User talk:Pschemp/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Death Valley Driver Video Review

Thanks again for protecting the article and adding the tags last night, the indefblocked user in question User:JB196 has resorted to anonymously adding the tags to the Talk page instead (I dunno, maybe he thinks that he can get another AfD started because the tag is on the talk page). Is this something we're just gonna have to deal with, or should we semi-protect the talk page as well? Thanks, I'll watch this page for updates. SirFozzie 17:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the talk page, I didn't feel right doing it myself :) SirFozzie 20:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Np. :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
haha pschemp | talk 20:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

I'm too late, but anyway, happy birthday to you. :o) May you be healthy and strong to beat all the damned vandals. Hope you had a nice celebration. Saludos cordiales, --Thogo (Talk) 11:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Thogo. :) pschemp | talk 18:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You missed it!!

Thanks all the same :) —Pengo talk · contribs 22:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have voted with a fish you know. :) pschemp | talk 01:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I've been involved in an incident regarding a couple editors who appear to be the same user using two different accounts. However, I think that I'm too involved (through interactions in editing various articles) to make a decision myself on whether to block them. The result of an RFCU was "likely", so I'm leaning toward blocking them, but I'd like to get another set of eyes reviewing the case and perhaps taking the action in order to preserve a sense of fairness in this issue.

I've seen you working in mediations and other issues and I believe you are a very fair individual, so I'm asking you to look at this case and take any appropriate action. If you don't want to do this, that's fine, too. Please let me know either way. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder on this one since it's been a few days and you've responded to several others. Again, if you don't want to get involved in this one, that's fine. Please let me know either way. I appreciate your time. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Checkuser is not an exact thing sometimes, but likely is enough for a block that will stick. I have gone ahead and blocked Komdori as sockpuppet used abusively to inflate consensus. pschemp | talk 02:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That's pretty much what I would have done, but I wanted to get someone outside of the issue to look at it and take the action in order to avoid any possible conflict of interest question. Thanks for your help. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest is always a good thing. pschemp | talk 16:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
And now one of them is complaining on my talk page, so they may be coming here eventually as you're the blocking admin. Just as a "heads up." (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Npgallery is back!

Remember earlier this year when we had a user insert many npgallery links into national park articles? Well, he/she seems to be back. See this village pump entry. Thanks for looking at this. Nationalparks 04:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I do remember. I'll see if it we can't get the site put on the spam blacklist. pschemp | talk 16:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Nationalparks 19:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I submitted a request for the spam blocklist. Nationalparks 23:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Me too. hopefully that will be enough :) pschemp | talk 02:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I talked to some people I know and its been added now. Hoprfully that will be the end of it. Thanks for the heads up. pschemp | talk 14:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that the site is blacklisted, this user has become a "classic" vandal. He is using personal attacks in edit summaries. See Special:Contributions/67.176.112.128. Nationalparks 01:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion

...on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Microsoft vandalism, IP hating, & Hildanknight. At the moment, only Cowman has endorsed Kevin's request to block this long-term contributor, and I find that topics on the noticeboard that don't attract attention in the first 24 hours usually fall through the cracks. I'm inclined to block indef for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point through the use of vandal sockpuppets (see also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hildanknight), although as a long-term contributor I would leave a note to the effect that if he can explain and make amends, someone might be willing to unblock. However, I am extremely sensitive to the view expressed at my RFA that I would be too trigger-happy with blocks and bans, and you were one of the prominent admins to express such a view. I would appreciate your thoughts. Thatcher131 20:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

On inline citations

Howdy! Just wanted to bring this up here as your note has me puzzled and am wondering if maybe we might have not clarified something very well, and for that I apologize. It looks like you objected because Harvard style of citation should be allowed, but yet we've never said it couldn't. In fact it's one of the styles mentioned on WP:CITE... Thoughts? --plange 21:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

ANI diff

[1] Hell yeah. Great posting, from a great user. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 00:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the month

You voted for Carbon and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month!
Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

NCurse work 06:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Christ Heart Church

Hmm. "Biographies of living people" would suggest we remove the passage about conflict with the missionaries. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm not convinced its even notable enough to keep, but hadn't got a round researching it yet. I'll look. pschemp | talk 14:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:V

Since you're an administrator, I thought I could ask if links to other pages count for verifiability at all. I've noticed some pages do just that.

Among them are:

I've been adding cited information to Agnostic theism, but "the position" isn't cited and i've been working on a revised version that i'm thinking of changing around most of the page on User:Tsinoyboi/Agnostic theism. It's still a work in progress as I'm looking for sources or if it's fine. Do you think some or all of that violates any policies or guidelines?

Certainty seems to only refer to a dictionary definition, although that's pretty much all that's on that page. There's a contradiction between the pages Infallibility and Certainty where logic and math are are infallible according to the In philosophy section, but not certain on the certainty page. Actually that part on the certainty page contradicts it's own point.

Infallibility only links to other pages. Is that allowed? Do only philosophers question what they can know? Do only philosophers question? on what grounds is getting 5 twenties for 100 dollars infallible? that it can be relied on? where do these definitions come from?

or am i overcritizing?

