User talk:MaxSem/Archive/April 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songs from The Legend of Zelda series (2nd nomination) 2 Golos redirect and GOLOS Association request 3 User talk:Blue5864 4 Reflist and WAB 5 SmackBot 6 User talk:Roadcrusher 7 Nur Ali Elahi 8 Aloha! 9 Surefire 10 SureFire M6 Guardian 11 Really, really bad haiku from a new admin 12 xDanielx's RFA thanks 13 Your bot request 14 AWB 15 Steward/OTRS question 16 RfA thanks 17 Image tagging project - relevant to you 18 A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR 19 Kudos 20 WebControl.Wait() 21 BAG Changes 22 'lo 23 Надо бы сжечь 24 Dispute about Russian 25 Protection 26 My RfA 27 AWB users 28 Channing Tatum page 29 Tim Shell 30 AI Pics: 31 Ahhh, 32 AWB 33 User:VivianDarkbloom 34 Czerka Corp. 35 User:Arjuna808 36 Why rv? 37 Caution... Check your edits. 38 Thanks 39 Image:MaxSem.gif 40 BAG nom. 41 Socks 42 Lighmouse's AWB 43 German Bundesliga 44 Pope Barry George (talk · contribs) 45 Anadolu Jet 46 Thank you 47 Max Mosley 48 65.27.38.203 (talk · contribs) 49 Coral Smith article 50 Hello 51 RFR 52 Do'h 53 Your removal of a thread from ANI 54 Pinoybandwagon 55 Typ932 56 Better catch them earlier than later 57 D. Guppy 58 Grady Judd Deletion 59 Hi 60 WP:COIN 61 BRFA 62 Crazy Boris 63 Nightwish band picture 64 rev 2354 65 Thank you 66 Sorry for uploading the images 67 correctly sort interwiki links 68 Mentioned in thread 69 Unblock requests 70 Antischmitzbot 71 User:ScoutCruft 72 AWB

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songs from The Legend of Zelda series (2nd nomination)

I do not believe you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songs from The Legend of Zelda series (2nd nomination) correctly. The main point of discussion was notability, of which there was no consensus whether the songs themselves were notable enough for there own article. The issue of references in general was barely discussed at all, if if it would have been, there certainly would have been agreement that there are enough primary sources (and maybe secondary sources) to have an article. I will be listing this at DRV later today. --- RockMFR 18:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. No references that establish notability were provided, except for one that discussed the music in general. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Golos redirect and GOLOS Association request

Hi Mr. Semenik. Not knowing your wishes, I did turn the Golos article into a disambig page. This was due to my desire to get the GOLOS Association Wiki article started.

After seeing your input on the Golos history page and noting that you were a Russian citizen and/or speaker of the language, I thought I'd ask your assistance in finding a better authority than I am to begin the GOLOS Association article. Their Russian-language website is at http://www.golos.org.

I may try to start a stub this weekend, but have to work now. Thank you for any input or influence you can provide in starting the article. J.A.McCoy (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Blue5864

With all due respect, considering this is a pseudo-high profile editor (see ANI), are you sure it was the best idea to lock his talk page and not just decline the request? The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I made it to prevent further legal threats and reported to ANI for review. Let's see if there will be support for this. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Reflist and WAB

Hi. I hope you just corrected the case that <references/> is plain. In the case that <span class="small"><references/></span> they were no complains. The first that was really a mistake has already been fixed in rev 1833 by METS501 (talk). All the other cases have to con replaced by reflist as before. Total disactivation is a mistake. Friendly, -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask the community for more input. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 14:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

SmackBot

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 18:38 9 December 2007 (GMT).

