't reverted after your revert. Lets keep an eye on it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I got it on my watchlist. -WarthogDemon 18:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rio de oro

Can I ask why exactly his user page has semi-protection on it? I just checked it out and he seems to be the only one to have edited it at all, and there was no vandalism that precipitated it. Nate • (chatter) 20:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed that. He seems to revel in drama and the semiprotect , along with the vandal notice confirms that. Having said that, it does no particlular harm. It is rare indeed that an IP editor would want to or need to edit the userpage of a logged in user. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it was harmful at all, just odd. I don't understand his aggresiveness towards a vandal that in the grand scheme of things is beyond silly and harmless compared to the one I've been dealing with on and off for the last couple months, but despite all that I haven't had the need for SP myself. You just have to reason with them I guess and let it all roll off. Thanks for settling that situation yesterday BTW :). Nate • (chatter) 21:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/Mmbabies

Concerning your edit, I agree to a point. But I need to make a couple of statements you made there.

• One; I am a little annoyed that you implied users like myself, Azumanga, and User:Postoak\Postoak who have been dealing with this sockpuppeter for over a year now are sockpuppets.

• Second, I left a message under your edit suggesting that maybe you could look at the edits and summaries this user and related socks have used to see why some of us felt that more serious action may need to be taken. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, It wasn't you that I was suspicious of. I'm sorry if you felt I was pointing an accusing finger at everyone. It was not my intention. Secondly, the most serious action that could be taken is to inform the police, and that has been done. Thirdly, I have see far far worse beleive me. If you feel this needs more action pass it on to the arbitration committee. They have experience dealing with problem users. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:

1. Thanks for taking care of that Jamesmajury character--he clearly had no business here what-so-ever. 2. Re: your recent Mmbabies conversations: I can see both sides of this one; while he's largely just a nimrod, I can see how folks who have seen WP take threats seriously might wonder why we're ignoring THIS guy. All the same, I think he's harmless (other than causing well-meaning folks to open squazillions of threads). I do wish the TX authorities, or at least his ISP, would take some action, even if it's just a "we saw what you did there"--maybe if they scared the crap out of him, he might find another hobby.Gladys J Cortez 13:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still we connot force his isp or the police to act, and escalating things by contacting the press is likely to make the trolling worse not better. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I totally agree. As are the multiple AN/AN-I threads. Personally, I have a suspicion re: a possible MmB sock--I will not relate it here, but it's based on geography and ...um, obsession...and it's not at all a hard link to make. (In fact, you may have made it already.) Not important, anyway--just wanted to clarify that I was agreeing with you and CERTAINLY not advocating any further escalation.Gladys J Cortez 15:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I'm watching his edits. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fair, forcing ISPs or the police is not a good idea, I have first hand experience, I always avoid the force tactics. But that's not childish, that's paranoid, not that I'm paranoid at all, but he's been vandalising too long, and I was wondering if mmbabies didn't have a friend at ATT or something. I did get it taken care of without the media however. If you think Rio de Oro is a sock, guilt or inocence can be proven by Checkuser, I see Checkuser as a harmless tool at stopping vandals. But if he were a sock, how is he still editing, AT&T promised that they would disconnect Mmbabies. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UtherSRG's admin abuse

Also ask yourself how many nonadmins did he intimidate and won content dispute through blocking? El_C 15:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence of that? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has none. The list of my past 100 block actions goes back to May 2007. His is the only content dispute block. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That attack on me you just reverted was the ip who a few minutes ago added the puppy throwing vandalism to the USMC article, so in answer to him/her: if s/he wants to criticize the USMC, etc., I'm all for that, but defacing the article like that is rather unhelpful.

As for the issue at hand, no, I'm speculating in light of his unremorseful, totally uncritical attitude. Also, I think the whole "rollback abuse" cries are a bit silly (I'm an old schooler rollbacker), but his attitude here reaffirms my suspicions that this is a potential problem that may explode again sooner than later. Difficult to communicate with him seems to be largely the name of the game.