--Tsinoyboi 07:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC).

User:Sussexman

You supported the retention of the block on User:Sussexman. The contention which caused the block in the first place was the Gregory Lauder-Frost article, which has now been deleted - long after Sussexman's block. The reasons for this block were spurious, to say the least, and it seems to me more like a block of convenience made by his opponents rather than justice. He has contributed to many articles and I would like to ask the the block be lifted or at least reviewed. One last thing: I do not understand why the Talk Page is blocked. I have never seen that before. That presumably means that even he cannot post upon it? Chelsea Tory 07:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Making legal threats is a blockable offense. If you don't like the block, discuss it with the blocking admin. I won't overturn someone else's block. pschemp | talk 12:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I just read through the various bits associated with this, and I agree with pschemp. It appears that there are people on one side of the political spectrum who are intent on reading into this things that aren't really there. It all boils down to Sussexman having made a legal threat against another editor, and that's why he was blocked. All he needs to do is apologize for making the threat and promise to not do it again and he'll likely be reinstated. Simple, really. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC).
Having looked at the reasons for his block it states that he (Sussexman) personally made a legal threat (whereas he was, it seems to me, advising in good faith of the consequences of breaking the law) and sent a solicitor's letter to someone else on Wikipedia. Is that actually true? Is there positive proof that he was even involved? Smells of a witch-hunt. How do you apologise for doing the morally correct thing and for sending a letter you didn't send?? 86.129.82.48 14:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
None of the things he was advising on were actually breaking the law as they were all sourced and therefore could not be considered libel. As libel was the only possible law that could be broken, that left nothing else. As long as negative items are well sourced with reliable sources, they can be included on Wikipedia. It makes me wonder why Sussexman is being so hardheaded and having all kinds of anon IP's run around supporting him in his "time of need". All he needs to do is state that's he's sorry for this whole mess, and he'll be more careful in the future. Not really that difficult, all things considered. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC).
The legal threat was made against me and occured when I challenged Sussexman on his deletion of part of an article which he claimed was illegal under UK law. He replied to me (exact words): "You're wrong Mr Chilvers, as you will soon find out." Two days later I recieved a solicitors letter demanding that I cease and desist. Although I do Sussexman's attempts to have his Wiki ban lifted the fact that he did indeed make a legal threat is, to me, beyond dispute.--Edchilvers 19:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It is common enough in the English language to tell someone they will soon discover the penalties for overstepping the mark. the timing of a letter from someone else is both coincidence and irrelevent. There is no a scrap of evidence to show that Sussexman sent a letter to you or anyone else. 81.131.14.8 08:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. I do not advocate lifting his ban, nor does anyone I know who isn't a sockpupet of Sussexman. pschemp | talk 19:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You are extremely rude accusing every anonymous supporter of being a sock-puppet (whatever that means). 81.131.14.8 08:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's time for you to accept that she won't lift the block. You messed up, you're unrepentant, and you will achieve nothing by continuing to post here. If you still have a problem, please use the official channels Wikipedia provides. Or do something that's actually fun like watching a movie, reading a book or taking a friend out to dinner. Wikipedians will no doubt be happy to make a recommendation, myself included. Thank you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been checking out the edit history of some of these anonymous IPs and it seems they have been appealing to just about every administrator on Wikipedia in the hope that one of them will lift the block on their friends. Rather underhand IMO, and a surefire recipie for conflict. I would like to remind them that the issue over which Sussexman et al were blocked went as high as Jimbo Wells and Brad Patrick. Instead of randomly targetting every admin they can find, why not just appeal directly to Jimbo?--Edchilvers 17:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Coocoobear unblocked

Just to inform you that I've given Coocoobear a second chance. Thanks --  Netsnipe  ►  16:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

np. As long as he stops addin the spam, I'm ok with that. pschemp | talk 01:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Komdori

After discussion with the user, I'm satisfied with his explanation and have unblocked. If the situation becomes a problem I'll of course be willing to revisit it. Thanks much, Mackensen (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

np, thanks for letting me know. pschemp | talk 01:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

David L. Cook again

User:Junebug52 (formerly User:Iamascorp) is at it again. After squabbling over my removal of an unsourced discography/TV appearances list, this exact same information has suddenly magically appeared on David L. Cook's personal page on CDBaby. This info was not on the page just two days ago and does not appear in Google's current cache of it. [2] Clearly, User:Junebug52 added it himself so that there would suddenly be a source. Since User:Junebug52 has already admitted to be working for Cook, games are definitely being played here. Furthermore: Junebug52 originally claimed the edit by 24.225.33.42 [3] to be his own and edit-warred over it, then apparently realized he forgot to sign in, and now claims that David L. Cook himself made that edit. [4] It's becoming increasingly likely that Junebug52/Iamascorp is David L. Cook himself. wikipediatrix 13:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • These allegations are just untrue! She claimed that I blanked a page when I didn't, she claims that even in a cache search she could find no information that David's discography and filmography when it is right here [5] She claimed that we made edits under an IP address and that I forgot to sign it? Where does she have the right to jump to conclusions that she has no proof of? I think she is mad becasue she did not find the information herself. If CD BAby or any other company updated their records to include or delete information, how does that make it my fault or my doings? The last thing is she claims I made reference to working with Cook? I did not! I work for a company that handles many artists. I do not work for Cook. I am the only one who edits under my account. I am also not David L Cook! Where does she get this stuff? She has no proof at all of what she is alledging? Should she be able to get away with that? What other people do is their business. I get so tired of this! I am about ready to leave Wikipedia. All I am trying to do is to add good articles. I am new and should not be beat up like this by this woman. Junebug52 10:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Junebug52 is 24.225.33.42