User talk:Roadcrusher

The sockpuppet you noted on the unblock request decline was actually discovered a month ago. The most recent one was actually User talk:Extrahence100, which was blocked minutes before Roadcrusher's unblock request. I think that for fairness and openness, you should note Extrahence100 as the most recent sock instead of the month-old Roadcrusher4. Please note that User:Marc Shepherd, User:DMacks and I have been dealing with his copyvios for more than a month now and have seen no sign that behaviour will improve to point of useful (user has become more sophisticated in use of fair use templates but still does not understand that maps and easily taken photos should not be uploaded). Kelvinc (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's my typical bug - mismatched the month. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 21:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nur Ali Elahi

Dear Max, wanted to get your help with two things pertaining to Nur Ali Elahi. A user "Ali doostzadeh" recently moved the page when most of the users have agreed not to move the page. The move he did was very disruptive. There are many Wikipedia users discussing the name. The majority have agreed on keeping his real name "Nur Ali Elahi". By the way, his name was Nur Ali Elahi, not Ostad (Master in Persian, where he is from). My second request is your opinion on the matter. Please write your opinion about which name you think we should keep. Thank you for your time!--Octavian history (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Aloha!

Would you please reinstate my comment on the new SureFire M6 talk page: [1]? Mahalo, MaxSem. --Ali'i 14:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I've done it anyway. Hut 8.5 17:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Surefire

While it is irritating that it was posted by proxy for a banned user, there is absolutely no excuse to delete a perfectly good, well referenced, highly notable article. There is no possible reason that the deletion of that article in any way enhances the encyclopedia. For the record, I have a SureFire M6 as well as an M3. I used them on my rifle in Iraq, as did quite a few others. Surefires are almost ubiquitous amongst military and law enforcement. I understand the text of WP:BAN but there is no excuse to take an action that directly damages Wikipedia for the sole reason of punishing an already banned user. That's just not what we do. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied at WP:ANI. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 22:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

SureFire M6 Guardian

I fail to see how it's "stalking Jimbo" if it's been reported in a reputable newspaper. Taking a candid picture of him with the flashlight, sure, and then using it as proof, sure, but newspaper coverage? No, that doesn't sound like stalking to me. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Max, thank you so much for nominating me. I look forward to (carefully) using these new tools you helped me win. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

xDanielx's RFA thanks

Your bot request

Hi MaxSem I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RoboMaxCyberSem 3 is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBotTalk 18:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

AWB

how do I Create a file called "style.css"? Ctjf83 ^talk 20:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, Notepad? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 20:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I need more help, i copied it all, and changed all the smaller to larger, and it didn't change anything Ctjf83 ^talk 20:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Works for me:

1. Open notepad, paste the CSS, change font-size or silmply /* comment it out*/
2. Save it to the same folder as AutoWikiBrowser.exe, under the name style.css (not style.css.txt!)
3. Run AWB.

That's all. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 14:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, it worked now, thanks! Ctjf83 ^talk 17:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Steward/OTRS question

I remember you once helped with asserting the validity of image copyright permission given by the author in Russian. Per this discussion can you do it again for me. I am hesitant to forward a private email to Remember the dot who I don't even know despite there is nothing sensitive in there. At the same time, I do not want to annoy the photographer with more requests. He has already granted us a favor by allowing to freely use all his work under a free license and we don't want to bug him with excessive inquiries. --Irpen 19:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've found this ticket forwarded to OTRS via me, but it mentions GFDL. Did something change since then? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 20:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about. The link above requires the log in. How about this: email me your address and I will forward you the author's email and you will handle the rest. Would that work? --Irpen 20:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Mail sent. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 20:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Author's permission forwarded back. Please take this over from me at the deletion debate and explain the permission to anyone who doubts it. Thanks a lot and
С Наступающим! --Irpen 20:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Image tagging project - relevant to you

Hello, I was asked to notify you and other people that tag images, or run image tagging scripts, of this. Please check out WP:TODAY, which grew off of the recent AN conversation. You will be particularly interested in this section: Wikipedia:TODAY#Early 2008 trial run. Please weigh in on the talk page there? And if possible, let me know who else should know about this? Lawrence Cohen 18:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member!

I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "K"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "L"s through "O"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Kudos

...for the new startup on AWB (I'm using SVN2011). Things are much more stable, and also faster. Great work! I don't know the details of what you actually did, but I thank you for the end result :) – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WebControl.Wait()

Hope you are well. Presumably work is keeping you busy?

Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Dev#WebControl.Wait.28.29 - I've found another place where it causes problems..