With me, it all started two days ago when he reverted me adding a full-sized picture alongside the closeup, doing so without an explanation. Then today he escalated the reverts, blocked me, and continued reverting. Alarming. El_C 15:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are right ( and I suspect that you are not) and things do "explode sooner rather than later" we can deal with it then don't you think? To be honest, I probably wouldn't have given a full explanation for the initial revert either. It's sloppy not to but I din't think he was intending harm. Only to make the page look better in his opininion. That was your aim too of course. It's a shame that your differences of opinion lead to revert warring. And remember it takes two to war. But you know what we are all only human. (you me and yes even UtherSRG). So lets let the matter drop for now. If the problem reoccurs then I'll be happy to act. But I'm still sure that it wont be necessary, because when all is said and done you are both reasonable people, and reasonble people tend to do the right thing once they are calm. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always calm to the extent that I don't abuse my sysop tools. That I do take comfort in. El_C 16:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"His is the only content dispute block" — at least it appears he is ready to admit that it was a content dispute block (progress?). And, unironically, it only took three hours for him to bring himself up to it! El_C 15:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That comment isn't helpful. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way, but I still don't see why the person who violated the rules should reap the rewards of ruling those articles over myself. El_C 16:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But your tone is unpleasent, and thats not like you. He's not reaping any rewards. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You expect my tone to be pleasant at this time? I'm afraid that under the circumstances all I can offer is a professional tone, without added pleasantries. Yes, he's reaping the rewards of his edit warring (too) and block abuse, his versions are up and I'm afraid to edit another lemur. And I've been doing some good work there, his partial reverts do not tell the whole story. I've been adding countless images to image-less mammal entries (pretty key to the reader). He only focuses on what in his opinion is bad, not a word on the good. That strikes me as a negative approach; as a parochial, this-is-my-fiefdom approach. Why not accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, latch on to the affirmative? Sorry, it makes no sense. El_C 16:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice when people say "well done" and we certainly don't do it often enough thats true. But I think you are seeing bad intention in his edit where there was none. Tell you what I'll look over the articles myself and (if I agree with you) make your improvements. But I'll do it tomorrow because a) I want you calm and you aren't yet and b) I need to do some housework, I've got my niece and nephew staying tomorrow and I should have been doing my washing instead of editing here! So I'll go now, and we can speak tomorrow. Your friend. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not willing to allow him to subject someone else to the same thing: not only are cool down blocks against policy for uninvolved admins, he was most involved in the content dispute (it was only the two of us). And he refuses to provide assurances that he won't do it again (specifically, I asked him to). And, responding to my explanation of how arbitrary his block was, by saying that 'theoretically, what if I blocked you first, etc., though I never would,' he, to add insult to injury, ignores the qualification of the last words and says "by your own admission, I was just faster on the block button." that dose not strike me as intellectually honest. El_C 16:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user Thegingerone deserves a block

Lets not be hasty here. I never intended insults. I just responded to slanders the user gave me. The user deserves to be blocked, for continuously violating the NPOV policy, which he/she, from looking at the user discussion page, continues to do, and has also recently done on the Pollyanna and Rudolph Valentino pages. People yell when injustice takes place. A fair block needs to take place.Kevin j (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm sorry but that is not how it looks to me. You appear to be stalking his edits and trying to stir up trouble. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my response

I'm not Mmbabies okay. I'm not in no way shape or form Mmb. I never met or seen or dreamed Mmbabies in real life okay. So please stop pestering about that. Rio de oro (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to once you stop posting about him. You are obsessed. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not. I just want this S.O.B. locked up because all of the BS he's caused. Rio de oro (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can't have that. Give it up. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I NEVER tried to Stir Up Any Trouble

I didn't even know who The gingerone was until four days ago. If you had paid attention to my board notices, I have been trying to get the user blocked for vandalism LIKE A REGULAR ADMINISTRATOR WOULD DO IN THIS TYPE OF SITUATION. No, I'm not an administrator, but I sure act like one.