1. 24.225.33.42 adds "Home" info to David L. Cook (and also blanks out pages related to his old username, User:Iamascorp). See here.

2. User:Junebug52 edit-wars and reinserts the exact same "Home" info. See here.

3. User:Junebug52 suddenly claims: "The information that was added came straight from David L cook himself... He is actually the one who added the information last night." Junebug52 specifically denies being 24.225.33.42 and says that was Cook himself. See here.

4. User:Junebug52 makes a post but forgets to sign in, and it's shown that Junebug52 is indeed 24.225.33.42. See here.

Because of this game-playing, combined with massive incivility, vanity/POV-pushing edits, page-blanking vandalism, and contradictory claims of being Cook's manager, a pastor who runs Cook's fan club, and "just a friend" of Cook's (all of which I can also provide diffs for), I request you to consider blocking User:Junebug52. wikipediatrix 16:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp, this woman is on some form of witch hunt. Wikipedia is aware that AOL can and does use the same or similar IP addresses on many occassions. For her to say that someone is the same is just down right absurd. Where is her proof besides what she feels is an IP address? I am sorry but if this is what I will have to contend with on a regular basis, I do not want to be a part. NO where does it say I was Mr. Cook's manager, nor does it say that I have worked for Mr. Cook. I work for a company that deals with several artists yet my editing is on my own time and is not reflective of the comapnies opinion or facts. These are my personal contributions. I am withdrawing from Wikipedia. I hope that as an administrator you will deal with her and her aggressive behavior towards new editors and contributors or as Wikipedia calls they (Newbies). All I did was try to help and got bit in the ass. I really have gotten my feelings hurt here. What a nice group. Junebug52 12:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does it say that I'm banned from Wikipedia?

I have never done any form of vandalism, but I was probably a casuality because of shared AOL proxies of someone else's handiwork. I thought there was an information page that says to avoid banning AOL users. This vandal must have done something serious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.199 (talk • contribs).

You are neither banned nor blocked if you can edit my talk page. pschemp | talk 14:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Banned User Leyasu

Banned User:Leyasu is back and is creating havoc at Moi dix Mois. Here's his link - [6] Alllwin Sykes 18:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. pschemp | talk 18:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to thank you for your help with User:Mykungfu. It's unfortunate, but dealing with him has taken up most of my wikitime for the last two weeks. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I know what its like. I've got his main targets watched, but if anything else pops up or another sock appears, just let me know. pschemp | talk 20:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Will do. It may be petering out as the crackdowns happen faster and faster. Once it dies down, maybe I'll RfA and (if successful) I won't have to rely so much on the kindness of strangers. Thanks again! | Mr. Darcy talk 21:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep an eye on User:GrandWizard, a possible sock of our friend Mykungfu. In addition to the KKK-related name (Mykungfu has told Bearly451 more than once to go "have some fried chicken," once on my user page), he showed up today and headed right for the Sigma Pi Phi talk page, with some similar phrasing to MKF. He and User:Sb213 both have edits to martial-arts articles, and each has one edit to Allen Coage today. I'm not reporting him; he hasn't done anything at all yet to warrant that. But I am suspicious, based on some of the edits. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
You really should file a checkuser on GrandWizard and MyKungfu and his frequently used IPs. It might also turn up some other socks. See WP:RFCU and follow the directions carefully. pschemp | talk 05:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I have one question for you before I do that. When Mykungfu was working anonymously, it was through AOL IP addresses, which was what made blocking him so difficult and ultimately led to semi-protection of all of his targets. Is a checkuser on a known AOL user worth it? Looking at that page, it looks like most requests are declined, and I would assume that all we could prove about GrandWizard is that he's also an AOL user. I could be wrong, though. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
No, you could prove GrandWizard is the same as account MyKungfu by checking the two usernames. Not much can be done about the IP's.pschemp | talk 20:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the advice. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
The amount of good you do will never be understood by your critics, nor appreciated enough by your friends. Much Wiki-love to you! Kylu 02:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

User:DomBot

Sorry about the extra work; the bot's been approved Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval#DomBot. Would you please remove the block? Thanks.—Chidom talk  02:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Its done. pschemp | talk 05:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 91/1/4. I can't express how much it means to me to become an administrator. I'll work even more and harder to become useful for the community. If you need a helping hand, don't hesitate to contact me.