—Reedy Boy 23:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

BAG Changes

Hello. You may remember, some time ago, joining the BAG under the trial "open membership" system. Based on a lack of opposition to a reversion of this trial, I have now decided to be bold and perform it. The BAG has returned to a system under which users must go through a short period of discussion (like RfA, but less formal) before being added to the group by either a 'crat or an existing member. At the moment, I have said that discussions should last for 10 days and that community noticeboards should be spammed to encourage participation in each request - evidently this is to avoid the "cabal" impression.

As you have already been a member for some time, you're likely to be an excellent candidate to apply to the group and I encourage you to do so. Alternatively, if you totally disagree with my changes and fail to see any merit in them at all, I'm hoping to take part in discussions on WT:BAG. Though I must ask now if I may - please don't revert me without a decent amount of discussion first. Thanks, and if you have any questions about what I've done, please leave me a message, send an email or chat on IRC. Martinp23 17:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

'lo

Good to see you back again Max!

—Reedy Boy 21:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sam. Thanks for welcoming me back! =) MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 21:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Надо бы сжечь

• User:Afinogenoff/us trd
• Category:Traditio.ru users

А то местным админам запаришься ситуацию объяснять. — Kalan ? 16:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. There's also Category:Traditio.ru user - I'll put it up for MFD a bit later. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute about Russian

Hi -- I'm involved with WikiProject Central Asia. There is a current conflict between two editors regarding Russian naming conventions. I don't know the whole scope of the conflict, but (some of the) relevant discussion and links are here: WikiProject Central Asia talk. Could you take a look? This needs someone who can read Russian (unlike me). Thanks! Aelfthrytha (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Hi. It looks like you unprotected the article, but that it was already unprotected. I am guessing from your edit summary that you actually intended to protect it. I was about to protect it myself, which I have now done. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Image:David,larry.JPG		My RFA
		Thank you muchly for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth! Kidding btw. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

AWB users

I was doing some AWB approvals and noticed my name was still listed under approved users, even though I'm now an admin (and therefore automatically included). Should I remove my own name? Would it simplify the page if all admins were removed from the list? What about banned users? MBisanz ^talk 06:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes please. I periodically remove new admins from the list, but I can't notice everything. Same thing for banned users: evrybody who doesn't need to be on the checkpage should be removed to improve load times. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Channing Tatum page

I appreciate your help on the Channing Tatum page with User:Wcfirm. Since you blocked them, a new user has shown up to revert your edits. Look at User:Laquishe, his only edits are to the article reinstating one of Wcfirm's edits. Just letting you know, thanks again! Redrocket (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Tim Shell

Put it on the record that I tried to save this one. Oh well.... Bearian (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, unfortunately it still lacked independent sources :-/ MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

AI Pics:

I understand why they were removed, but I did NOT pretend to be their author. I linked the original site and source where I found these pictures. I thought that was permissible. Just wanted to clear my intentions up. But I will now read up on the rules and contact the author to get official permission if necessary. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaniac86 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 09:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh,

That makes a lot more sense, my apologies. So if I get the necessary permission or use screencaps that I myself made from uploads of the show, it would be allowed? (I'll find the most professional and polished pics, no goofy ones or anything of the contestants. A lot of people just come here for info and to match up the name with the face and it makes things simpler.)

James D. (Cinemaniac86) 17:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

AWB

Hi, sorry to bug you but I notice you removed my bug as being a dupe. I have a whole different chunk of code it spits at me when I try to load a plugin, do you need that too or not? Hiding T 22:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you trie the new version? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User:VivianDarkbloom

Regarding this, did you even read the unblock message? This user has admitted to having a second account, other people misunderstood that to mean that she was using two accounts at once, which is not the case. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Her main point was that she didn't violate WP:SOCK, I explained why I believe that she did. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Czerka Corp.