Did you read the comments in Pollyanna closely? Because it stated that the film DEFINED HER(Mary Pickford's) CAREER. NO, it is actually this user who is trying to stir up trouble, and I am acting as a policeman and trying to prevent it. Read my contributions, as I have never stalked edits. Don't be prejudice.Kevin j (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look following a user who you have a dispute with to another article, and posting a nasty message on the talk page to them is not policing. Stop following Thegingerone around and stop posting to their talk page. You make think you act like an admin but I am one and I will block you if you don't stop trying to harrass this user. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 05:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you spent 5 minutes to check out my page history you would find that all of the drama there also started with one person. Thank you for your consideration. I am obviously not the first, second or 10th person who has had an issue with thegingerone. Any small amount of investigation shows COI, prejudice, bad grammar, poorly or uncited facts etc. I don't feel the need to argue this point with you, only trying to point it out. Thank you again. Skyler Morgan (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I did check the history carefully. My point remains however. You have no right to point out someone's talk page when you regulaly wipe your own. Plus even if what you say is true and the theginger one has had conflict in the past that does not give Kevin j the right to behave badly now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am 100% agreeing with you that two wrongs does not make a right. I don't think that two people posting irresponsibly is good either. What I was trying to point out that thegingerone has a habit of edit warring and posting non-encyclopedic style writing. She DOES use wikipedia and other online forums to slander people and force opinions that aren't necessarily fact. Although Kevin let his temper get the best of him, I think his writings are good and usually well sourced. I was only trying to point out that there are many of us that have had the displeasure of meeting thegingerone on wiki, and asking you to take a careful look at the actual writings and not the reactions from the insane amount of frustration that stem from trying to work with someone whom refuses to be worked with. There are only two ways to come to an agreeable situation with her. Her way or her way. Skyler Morgan (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough. It's a shame that Kevin lost his temper so completely though. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I honestly think he's a great writer with a lot of passion to write the truth and also to take the time to cite his work, etc. Hopefully this will be a learning experience. I don't want to push away the writers that write with that passion, but at the same time that very passion can work negatively if it isn't harnessed correctly. By the way, you seem to be extremely level headed and knowledgeable with Wiki standards and guidelines. Do you mind if I email you some questions that I am not comfortable asking in a public forum. Thanks again. Skyler Morgan (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proving an image is public domain

• Although my main qualm is the removal of the {{cleanup}} tag continuously, the image is also concerning. The author doesn't state anything that would prove the image is public domain. Surely someone cannot just simply assert that something is public domain and we take them at their word? The image exists at MySpace. I'm not sure what the rules are regarding that, but I'm pretty certain Wikipedia requires more proof than this guy is giving (namely, none). JuJube (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my question on his talk page. I will take the necessary action once he replies. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You claim that you are willing to help me, correct? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You're Right, This Has To Stop

Do not think I'm the bad guy. I will never again post messages on the users talk page or "stalk." Why don't you look at my talk page and see the nasty messages the user has sent me? A part of me thinks you are acting childish, and I don't think you have been taking a good look at our page histories. I never erase content from talk page, just so you know, and you should not be so bias against me. I LOVE LOOKING AT FILM HISTORY, just so you know. So go ahead and accuse me for stalking. If you look at my contributions history, I've done edits on Mary Pickford, Charlie Chaplin, Jack Warner, Harry Warner, Warner Bros., Paramount, Walt Disney, D.W Griffith, Douglas Fairbanks, and others long before even last week. I even received a Barnstar for one of my contributions as well; How reliable does that make me?

Wikipedia needs to be enforced, and I want to help. I will report you to other administrators if you continue to be one sided and assume I'm the one who's mostly at fault. I'm posting administration abuse, and judging from your message to Skyler Morgan, my point remains that you are being one-sided and assuming Thegingerone is not at fault in any way. That's not being a good administrator. I don't slander, and you should take a look at the filth Thegingerone mailed me. I'm not bragging either, I'm just showing to you how reliable I am.Kevin j (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As another administrator, I think you need to move on, Kevin J. I agree with Theresa's judgement on this issue. Please stop cluttering up people's talk page and get back to editing articles. Additionally, consider using the "Show Preview" feature rather than making 15 edits to write one post. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I've been having a lot of problems with him; and Im greatly annoyed the Valentino page is frozen on his edit (for now) but I'll live. I actually just ignored him until today I cleaned up my talk page and clicked his. I had no clue what you went through or that Pollyanna was edited (I just made a small edit no need to watch right?) Thank you for your help; and its a shame that people act so childish sometimes. And on a side note 'Skylar Morgan' is someone I knew in real life who is very upset that he didnt get his way with an article about himself (hes usuing another persons name). He likes to slander people as he did to Ben Bledsoe. I really dont care this is wikipedia and I think my edits and actions speak for themselves.--Thegingerone (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Please take my advice should you encounter any more problems with anyone - do not edit war. Never, not for any reason, not even if you are sure you right. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MMB LTA Talk