To be honest, I can't remember why I was not very friendly with you, but I'm always ready for consensus. I hope if you give me some time to work as an admin, I'll meet your criteria. NCurse work 15:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfB

Hi! I know no amount of explanation will change your mind, but I thought I'd say it anyway as a gesture of goodwill. The category of recall I see it is a form of checks and balance on myself (in a way, Tyranny of the majority), and has nothing to do with status. This applies to my bureaucratship. In fact, I believe that all editors have equal standing on Wikipedia regardless of role or powers so to speak. Regardless, I will respect your opinon on my RfB, and still look forward to working with you in future. :) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 18:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and that's what people in the category say. I don't doubt that. Its the *appearance* the category gives that bothers me. pschemp | talk 21:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote on Userpage

Are you comparing wikipedia to the butcherer Macbeth? Hmmmm. I wonder if Shakespeare would approve of the comparison. Rintrah 16:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Let us know if you find out. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Are psychics considered reliable sources? Rintrah 17:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Somerset219

Somerset219 has been recklessly deleting cited information from Agnostic theism and isn't following WP:NPOV guidlines —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tsinoyboi (talk • contribs) 22:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

one feedback item

I think the early depictions section should have subsections. THere are clear Precolumbian/Greek/Roman/peruvian/Eastern etc logical divisons in the text already. I almost just added them in but did not, this being your baby and all, so brouht you feedback here as requested. HTH. HAND. ++Lar: t/c 05:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

hmm...I'll have think about that. The sections wouldn't be very big. pschemp | talk 15:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Nod. I'm fond of relatively small sections, it's true... that said, the greek and esp. the roman are half a screen at least. but your call... it was just an idea. ++Lar: t/c 21:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I think they're okay for the time being. The overall length of the article is fine, too - it really needn't be much longer. A few more references in the movies section, and it will be an FA. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Rex Germanus

Hi. Would you care to review and provide fair judgement on Rex's recent string of edits and verbal abuse directed at other users of the community, and take appropriate measures if deemed necessary? Im afraid that discussion is sinking to a lowly level of mud-slinging and baiting, disenchanting not only myself, but other users from the project. Regards. Ulritz 14:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've given one reply to each party. Hope it cools down. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Mykungfu

Hey, wanted to run something by you. I have a feeling that our friend Mykungfu has tipped his hand as to his new identity. Check this diff [7] (from an AOL IP address that was a MKF favorite); it relates to a now-deleted article on the Testmasters test prep company. Turns out that that article was created by User:GrandWizard (see the spam warning he received after re-creating it). GrandWizard isn't violating any rules, but if it's MKF, then he's evading his block. Thoughts? | Mr. Darcy talk 17:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If he's evading the block, he's violating rules. If you think his editing patterns are enough alike, let me know and I'll block. pschemp | talk 12:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I noticed that as soon as I posted this, GrandWizard stopped posting ... but User:GreatChimp registered and headed for Alpha Phi Alpha, citing a lot of Wikipedia policies (reliable sources, copyvio, etc.). I'll monitor & will let you know; I do want to assume good faith, even if my gut says it's him. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's him. Check this diff [8] Same formatting, same run-on sentences, and he's forum-shopping just like MKF did. And while this is more of a gut-feeling thing, he's pushing way too hard on this particular issue for a user who's only been online for four days. Let me know if you'd like me to set up an RFCU. (And feel free to look at the discussion on Talk:Alpha_Phi_Alpha#Accuracy_of_the_claim_.26_reliability_of_sources; tell me if you think I'm off base here.) | Mr. Darcy talk
Blocked as an obvious sock. No need to do a checkuser here. pschemp | talk 00:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll let you know if he resurfaces; I've got all his favorite articles watchlisted. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice work on the GrandWizard block. It's no coincidence that he popped back up as soon as GreatChimp was blocked. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed not. That plus his editing pattern confirms to me its a sock. pschemp | talk 04:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Doolittl

Thanks for the help here. I'm afrade this isn't going to go away any time soon. *sigh* I made a post in WP:ANI. I hope this dosn't get messy. Oh well, ---J.S (t|c) 21:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Essjay

Hi. I was wondering why you removed the notice on Essjay's talk page. Cbrown1023 01:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

'Cause he asked me to. pschemp | talk 01:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay? May I ask where? And maybe why? Cbrown1023 01:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You can ask, but its his personal business. I'm sorry if you don't believe me. pschemp | talk 01:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It's just he doesn't reply to his posts there and they just sit there. Other users should know that the item they are posting to get an answer probably won't get one because he is not editing anymore. Cbrown1023 01:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
And if you read the message there left by Robbie, it explains that. pschemp | talk 01:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

He'd prefer that he not be characterized as having abandoned the site, and would prefer that you'd trust his longtime friends when they say he asked for something. On a related note, I'd prefer not being dragged across the house to post notes asking others to trust his friends. And, finally, he'd prefer to not have to come down off the mountain to protect his own talk page over something silly. So, can we leave the banner in the history, please? Robbie31 01:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Chris, If you don't like my actions, go report me on ANI, however, I can remove things from my talk page if I wish and so can Essjay. Tha't been well established and re-inserting has been deemed harassment in cases by arbcom. Leave it please. pschemp | talk 01:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete User talk:Cbrown1023/pschemp. Cbrown1023 20:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add that I'm sorry for that whole incident and I hope that we can work together peacefully in the future. Cbrown1023 21:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I've already forgotten it. Not a problem. pschemp | talk 21:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Brya Block