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I've unblocked the user. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Arjuna808

True, 3RR is not an entitlement to revert thrice a day, but User:Arjuna808 has been upholding consensus agreed upon by at least four editors. Discussion with User:Yosemitesam25 has been ongoing since he "appeared" (we tend to think it is the latest incarnation of User:JereKrischel, a paid employee for the Grassroot Institute, a group that has a COI with this and other pages). I think blocking User:Arjuna808 for 48 hours is punitive rather than preventative, as Yosemitesam25 has already been blocked for 24 hours. —Viriditas | Talk 02:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already answered an e-mail about this. Basically, Arjuna has been edit warring for these past couple of weeks over "POV". I didn't know completely about the content dispute but I know what I saw in the edit history. Despite only making 3 reverts I still think that counts as edit warring. I blocked for 48 hours because of the previous 24 hour 3RR block back in April so he/she is well aware of what 3RR is. And might I suggest an article ban for Yosemitesam25? Scarian^{Call me Pat} 02:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. If you looked at the edit history, then you saw how seamless the transition was from JereKrischel to Yosemitesam25, and how myself, Arjuna808, and two other editors have stepped in to revert him. An article ban might work, but he just moves on to the next one (this particular article is part of a series of six related articles). So, the only recourse is a topic ban, but the COI problem isn't going away anytime soon. I've asked him to place a disclosure on his talk page, but he won't reply in the affirmative. I've also asked him several times if he works for an organization that has a COI, and he will not directly reply. I've even asked him if it is ok to run a checkuser to see if he is JereKrischel, and he has objected. I don't see what blocking Arjuna808 for 48 hours prevents, as Yosemitesam25 is the problem and is currently blocked. I would like to state at this time that Arjuna808 has my full support and the support of several other editors. Yosemitesam25, to date, does not have any support. While I agree that edit warring is a problem, I think that POV pushing at the behest of an agenda motivated by a COI is a far greater problem, and places the project in a precarious situation. Speaking from direct experience, I myself was blocked for 48 hours for the same reason on 25 September 2007. My crime? Reverting the POV pushing of User:Obedium on James Hansen. Obedium is a sock puppet with at last count, 131 accounts and growing. (See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby). At what point does the community recognize that those who are doing the blocking may not be using the tools appropriately? —Viriditas | Talk 02:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, anyone who's seen to be reverting back and forth between versions is susceptible to blocking. If you feel my actions have been unwarrented please feel free to bring it up at WP:ANI. In the mean time, I will also bring up a topic at WP:ANI to request whether a topic ban is appropriate for Yosemitesam25. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 02:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't complained about your actions, but rather the willingness to give out blocks to constructive editors in general, and the unwillingness to stop sock puppets from disrupting Wikipedia. Those who do try to stop disruptive editors are blocked instead of the disruptors themselves. That doesn't make any sense. Arjuna808 and myself are not the only ones here. User:SchmuckyTheCat was also subject to the same unfair blocks (for reverting socks), as were many other good editors. This kind of thing has been going on for far too long. —Viriditas | Talk 03:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) - Okay, that's something else you'll have to ask someone else about. Meanwhile, I've requested consensus on a topic ban for Yosemitesam25. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 03:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why rv?

It did not broke anything - like page looked exactly same as before. Just more simple code, that is it. Yeah I know was kinda stupid edit - was trying to set up AWB at that moment. But anyway. TestPilot 07:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't edit other users' comments. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Caution... Check your edits.

Do you check your edits before pressing 'save'? Apparently no. Careful - such blanketing could be considered WP:Vandalism. Bringing this to your attention in a light of [2] TestPilot 08:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks - I may have missed the DRV, bt all discussions linked to the cat are for deletion. Can you please point me to the DRV, and if I'm in error, I'll be glad to rectify it. -- Avi (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied at BOTREQ. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 12:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

DItto; thank you. -- Avi (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:MaxSem.gif

Ever been told you look way too much like Maddox? Compare the lead image to yours! :D dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

omg, I'm uncovered... (runs)

BAG nom.

Just wanted to let you know, that after waiting several days for an uninvolved member or crat, I've closed your nom as successful. Congrats! SQL^{Query me!} 04:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll start working on backlog immediately. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Socks

Hello!