Maybe those two need a topic ban-like restriction for a couple of weeks, so that those of us who actually care about keeping MMB in check can get back to the RBI that was very effective at working. I noticed that since their rabble rousing began that he's gone back to averaging 2-4 bursts a week, where we barely dealt with him at all in February. I'm also concerned about Rio's behavior on this topic yesterday, where something was dealt with very appropriately until he put his two cents in and stirred the pot. Seriously? RBI was working last month, and now that they've come in, they did exactly what he wanted them to do; give him attention. Thanks for your attention on this; I've been trying to deal with them myself but it seems like a losing battle to convince them it's not worth the hassle. Nate • (chatter) 20:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. So far, I've just been silently going "tsk, tsk" every time Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/Mmbabies pops up on my watchlist. Finally, all this silliness is being dealt with. Thanks! szyslak (t) 11:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I third that, but only to a certain extent. I think we have all been acting imature, not just me, not just Rio, I think there's imaturity all over the place. Theresa: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill, making such loud attacks on that talk page like that. Rio: I know you're trying to help, but you're a bit paranoid too. I'm wondering if we don't need an outside administrator to look at this, I think you're over reacting, lets not act like headless chickens (ever seen a chicken with its head cut off?) now. This here mess is dividing the community; it's causing more trouble than it's worth. Besides, Mmbabies is probably gone, they promised they would disconnect him. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My responce

When you said about my behavoir and the FBI it was refering to a person that was mentioned to possesed pedophillia images on their user boxes. I said that the FBI should be contacted because of this stuff is just sick and wrong. I think the person that possesed and uploaded the images is a pedophile. Thats what I said "I'm going to call the FBI.--Rio de oro (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you were referring to. You have no idea if 6the person is a pedophile. The images were deleted so you did not see them. Your comments were not in the least helpful. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mickey Mouse Club

Hi. You seem to have past dealings with Skyler Morgan/TragedyStriker and thegingerone, who are both involved in the latest flareup of an edit war on The Mickey Mouse Club. At issue is a supposed cast member, Zachary Jaydon, who does not appear in the cast list for the show I found in a book about Disney tv. Jaydon is mentioned on some websites, but not others, and his involvement in the series may be tenuous or even spurious. Numerous editors have come down on both sides of the argument.

Now thegingerone claims on the article's talk page that Skyler is Jaydon. Skyler has removed the claim as "slander", so that he is rebutting comments that no longer appear on the page. I have no idea who is right or wrong, but it would be nice to get this resolved. Any chance you can either look into it or take it to AN/I to get more eyes on the situation? This slow-burning content dispute just got personal. Thanks! --Karen | Talk | contribs 10:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa, Is there anyway you can teach me the proper way to cite an article. I am aware of how in most cases, but am somewhat confused on Wiki Standards. I can cite source after source on various subjects relating to Mr. Jaydon. The "slander" that Karen is referring to involved personal attacks on Mr. Jaydon citing him being "Psycho," etc. It had nothing to do with her accusations that I am, in fact Mr. Jaydon himself which I find to be somewhat amusing. She has an obvious conflict of interest regarding this subject, which is so deeply rooted, I am not able to sort it out as she becomes hateful and uncooperative. Anytime I attempt to resolve anything with them, I am unable to. I have made viable efforts. I have asked several times for her to leave out her edits on Mr. Jaydon citing Wiki's COI policy, but am not sure how to go about that properly either. She has a clear personal issue with Mr. Jaydon and I am merely trying to write about a subject I am interested in. I have done a vast amount of research on him, and would like to write a non-biased factual article. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. Skyler Morgan (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware wikipedia has similar standards to everyone else. If you are citing a book, give the author, and ISBN, possible the page number. If you are citing a newspaper article give the name of the paper, the date, title and author. Most papers have online archives now so add a link to that. If you are citing a website give a link and the date it was retrieved. All sources need to be reliable see Wikipedia:reliable sources. Dont worry about formatting and such, that can easily be taken care of afterwards as long as you give the info as to where you got the fact from. Note also our policy on Wikipedia:No original research. Hope this helps. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therea it is quite easy to prove it is Zachary Jaydon himself though an IP trace would really do it. For starters Zachary Jaydon worked with Ben Bledsoe via 44th Floor Records where there was either a real Skyler Morgan or that as an alias for Jaydon who held the title of 'A&R' for awhile (http://press.benbledsoe.com/contact.htm proves the Skyler part). In June or July (cant recall) 'Tragedy Striker' started editing Bledsoe's page with a 'scandal link' he had created himself with a blogger named JJ. This resulted in getting his IP blocked and the Bledsoe page protected for awhile. In November 'Tragedy Striker' resurfaced creating the Zachary Jaydon page which matches his IMDB which he edits himself (along with his 'acting history'). It was full of PR dribble and other admins removed it due to my requests. TragedyStriker also started editing other pages adding Jaydon's name to them again no citations. They left a bunch of nasty messages on my talk page which I deleted not too long ago but in my history its easy to find. During the same period Jaydon emailed me saying we needed to talk; though I obviously did not reply. I still have that as proof.