I request the unblock of User:Brya for flagrant violation of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy: lack of community consensus. Thanks Berton 16:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A non consideration of this request can be interpreted as bad faith and the consequence will be a decision for Arbcom. Will we avoid that?Berton 16:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please post your request at the relevent discussion at WP:ANI. pschemp | talk 17:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Pschemp, for taking the Brya situation to a necessary step, a first block, and for realizing just how much damage this user has done. And thanks for clearing up they words, it seemed as if an indefinite block did not mean permanent. KP Botany 20:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Username blocks

Your user page invites us to review your admin logs. After looking at the block log, might I respectfully suggest that when it comes to non-disruptive names not coupled with any vandalism, you may wish to ease up. Especially when it comes to instant blocking for gibberish names, which might be a bit over the top. 192.75.48.150 16:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please give examples. Thank you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I follow policy which states that name do not have to be disruptive, but only potentially offensive. If you have a specific complaint, please let me know. pschemp | talk 16:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand. To be clear, I am not referring to the offensive or potentially offensive names either. I thank you for your vigilence in these matters. Rather, the plight of User:ΚέκρωΨ is what brought it to my attention. To my knoweldge there was no vandalism, bad behaviour, or potential offensiveness involved. Had there been vandalism, ironically, he would have gone down the vandal track instead, where he would have got some more warnings first, would he not? Looking further I also find User:S10006883 and others like it. It is possible that there were some vandalism pages created and speedy deleted, but the comments in the block log leads me to believe it was instantly blocked. But I mentoin them only because I am being asked for examples. I really only wanted to make a suggestion for the future. 192.75.48.150 17:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Please read the username policy. Usernames consisting of non latin characters are not allowed, and current practice among everyone is to block immediately. That way the user doesn't build up a long edit history before they find out they're name isn't allowed. Also, neither are gibberish names allowed. If you don't agree with the policy and would like to make suggestions for the future, go start a discussion on WP:USERNAME but asking that I don't follow it is unreasonable. pschemp | talk 17:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I see. However, gibberish names are not disallowed. 192.75.48.150 17:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
They fall under "it also means picking a name that others are comfortable seeing and collaborating with". Also please note that it says, "Fairly or unfairly, the line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is drawn by those who find the username inappropriate, not by the creator of the name. Please don't try to find this line." I'm not going to continue to arge about this, so please, take it to the policy page. pschemp | talk 17:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
There used to be a rule on the policy page about random names. It was discussed on the policy talk page. It was stricken from the policy page. 192.75.48.150 17:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
So let's be honest about what really happened:
  1. 14:54, 7 October 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Wilsonenterprises (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{usernameblock}} name of company)
  2. 14:53, 7 October 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Ultra breast system (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{usernameblock}})
  3. 14:53, 7 October 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "S10006883 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{usernameblock}} too many numbers)
  4. 14:52, 7 October 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Asd9f8j5f89fj (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{usernameblock}} gibberish)
  5. 14:52, 7 October 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "45456767 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{usernameblock}} too many numbers)
  6. 14:51, 7 October 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Assbuster (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{usernameblock}})
  7. 14:51, 7 October 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Gypsy-Association.com (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{usernameblock}} name of company)
Look at the time stamps and convince yourself that there was a spree of "funny" usernames, very likely all registered by the same user. In that context, I don't think any response other than blocking those usernames, which were clearly geared towards disruption (notice the possible racism and other bad language), would have been appropriate. Finding an appropriate username is not hard. Call yourself Billy Joe and there you are! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) A stretch, and really, it wasn't you doing the blocking in the first place. I wish you would get over the idea that I was attacking your friend. I do think the rule against random names was stricken from the username policy. I also think the practice to instantly block names with latin characters is for when it is done straight from the user creation log, for exactly the reason given by pschemp above. I do not think the rationale applies to a contributor who has been here several months. If you think I am right, great. If you think I am on drugs and don't want to argue, ok, so just forget it then! If you think this is an attack, I assure you again it is not, and, in case it needs to be said, I will not be the least bit upset if this talk page section were blanked, or redacted, or whatever you want. 192.75.48.150 16:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You is officially informed about this [9] Berton 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

You've got mail. — Moe 01:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

FAC

Just want to point out that it's established custom to strike through criticisms that you've addressed. It's not necessary, but I find it helps keeping track of things, and nobody minds if you do. Maybe you already knew. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope didn't know. Will do when I get back. Thanks. pschemp | talk 18:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:GrandWizard