Rather than going through WP:SSP, I thought I'd ask you for your opinion on what I suspect is a sockpuppet of user Brexx (talk · contribs) who is currently under a 6 month block administered by yourself. You also blocked his sockpuppet Mimibianca (talk · contribs) indefinitely and Gwernol (talk · contribs) indef blocked blocked his sockpuppets Let's Migrate (talk · contribs) and Good Guy Gone Bad (talk · contribs).
I suspect that J.looo (talk · contribs) is a new sock of Brexx because of the following:

• J.looo popped up on the wiki-radar with this edit, 3 hours after the last sockpuppet (Let's Migrate) made his/hers last edit after being blocked.
• Before J.looo's entry on the scene, all of the above mentioned accounts concentrated strictly on Mariah Carey related articles (including E=MC² (Mariah Carey album)‎, Touch My Body, Tennessee (film)‎) and articles related to The Sims. J.looo has edited nothing but those articles so far and, while editing, has displayed the same characteristics and style of writing as I detailed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brexx.

Do you think I should open a case at SSP or is this an easy one? It may even be a time for a chekuser. If it does get confirmed that it is the same user, do you think it's time for more severe sanctions against this IP and the original account Brexx?

Thanks for your time.

Peace! SWik78 (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[3] is a very typical for Brexx talk page edit. I've blocked him, thanks for noticing. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 15:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Спасибо. SWik78 (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Lighmouse's AWB

Hi, can you explicate why this action has been taken against the bot? Tony (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with him was that he continued making edits after his actions were questioned. As the AWB developer, I must make sure that it isn't used for anything controversial. And please don't call Lightmouse a bot, he's a human:) MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

German Bundesliga

Hello MaxSem, Nice work here on Wikipedia. I can accept that you deleted my link in Russian highest soccer league, but my question is following...why you deleted link I added to German Bundesliga article. It contains comprehensive information on every single match of it, written by German journalist. I dont really know any other source for Budesliga matches of that range of information for German Bundesliga in English with so easy navigation. Link to this site is also included months in another articles. Just some time ago we started to cover German Bundesliga, and I think it should be added too, because it doesnt have lower quality than other added and verified here by dozens editors. BTW...those previews are also included in Google News, Bethelp.com and are really popular. Please, reconsider it. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.21.21 (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a strict policy on external links. This site is not a reliable source, nor it gives people some further encyclopedic information beyond Wikipedia's coverage, so it shouldn't be linked to. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 21:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Man, this is any automatic answer you are sending to everybody, huh? I can say it contains encyclopaedic information about every single match played in those leagues. I think it is absolutely no spam, for more you deleted links that are verified by hundreds of users and editors which already seen this page and nobody complained. I dont know if you are more than them, but I think it is still enough.

For more we are verified as a reliable source by news.google.com. Try to search there. I think some tables and statistics, that can be found today on app. 5 000 are much more spammy than information about every single match from reliable journalist on verified source. One more time...reconsider it.

BTW...for more I was speaking with one editor, it was I think about Dutch league and he also said, that it absolutely covers external links policy. Try to go thought it and you will see there is not rule that is saying that this site should not be added, for more, I think it absolutely covers that it is helpful for users, it contains information that can not be transferred to wikipedia due to its amount and its copyrights. Also, those are sites exactly just about those leagues. We are reliable according to news.google.com. We dont require any payment or even registration. No temporary content. No malwares.... Really nothing you can find there, that is against us and a lot of things you should find that say this site should be linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.21.21 (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For more, I see you deleted links also from other leagues and I can say there are no other information sources like this in English on the internet at all. You have no chance to find this range information like squad of teams, injuries, weather conditions, translated quotations of players and managers and I dont know what else...nowhere else in English(absolutely not in Austria or Dutch league), for more verified. Maybe you can find somewhere German news, but also not in this wide range of information, verified, written by journalist and popular. Also check wikipedia guidelines for adding external links, where it explicitly says that links like this are links that should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.21.21 (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Pope Barry George (talk · contribs)

Thanks for the indef block on this user. My only problem with the block is that he was not active when I warned him, leaving me in AGF mode and leaving him unblocked. Unless you object, I'm going to go ahead and delete User:Pope Barry George/Logs, since it constitutes an attack on another editor (Jimbo) through false accusations. Do we have a list of socks that pretend to be admins? Maybe this one fits that profile. Again, thanks - UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I first AGF'ed on his part too... Let's see what his RFCU will yield. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Anadolu Jet