I guess its really redundant as beyond anything he edits himself he cant prove anything. Hes just out for attention and self promotion and beyond stalking me on Wikipedia I really dont care he exists. Im ignoring him now; but I thought Id pass on that info. Thank you for your help.--Thegingerone (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above and on the talk page. I don't care who anyone is. It's not important. All edits need a reliable source covers everything. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Not to sound evil or like a troll or anything, but I really, really do not appreciate those discriminating attacks you left on Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/Mmbabies, leaving names like "teenage mutant ninja". I know, you and szyslak want kids to have their "mommys and daddys" send in their edits for them, and have us be solely dependant on family members, have them spoil us right? What ever, there's a lot more admins than you might think that are even younger than me, and there's a lot more vandals and dedicated trolls than you might think that are a bunch of immature adults. The range block wouldn't be a bad idea, but I've gotten that wog disconnected for good I think, my thanks to the Better Business Bureau. Whatever on banning me, I'm retired from this hell hole, you wogs are ALL a waste of the time I could use fighting other fraud and getting the well deserved respect out of it. PS, why don't you just go and ban all the rest of us juvanille vandal fighters from our efforts, such as Preston and Maddie, are they any different from this cadet? 74.4.117.0 (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are entilely based on poor behaviour rather than age. And Wog? what kind of language is that? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wog" doesn't seem any worse than "teenage mutant ninja vandal fighter" to me. "Wog" is short for "pollywog," and it means someone who has never crossed the equator and participated in the Navy's "crossing of the line ceremony" before. Although I'm positive you have crossed the line in another way, and you may have even crossed the equator at one point, I doubt you ever participated in the "crossing of the line ceremony." Don't take it so hard, would you rather I write an obscenity? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NROTC's comments

No problem, Theresa, I feel it would be appropriate to delete his reply (and mine in return) and fully support your decision to do so. I didn't know he had done more beyond the bad faith AIV's until I read his and his IP's contribs over the day after I posted, so if he wants to leave us bitter, we can't stop him. Thank you again for stepping into the situation when you did; you handled it with a cool and class that if I decide to go for adminship one day, I would love to emulate. Nate • (chatter) 09:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, Theresa, you show admirable restraint; the vitriol in ROTC's post would have earned him a trip to AN/I and requests for an uninvolved admin to block, had I been an admin and had that been directed at me. I'm glad that mess over at LTA has been cleaned up somewhat, and a start made towards keeping it permanently tidy.Gladys J Cortez 16:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's just a kid. I think to be honest he misunderstood what was being said on the page, I think he thought we were talking of banning him from Wikipedia. Anyway It'll be a long time before I let a bit of footstamping get to me. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I knew EXACTLY what you meant, but I don't understand what you have against kids. Are your student really that nasty that you're gonna take it out on the rest of the world? What about your comments? Oh yeah, Gladys j cortez, go look at who actually tried to fight your peskey Road Runner vandal on abuse reports. Appreciate the barnstar Nate? I know, you hate kids Theresa, but don't disrespect me and I won't disrespect you. Does that sound fair? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, I've just made a decided not to retire, it will be a long time before I let a little name calling sink my ship. This cadet's first general order: TAKE CHARGE OF THIS POST AND ALL GOVERNMENT PROPERTY IN VIEW sir/mam. I intend to stick to it. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit weired. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh snap!