Hey, there. Wondering if you had any comment on this user's current unblock request? Luna Santin 06:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

the block is based on a checkuser and the sum of this user's behaviour which follows the pattern of the other socks of MyKungfu. The last straw was a sock that started editing right after GrandWizard stopped and the fact that GrandWizard re-appeared right after the sock was blocked. His use of AOL IP's is an attempt to disguise the sockpuppetry but the behaviour is obvious. pschemp | talk 12:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'm more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt considering that GrandWizard (talk • contribs) hasn't edited Alpha Phi Alpha yet. Is GrandWizard POV pushing the same way as Mykungfu (talk • contribs) but on Sigma Pi Phi instead? --  Netsnipe   ►  14:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Its more the fact he showed up in the middle of the MyKungfu sock epidemic and edited Sigma Pi Phi the first day. His initial edits aren't consistent with a new account either, he added a reference on the second edit. Also, the same poor grammar and response style. Additionally the timing with the latest sock is mightly suspicious. See also the discussion above [10]. For me, that's one too many coincidences, but if you want to keep an eye on him, I don't mind if you unblock. pschemp | talk 14:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, sorry Netsnipe but now that his main account has just requested an unblock today I'm absolutely convinced that Grandwizard is MyKungfu. That's 3 too many coincidences. pschemp | talk 17:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Pschemp, I hope you don't mind me jumping in here on your talk page. I've been monitoring the relevant articles that were targets of Mykungfu since I responded to an RfC back in August. (As far as I know, I'm the only regular editor on those pages with no connection to any of the fraternities/sororities involved.) Mykungfu's primary agenda is to remove favorable content from most of the articles in question through questionable applications of wikipolicies, especially WP:RS, and he's mixed in the occasional racist comment as well (telling another poster to go "sit down over some fried chicken" [11]). GrandWizard (another racist reference, as that's the title of the head of the Ku Klux Klan) and GreatChimp have both done the same thing, showing way too much knowledge of Wikipedia policies for brand new users, with other similarities in their editing patterns, documented above. And now that his two latest socks have been blocked, he's come back and requested unblock of the puppet-master account [12]. He's shown little regard for the blocks as well, editing under AOL IPs until the articles were semi-protected, then setting up multiple socks and waiting the necessary time before going after the articles again. I am always willing to assume good faith, and have done so with each of the new socks, but the pattern of behavior makes it clear who's behind them. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue I have here is that username policy says it isn't allowed if it *could* be considered offensive and obviously there are some people who already have been offended by that. Good intent doesn't matter here, you can pick "faggot" for a username and claim it was done in good intent and is referring to a bundle of sticks, but that doesn't make it an appropriate username choice. Though i still think this is a sock, I'd be willing to assume good faith and lift the block if the user changes his name. Thet would then end any type of suspicion that the username is racist and hopefully put the whole issue to bed. pschemp | talk 01:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've insisted that GrandWizard (talk • contribs) change his account name now. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I think this a reasonable solution. pschemp | talk 05:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
He wants to change his account name to "GrandWizardJamal" as a compromise. Thoughts? --  Netsnipe  ►  14:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Still dicey as GrandWizard is the KKK title. Doesn't matter what name you put after it. How about something like GWJamal or GWizardJamal or HipHopGrandWizard? pschemp | talk 14:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Brya

I have been discussing the concerns raised on the ToL talk page with him and he has explanations which are at least reasonable. Given the arbitration request centering on him would it be acceptable to you to unblock so that he can comment there if he agrees to stay away from all things taxonomical until it is resolved? --CBD 12:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Brya is not a named party. I'd say let someone else carry the evidence over from his talk page if he wants to speak out. Right now the arb case is against *me* not him and those who have accepted so far haven't said whose behaviour they will be looking into. (neither has he stated that he would refrain from editing botany related articles for the duration yet, so prevention of disruption while the community sorts this out is still a valid block reason) pschemp | talk 00:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

To pschemp for her excellent work defending the wiki against vandals and trolls. We appreciate all your efforts -- Samir धर्म 05:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
To pschemp for her excellent work defending the wiki against vandals and trolls. We appreciate all your efforts -- Samir धर्म 05:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thanks pschemp | talk 02:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

oops

Sorry Pschemp... I had it in my mind that the arbcom was about Brya, and forgot that it's actually about you. I don't know how arbcom works (and don't really want to know, to be honest), but if you need a "witness", I'd be more than happy to confirm that your blocking was justified. My first comment there was directed at Mr Darwin's comments, not at the re-blocking (I wasn't even aware that he was until you commented later). It's quite clear that the first block was justified because Brya was making questionable edits, and defending them in what I can only describe as a troll-like manner. It's also quite clear that the second block was justified because he violated his "parole" by posting on a page he wasn't supposed to post on. My point was that he was being personally attacked on that page,that it was understandable for him to want to respond, and that the history of this particularly messy mess might lead him to believe that his "trial" was being conducted on the TOL talk page.