Hi Max, you recently deleted Anadolu Jet due to it not meeting notability guidelines. Is there any possibility of retrieving what was contained in the article and placing it at User:Russavia/Anadolu Jet for me? It would be a notable company, it would seem that notability simply wasn't asserted correctly. Cheers. --Россавиа ^Диалог 00:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done it. =) —Reedy Boy 01:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Reedy. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 04:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Appreciate the help. Antelan^talk 08:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Max Mosley

I noticed that you had protected the Max Mosley article due to several reverts. It's very unfortunate because several people had spent a lot of time trying to make it a better article and it was up for FA status. But I think you are probably right, without more references it is difficult to know what to make of the story and how best to edit the article to reflect the information. Until then I guess it would have been subject to some edit warring.

I nominated the article for FA status and I am now considering withdrawing my nomination. Assuming that the protection is removed at a later point and that the edit warring cease’s, will the fact that it was protected at one point mean that it will automatically fail? Could you answer on my talk page? ThanksTommy turrell (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Cheers. p.s Your right, Han did shoot first! Tommy turrell (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

65.27.38.203 (talk · contribs)

Just to let you know I have reviewed this editor's "contributions" and agree with evidence presented at WP:AN that a one week block seems lenient. It is clearly all the same person, and I have upped the block to three months. Regards. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Coral Smith article

I am sending you this message because you have had dealings with me and this administrator when he blocked me by mistake. This is the message I am sending to the admin. At least I don't think I am doing anything wrong or out of line in this whole situation, but administrator Nightscream has become particularly uncivil with me. I have provided the examples below. While I am not requesting your immediate involvement as I am only just showing him the message, I am just letting you know what's going on in case a third party does need to be involved. I have provided a source for my position in our disagreement so hopefully that will settle all this:

MESSAGE I SENT TO NIGHTSCREAM

Hello Nightscream! You've already blocked me unjustifiably so, causing me to have to get another admin involved in order to undo your ban here [4]. This led to you making a faulty accusation here [5] that I had added something into the article that I didn't, yet you tell me to read clearly when you're the one who didn't read clearly what I actually wrote. When I reverted that and corrected you about it (very civily) here [6], you came back and came up with yet a new reason to revert it while leaving a particularly incivil message in your edit summary right here[7]. You commented on my talk page that you don't believe you're quibbling about this. I consider it quibbling to become so uncivil over edits of this nature. I also consider it particularly hypocritical of you to say "Stop reverting it, and stop edit warring with me" while reverting back the edit as you did here [8]. Note: You've now reverted that edit twice to the one time I've reverted it.

As for your objection that Real World/Road Rules Challenge is not a spin-off of The Real World and Road Rules, I have provided a source, despite the fact that I think the name of the show is a blatant indicator that The Real World/Road Rules Challenge is a spin-off of both shows. BicMacDad18 (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE Despite the fact that I've found a source for the fact that The Real World/Road Rules Challenge is a spin off of both shows, the administrator has reverted it back here [9] with no edit summary provided except for "Revert". He doesn't seem to be willing to communicate with me. If you would be so kind as to get involved and help sort out this situation, I'd very much appreciate. Sorry to bother you but I don't want either of us to violate the three revert rule. I know you've already had to step in once. :) BicMacDad18 (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please use our dispute resolution process, I'm afraid that I currently don't have time to mediate. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly sweet of you to reply MaxSem. Thank you. BicMacDad18 (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello I made the Article about Karbul and you took it down it is all fact, I would not put any thing up that is a lie! Please can we talk some how?

I am sorry if this is in the wrong place I could not find a way to talk to you

Thanks Hope you see this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faith180 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a nonsensual hoax[10]. If you try to create it again, you will be blocked. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It was not why would I wast my time writing about some one who did not live?!?!