Sorry, I couldn't help but to think that when I saw this. John Reaves 18:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GO-PCHS-NJROTC

Okay, I know you're somebody who thinks that one individual can't make a difference, but I'm here to tell you that you're wrong. Firstly, I want to know how in the world actually attempting to get Mmbabies disconnected instead of putting my head in the sand like a dumb liberal is childish. Secondly, I dare you say anything about me using the word "wog" on your talk page after you called me a "teenage mutant ninja vandal fighter" on the Mmbabies page! I know, you hate me, you hate all kids, your prejudice against teens. Perhaps you hate people who represent the military, I don't know. You see, "wog" is Navy talk, it's what we call someone who's never crossed the equator, no more offensive than you calling me a "teenage mutant vandal fighter". You should be ashamed of yourself, no one had any problem with my vandal fighting until you steped in with your busybody crap. I can't see how you expect me NOT to get mad after the time in effort I put into fighting both Mmbabies and LBHS Cheerleader at the same time, and get backstabbed like that. I just went to the page to tell everyone the good news that Mmbabies is probably gone for good, AT&T gave me a PHONE CALL with a real person promising that the abuse would never happen again because they disconnected him. I don't know if it's true, but I would appreciate if you at least wait unitl you see more abuse from Mmbabies before you put that range block on, that's gonna make ME look bad when they start getting complaints from other customers that can't edit 'cause you wouldn't believe me when I said he's been disconnected. And please don't assume that just because me and Rio de Oro worked together on the case that I agree with everything he said, I don't, I think at times he's displayed paranoid traits. As far as the phone call goes, I want to know how that was such a bad idea, Wiki newbies would be more likely to call those numbers and raise (a place for the bad spirits) with the owner(s) of those numbers, inocent or not. If someone would have called in a civil tone and verified that it was Mmbabies and posted the outcome there, it would have made newbies less likely to call that number in a not so civil tone. Yes, I knew that you meant you were only banning me from that page, I don't care, I'm resigning as soon as I tie up some loose ends. But those comments on that Mmbabies have put me in outrage, and I intend to do everything in my power to get that "teenage mutant ninja" crap removed, even if I have to contact the Foundation (that's not a threat, that's a promise). Oh yeah, about that bit about the off topic discussion. I wasn't the one who initiated the questions about "Is MMbabies a Christian" and "Is MMbabies a school student," I was just using common sense to try and answer those questions, try looking at the logs. Now, lets talk about the "ninja" business. Was that YOU that made those bad faith edits to Port Charlotte High School, replacing "Yes I am a Pirate" with "Yes I am a Ninja"? Yes I am a Pirate, and I strive to show my Pirate pride, I cannot let someone make me into a imature brat that I am not as that is reverse Pirate Pride. BTW, are you happy that I didn't use any obscenities (as much as I would have liked to)? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, I love the way that you cited that "essay" about not making a big deal out of the vandals, there's another "essay" which contradicts that and encourages Wikipedians to take ALL threats as promises and report them to the police or even 911. I'm not big on making a mountain out of a mole hill, I generally just report to the abusers' ISPs and move on, but that guy has an abuse log that's so big, it'd take days to print it on an inkjet printer. The "essay" you cited is not policy, and it is no more valid than the other one that contradicts it. I can't believe how unappreciative you people have recently been, you should be ashamed of yourselves. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at ur user page, I see how it is, you're a school teacher with a class full of rotten kids. Sorry to say, but I think thats COI (conflict of interest), if I'm right, you think just because some of YOUR students act like Tarpons (the mascot of our rival school and has a redicules behavior record) that all kids in this world have malicious intent. Do you even know what ROTC is? FYI, it's an example setting program, and that's why I TRIED to always be civil. Sorry it wasn't good enough for you, I guess I'll just stick to helping the United States Government fight other internet fraud, they appreciate my work, unlike someone I know. Just for reference, go check out https://www.njrotc.navy.mil. I'm sorry if I seem like a firecracker, but I can't see how anyone would NOT expect me to be mad, that took a lot of effort which was apparently a wasted cause, good time after bad. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OH my good God! Is this what you call trying to talk to me! OK I'll try to reply as best as I can to the above rant. In my country wog is a racist term a bit like nigger, so I misunderstood and apologise for that. As for the rest, Of course I don't hate you! To say I hate kids is just stupid. I do think you see yourself as a superhero and that is exactly the wrong attitude for a vandal fighter. And no I don't think you have malicious intent, and never said or even implied that you did. But I do think your attitude to vandals is seriously wrong, I do think you harm more than help, I do think your behaviour was bad on the talk page and I'm not the only one who thought that. Which is why I banned you from the Mmbabies pages. No I can see that you now realise you overreacted and I am pleased that you decided not to leave. But really! Calling an experienced vandalifighter a "tree hugging liberal"! Believe it or not I do know how to deal with vandals. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to here. So "wog" is a racial slur in Britain? Oh yeah, you're not going to but that "range block" in prematurely, right? I'd like to see if AT&T keeping their promise or not. No, I don't see myself as a "superhero," I see myself as an experienced fraud fighter that I feel should be everyday, it's not hard to fight fraud online, it only takes a few minutes of a persons day, I think every three year old could do it, I believe in ISP reporting, and I've been trying to set an example, not be a hero. I really think there's other Wikipedians far better at running the tasks than I, that's exactly why I don't run for adminship; I'm no big superstar, nor would I want to be one. I'd have just assume taken this case in stealth mode, report the problem, fix the problem, then move on to another vandal. In my eyes, I saw that other people were making a bigger deal out of it than I; I report fraudsters in mass outside of Wikipedia, I probably get about 100 auto replies from abuse depts every day, and for the most part, I think it is effective. I'm wondering why I actually had to fight AT&T to do something, but that kind of fighting is not my everyday style, it's just that it kept occuring over and over again from that lone person, I usually see a spammer or hacker one day and gone the next. Fraud accounts usually disappear no later than one week after I first spot them. But that's not the first time I've had a problem with AT&T, I had a problem with them with a phishing website once. Once again, I usually DON'T make a big deal out of a hacker or spammer, I report once and move on. What encouraged me to take this one so seriously is the fact that he had been continuing to cause trouble for a whole year, and abuse report after abuse report was being ignored. I have a feeling she/he was on a "low income" program and she/he was threatening to take them to court if they disconnected her/him because of the low income contraversy. I didn't want to try to push them around too much 'cause I wasn't sure what undercover work the FBI was doing, but it seemed that the rest of the community wanted me to do something I can't, call and ask the status of the complaint and push them into doing something; they ALL (well, with the organizations in this case anyway) refuse to disclose information about their cases, that's their policy in ALL cases. My biggest problem is with the fact that I just got banned from a page that I think I just got settled on behalf of the Wikipedia community; once again, I am not a superhero, but the fact that I believe that he's disconnected speaks for itself, and I don't just give credit to myself, I'll share that with the rest of the brave vandal fighters, but I think that backstabbing ANY contributer is unjust. As for Rio, I think he helped and hindered, I'm not about to backstab another vandal fighter, but I think he's a newbie in the field of vandal fighting and that he did overreact a bit. I don't think Mmbabies would have ever done anything, but it's never good to assume, and it wasn't just the threats that scared me, the damage to Wikipedia scared me; just the list of sockpuppets has to be taking up a redicules amount of Wikipedia server space, not to mention the archives of her/his vandalism. Spamming is illegal because it has a negative impact on email servers, I think that his vandalism should be considered just as criminal as spamming (and I hate spammers). Do keep in mind that it is never good to "railroad" someone, I'm a direct victum of "railroading" thanks to an idiot from Punta Gorda (don't even think about commenting about the Spainish definition, it's the name of a town south of Port Charlotte) that stired up a mess long before I even thought about Wikipedia. If you think I do more harm than good in the subject of vandal fighting, I wonder why the federal government is always thanking me for my continued efforts to fight spam and internet fraud. Is that better than my "fighting spirit" tone? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you writing soooooooo much and not formatting it into paragraphs? Write less, say more. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not advertising