After writing and then re-reading the previous paragraph, let me assure you that I am disgusted by this whole thing... wikipedia is not a nation, arbcom is not a court. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia created through a collaborative effort among editors of good faith. Brya is uninterested in collaboration, and seems constitutionally incapable of assuming good faith. The block is a no-brainer, and it's frankly horrifying that you are the one taking heat for this. 'Nuff said. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 22:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Brya's violation of the very clearly stated conditions of unblocking, completely unapologetic response after re-blocking, and apparent inability to offer any change in attitude or behavior whatsoever, are telling. Brya does, and will continue to do, exactly what Brya wants to do, then blame everybody but herself when things get messy. Brya should have been blocked long before this. I do regret that the reasons for the block are somewhat muddied, but it would appear that most admins seem to see that the arbitration request has no merit. MrDarwin 14:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Pedro Zamora

Thank you for the sprotect. That was getting rather tiring. --Geniac 02:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for helping with User talk:Atomaton at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. They say if you need something done give it to a busy man. You might or might not be interested in following up on the Nikki Craft situation wherein there may be an issue of POV pushing; there may be a sourcing issue; there may be an issue of article ownership; there maybe an issue of self promotion; and there may be an issue of wonderful socially giving people whose fame preceeded the internet and now maintain old press clippings on their website. I think it would be wonderful if you could spend some time sooner or later with regard to Nikki Craft. I truly don't know what to make of her and her bio page here at wikipedia. WAS 4.250 03:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to think about that. I'm familiar with her and sooner or later someone is going to have to deal with her, but I don't know that I'm ready for that yet. pschemp | talk 06:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Youngest person with a Wikipedia article

To "redeem yourself" for my wrongful blocking, can you restore Template:Youngest person with a Wikipedia article and put it in my subpage at User:Dangherous/Youngest person with a Wikipedia article. Fair enough, that's where it belongs. Sorry about the mix-up, but I'm a reformed Wikipedian now. --Dangherous 09:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll do it because I'm a nice person, I don't need to redeem myself for anything. pschemp | talk 14:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Brya

Would you please unblock him so he can participate in the arbitration case. Fred Bauder 17:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The case is not filed against him, it is filed against me. 2. He was unblocked and already commented. 3. He was told not to edit other pages and went right back to disrupting and arguing with people (the reason for the block to begin with) and 4. He can comment on his talk page and someone can copy the comments over. (I'll even do it). I gave him a chance already, so no. pschemp | talk 17:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Bugzilla:6427

SVN Revision 17147 Log message: (bug 6427) Block blocked IPs from using the mail password function to allow blocking of flooders. Status is "Fixed".

English translation: Blocked IP's won't be able to use the "mail password" feature now. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you dear! :) pschemp | talk 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a big deal to me

Say girl, you blocked my school (LC) from being on Wikipedia. I am on scholarship, and am really up tight with you. The only thing that saves you is that you seem to have the same habit I had of trashing others and then claiming to be humble. It's a habit that's hard to break.

But, look at the kind of stuff (My cousin's school) that goes unchallenged on Wikipeida. I could give you hundreds of examples: (fluff removed) There are a lot of sites like this, girl. But, you pick on my school. Why? If I write an article using the same format as Notre Dame Secondary, will you leave it alone? Please let us get a life. Darnell Watson —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarnellWatson (talk • contribs)

Thanks

A friend gave me exactly the same advice yesterday, commanding me to first remove any offending pages from my watch list, second take a deep breath, and third and most important remember that I came to support Wikipedia because I believe it not only can, but eventually will succeed and be something great, and I want to contribute to the greatness, not the annoying aspects. Thanks for the reminder of sanity. KP Botany 13:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Plants need love too. pschemp | talk 06:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cat breeds

I noted that you were one of the founding members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cat breeds. That project has seemed to go dormant lately, although my recent joining has reactivated it. I was wondering if you would think it might be a good idea to merge the two projects together. I acknowledge that the scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats is a lot broader than that of the cat breeds project, but it does at least seem to have gotten a fair amount of new members lately. Also, given its breadth, it could easily take on the duties of the Cat breeds project now that it has become dormant. I would be very interested in hearing from you on either project page whether you think the two projects should merge or not. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a merge would be appropriate but it should remain a subsection of the larger project so the information doesn't get lost. There is a *huge* amount of work to do on the breed articles and I dont want that task to get lost. But, I don't see any reason for it to exist independantly of the larger project. pschemp | talk 13:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
We have recently created a couple of new departments, including an Outreach department. Here is a copy of the first newsletter of the Cats WikiProject, mentioning the proposed merger. I'm sending it out to all of the members of the Cat Breeds Project so that they can know a little about the group with which there is an existing merger proposal. We would welcome any and all comments about the project, and the newsletter, from members of both groups. I do think that there would be no objection from any of the Cats members about creating a subproject, and would be willing to merge them with a few more approvals from the Cat breeds project. Right now, there have only been three responses total. I'm hoping the newsletter helps to indicate that the project as it now exists is a more serious entity. Anyway, thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Micrograph of polyester fibers

I am employed at an educational textbook company and am interested in using an image, which is posted on Wikipedia, and credited to you, showing polyester fibers. I am writing to find out how I might acquire permission for the use of this image? I look forward to hearing your response and I thank you for both your time and assistance with this request.