Please put it back up! If not I will go else where, thats a part of history people will not know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faith180 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to support your claims. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

RFR

Alledged sockpuppetry, nothing was ever proven, when should I try again? Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I myself wouldn't mind giving you a rollback after two more weeks of positive contributions, other admins may think otherwise though. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Do'h

Tiredness, good faith, and newness aflict me! Thanks for pulling the trigger. I'll try to overcome my infirmaties next time. MBisanz ^talk 07:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of a thread from ANI

Re this, I understand why you did it, but it would have been more helpful to archive the thread rather than removing it outright. As it was, when the IP in question contacted me about it on my talk page, I had to trawl through the page history to figure out what was going on (and I'm still trying to figure it out, but that's not your fault). Walton^One 14:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, formal approach aside, what positive purpose these rants could possibly serve on Wikipedia? His goals were to cause disruption, and although this thread woudn't have been much noticeable in archives, outright removal is still better. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am THIS close to becoming a vandal after trying the polite way to resolve the matter. Please just leave the AN post there and not remove it. 203.118.53.72 (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(To MaxSem) I understand you were following the letter of WP:BAN, but in this case I think we should interpret the rules flexibly. While you may well be right that the user's goal is to cause disruption, I think that in the unusual circumstances of this case it would be better to give him a chance to state his case and to get a fair hearing. The normal block-appealing methods may not be appropriate in this instance. Walton^One 17:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pinoybandwagon

I was unsure about swinging the banhammer on that guy ... but I endorse your move. Still think the Checkuser I put in should still be run in case there are any sleepers around. Blueboy96 18:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Typ932

Thanks for unblocking; it was an accident/mistake as you thought. See my comment here. Thanks again, Daniel (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Better catch them earlier than later

If you wait they will grow up to be a Major Troll..:) Thanks for deleting the baby Troll page! Igor Berger (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

D. Guppy

Sorry - i thought it was clear enough that this page shouldn't be deleted to any objective viewer.Chendy (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Grady Judd Deletion

Any person who sees US news or is from Florida would know that Sheriff Grady Judd is a notable person. 30900 hits in Google and mentioned in at least 4 other Wiki articles. A Russian is probably not competent to assess American notability about a US elected official. Reverse the deletion and perhaps be a good editor and help with the html page setup. Justacarman (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Google results are largely irrelevant, our notability guideline requires multiple, non-trivial third-party sources about the subject. My quick look at Google results didn't yield any serious sources, and brief mentions in news just aren't enough. As the article claimed only that he is a sheriff and that he is a member of numerous obscure police organisations, which is not an importance claim. I'd be happy to restore that article if I see more sources, or you can take it to deletion review if you disagree. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article contained copyrighted text from his site, which is a big no-no. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

CNN, Fox News, Orlando Sentinel (focus articles), St Petersburg Times, The Lakeland Ledger, Wiki articles, elected official of Florida's largest area county, makes many very quotable quips. Been interviewed several times by Diane Sawyer of Good Morning America, recently over teens beating another for a Youtube video. As of today, only law enforcement official to arrest and convict a Bush official. You state that Google entries don't count....did you look at the secondary sources notability guideline that Google pointed too? They are not just brief mentions.The article was just starting, to be added and appended by Wiki contributors, not censored by a Russian with limited knowledge of US. Also, neither the FBI nor the Florida Sheriff's Association are obscure! Justacarman (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored, replied on your talk page.Please mind WP:NPA, though. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, just out of curiosity, how did you do this? The diff isn't very enlightening either... NikoSilver 15:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I just used The Right Browser™. It doesn't visualise non-printable characters, but you still can see the space they occupy and remove them. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 15:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. All I need to know now is how can somebody insert that non-printable character to vandalize a number of pages... :-) NikoSilver 15:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:COIN

Hi MaxSem. I updated the entry in the COIN archive, for the item you just added. Let me know if this is a problem. Courtesy blanking is usually done so that the original item is still reasonably accessible to the persistent reader. Send me email if needed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

BRFA

The BRFA you added was malformed and I removed the link. Where is the BRFA located? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly at that location, but I decided to nuke it shortly afterwards. Sorry for forgetting to remove the template. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah - I should have checked that. Sorry to bother you! --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Crazy Boris

My mistake; I thought he was one of the vandals. I'll apologise to him. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nightwish band picture