I am not advertising and I don't work for this company. I don't understand how other wikipedia articles about companys make it in but my article does not. What is the difference. The rules don't explain it to me very well. It says I can't make an article about a company but why is there one for Target? All it talks about is target? Why is did that on make it past the system but my article does not? Mistacoolio20 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your company simply isn't notable enough. Please see User_talk:UrbanRoots where a link to our policies was already given to you. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar :D

Hey Theresa, I really only know you as the admin who pulled the merger tags on the 24 articles a while back, but I've seen your work on Wikipedia, and the good humor you add to Wikipedia, through your interesting anagrams of your name in your signature, to your boldness of posting a picture of your tits on Wikipedia. And for this, you definetly earned this. And for the record, i think m:GAY is the best policy in existence :D

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For being such a surreal admin, adding good humor to Wikipedia, I award you the Surreal Barnstar. Well earned. :) Steve Crossin (talk to me) 20:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shall copy it to my userpage. Thanks! Tt's nice that you enjoy my humour :-) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Theresa, the fat store called, they're not running out of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistacoolio20 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How charming! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa, just a quick question. This user asked me here how users become an admin. It's also the user who you deleted the Urban Elation article of. I don't want to bite them, what would you suggest I do? I'm not an admin either, I'm just a lowly admin coachee/rollbacker :(

• Additionally, I tried to revert that personal attack. Seems I got edit conflicted too many times Steve Crossin (talk to me) 20:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never worry about personal attack. They make the attacker look bad not me. As for his question. I'd just answer it. 3 months solid non problematic editing is a minimum I'd say. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Personal attacks don't really concern me anymore, neither does vandalism, what hurts is when my wife, whos new to wikipedia, gets targeted. Which has happened a lot in the past few days. Theres not a lot I can do, but I just have to press on. I often watch users pages, and yours is on my watchlist now. Just for future reference, if I see a personal attack/vandalism on your page, do you want me to revert it, or leave it? May be a silly question, but I thought I should be sure. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 20:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Nah leave it unless is stupidly long. I'll revert it myself it it needs it, but usually I just post a comment at the end like I did above. I'm sorry your wife has been targeted, my advice to her would be ignore it for the sillyness it is. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow I just clicked on her link. Your wife is very pretty. But I'm sure you know that already. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I'll leave them as is, unless its something crazily spammy, such as pasting "penis" on the page 500 times. I believe that if vandals are going to vandalise, they should at least come up with something new. Revert, warn, ignore. Off-wiki personal attacks are something I'm used to. Thanks for your help again. Question- if attacks happen on Wikia wikis, who do I contact? Like this and this, I don't know how to deal with these. Thoughts? Steve Crossin (talk to me) 21:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I had a quick look, I haven't posted on uncylopedia for a long while but they have a page here which appears to be what you are looking for. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Already been handled. They wrote some code so any account created on Wikia with "Steve Crossin" in it cannot edit. I'll cop the side effects. Thanks again Steve Crossin (talk to me) 21:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being Notable?

Since when does stuff have to be "Notable" to be on wikipedia? I'm pretty sure the "Toothpick" is on wikipedia for goodness sake!Where theirs a will, theirs a way. 13:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Whats going on? When I try to click on edit it makes me download some text file, therefore I have to use the little edits. Is this part of my punishment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistacoolio20 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Villiers Terrace.com

Hi Theresa, sorry to be a pain about this, but if you go to the website you'll see that it is called "Villiers Terrace The Ultimate Echo and the Bunnymen Resource", bravado on their part no doubt, but it is what they're called. I've therefore renamed the external link on the Echo & the Bunnymen article to include that part. --JD554 (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to inform you....

Theresa Knott Admin - Wikipedia Committee Wikipedia.com The Otter Sank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Theresa_knott

Dear Theresa Knott,

Thank you for your messages of March 27. After careful consideration, I regret to inform you that I am unable to accept your refusal to add "Urban Elation" to the Wikipedia Index.

This year I have been particularly fortunate in receiving an unusually large number of rejection messages. With such a varied and promising field of candidates, it is impossible for me to accept all refusals.

Despite your outstanding qualifications and previous experience in rejecting applicants, I find that your rejection does not meet my needs at this time. Therefore, "Urban Elation" will assume the position in the wikipedia index. I look forward to seeing it.

Best of luck in rejecting future pages.

Sincerely, Mistacoolio20 Where theirs a will, theirs a way. 16:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that one is funnier than most! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Problem

I just clicked on the "captcha" link you wrote and this is what came up. http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/6177/picture4ta9.png The same thing happens when I click on edit to edit a page or on someone's talk page. Where theirs a will, theirs a way. 16:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the problem might be firefox. Try using another browser and see if that cures the problem. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No that did not cure the problem. Perhaps I switched something in my preferences? I shall check. Mistacoolio20. 16:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I triped something up in the preferences I guess. Thanks though. Mistacoolio20. 16:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]