Hey, on the Nightwish article, why was the picture there removed? I'm pretty sure it was not copyrighted or anything...Seriphyn (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It had no license tag, and "Photography" is not enough as source. When uploading, you must be sure that the image is distributed under a free license, if the source site does not indicate its license clearly, we must assume that it's copyrighted and so it shouldn't be used. It was marked as lacking source/license tag over a week ago, during that period users had the time to provide everything needed, and after it hasn't been done, the policy instructs us to delete such images. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

rev 2354

Hey Max, Quick question/comment about this. I agree with you removing it, however, in automode, with a short delay, its still doing diff's - Presumably, IMHO at least, this is a waste of CPU resources...? And therefore just slowing the edits down

I could see maybe some people watching the diff's whilst it was running, but when the delay is like 1 second (this is what i have when doing tagging runs), it seems a bit pointless

On 680 of Main.cs, do you think its worth wrapping that with if(!chkAutoMode.Checked) ...?

—Reedy 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It takes 27 ms on Alexandria, and most of its time is wasted for splitting to lines and could be easily optimised tenfolds - I don't think that this slowdown is something we should worry about. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! —Reedy 11:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, MaxSem. Thanks for unblocking me. I will always remember your goodwill. Thank you. RS1900 10:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for uploading the images

Sorry about uplaoding the images, they weren't me. Please could you delete them, how do you upload pictures that aren't yours. I just wanted the specials discography looking neat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtyharry1994 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

correctly sort interwiki links

• mine (which is fairly new) sorts alpha by two-letter code. Is there an option to select a different order? Ling.Nut (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Which version, and on which page? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 11:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Version 4.3.0.2, , see this. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not latest, I've disabled it now. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 15:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I've only had it for 2 or 3 weeks. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The moral of this story is: always check your AWB version before reporting to WP:AWB/B or WP:AWB/FR. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps the moral is to disable defective versions ASAP. If you get bored, you could make a list of every GA article from 'Round Springfield to Azusa Street Revival, and fix the interwiki links that AWB hosed—oh, and be sure to skip over Arad, Israel, since at least one of its dedicated editors is apparently not a fan of WP:AWB. Cheers! Ling.Nut (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And when we disable older versions at once ,users start to scream... Sometimes, there is no simple solution for some things. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, well, at least now I have something to say when I apologize to user:Ynhockey. Later... Ling.Nut (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Mentioned in thread

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Review_indef_block_of_User:.D7.9B.D7.AA.D7.A8 Bovlb (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for informing. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock requests

Hi Max. I've moved from ANI to FayssalF's talk page at his suggestion, and I'm raising there some issues I had with a recent block. Part of this was my concerns about unblock requests. I've used your recent unblocks as an example. Please see User talk:FayssalF#Unblock requests. I'm letting you know as a courtesy. If you would prefer I use other examples, please let me know. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Antischmitzbot

Thanks max - no I haven't used the bot for a while, and I'm done tagging for now so please remove from the list. Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:ScoutCruft

There seems to be some unlinked to checkuser results that would confirm sockpuppetry by User:ScoutCruft, but from your comments on ANI it seemed that you declined the block not based on that, but rather simply because the editor wasn't a newbie. In the future, that's not a valid reason to decline a block, nor is it a valid reason to make a block. Making a second account is not an automatic violation of WP:SOCK. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Making a second account to disrupt is a valid reason to block. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Only if they're doing so as a "good hand, bad hand" method, which you have no way of knowing about. If you want to just block/decline the unblock for disruption, I wouldn't even be bringing this up. -- Ned Scott 06:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

AWB

so what you are saying is because i was blocked for misuse of Twinkle i can not use AWB. Where does it say in the AWB page anything about being blocked for something? It says must have over 500 MAINSPACE edits which i have got. so if you know otherwise please tell me. Otherwise it should be put on the page to inform people of that. As i dont think that it is fair! Therefore I request the access Chris19910 (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no set in stone rules for AWB approval, users must use their own regardint every candidate. In your particular case, I don't think that you should be given access to AWB so soon after you misused another tool for semi-automatic editing and while you are on JavaScript restriction. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 14:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)