Best,

Kimberly GuerillaGirl_4@hotmail.com

OK, its the GFDL liscense that applies here, but let me check what needs to be done. pschemp | talk 01:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, under the GFDL the book would need to carry a copy of the GFDL as reference. A better option, pschemp, is to re-release the licence under the Creative Commons licence and they would only be required to credit you and say it's under the CC licence. ---J.S (t|c) 20:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thanks pschemp | talk 02:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Clog

Hi recently you added a reference to Patten, Maine on the Clog (shoe) article. Can you please explain why as I see no relation between the footwear and the town. Also if you do think it should be listed, wouldn't the already existing disambiguation page be a better page to add the reference to Patten, to keep the clog page as clean as possible? Thanks Arnoutf 07:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me answer that, please. Patten redirects to Clog (shoe). But if I type "Patten" into the search field I may wish to find Patten, Maine. And, as it seems to be usual in en.wp, for two different meanings, a disambiguation page is not neccessary. Btw., it should be noted in the clog-article more prominently that it can be called "Patten", too, at least once in the article intro. Grtx, --Thogo (Talk) 07:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
@Pschemp: But anyway, there are many many people who have the name Patten: Edward Patten, John Patten (1746-1800), David W. Patten and lots more. Maybe a disamb page could be better though... --Thogo (Talk) 08:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Chris Patten. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've sorted out the mess. ("Hey, Beavis, he said 'mess', cnrcnrcnr.") - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool. What a nice thing to wake up to an issue taken care of by Thogo and um...Beavis. Its true I didn't look for more "pattens" but thanks for fixing my oversight. btw, Thogo, meet Samsara, Samsara meet Thogo. Cheers! pschemp | talk 13:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Jessica_simpson121

This user is currently editing under a name of a "well-known living or recently deceased person" which is inappropriate per the guidelines at WP:U#Inappropriate usernames. I told her that she would have to change the name but she continues to edit. I appreciate any comments or suggestions. Thanks, Cbrown1023 19:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, this was originally posted on Kylu's talk page and she told me to post it here, but I just checked and she filed to change here username. Cbrown1023 00:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
ok pschemp | talk 23:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Kylu redirects Wikipedia:Request for Usernameblock to User talk:Pschemp :D ~Kylu (u|t) 06:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for discussion

I'd love to see your discussion you promised, [13] particularly since the page was protected to reflect the change to the long-standing version supported by a group of admins. Such an action certainly does not promote even the appearance of impartiality. Rfrisbietalk 00:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

After that snarky comment and the others I've seen from you, no. I already made a statement on the talk page. The admin who protected it is totally uninvolved and insinuating some kind of conspiricy is highly offensive. pschemp | talk 02:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
No more offensive than the arrogance displayed by such actions. Rfrisbietalk 02:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure. pschemp | talk 03:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Article help

Hi there, I'd like to know if you can help me on editing some articles.... let me know on my talk page! --SunStar Net 17:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Are there specific ones you have in mind? pschemp | talk 19:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Tell me the areas you're good at (and interested in), and I'll tell you mine.... btw, keep the good contributions up! SunStarNet; 19:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Pschemp, just a quick note to say thanks for your comment at User talk:Ottawaman. Very much appreciated. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

History of erotic depictions lead

also stemming from their religious and cultural beliefs which was especially influential on the west

Is it possible to say, briefly, possibly wikilinked, which of their beliefs impacted on their erotic depictions, and describe them? - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 21:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Undeletions

I just restored a couple of Wikipedia Signpost articles that you deleted with the explanation "user no longer exisits". I'm not sure what you meant by this or what it has to do with these pages, but if there's some unresolved issue I'd be happy to discuss how it can be addressed. The Signpost archives are important to people as a historical record, and should not simply disappear. --Michael Snow 23:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, those were in userspace. If they need to be in an archive, please move them out of userspace. That is a user who has changed their name and wisheses not to be associated with that account. pschemp | talk 01:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I figured it out. The page in userpace redirected to the archive and I didn't realize it. I have now deleted the redirect, which is what I intended to delete, not the archive. In the future, check what links to the article, that's how I found the redirect. pschemp | talk 01:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Revisions restored

Why did you only restore 2 revisions of this page?? --SunStar Net 23:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That's really not your business. Thank you. pschemp | talk
Apologies - I just thought it looked odd having a small edit history. SunStar Net 10:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the month

You voted for Carbon and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month!
Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

NCurse work 07:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Origin of life vs abiogenesis and biogenesis

is it just me, or are abiogenesis and biogenesis are POV forks from origin of life? --Tsinoyboi 08:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Skid marks

Could you please tell me why you keep removing my reply to StuRat about skid marks. I am genuinely interested in how to remove them. Could you tell me what policy or guideline I am breaking in posting this reply? Thanks.--Light current 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't start wikilawyering me. Your answers are rude and offensive for those not "in" on the joke. It is an abuse of the reference desk and disruptive. You've already been warned about things like that. Why don't you try to mature or helpful for once? pschemp | talk 03:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT a joke. It is a serious question. Please reinstate my comment.--Light current 03:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I answered your question. The comment stays out. pschemp | talk 03:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont think you have that authority to censor comments without good reason. What is your reason?--Light current 03:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It is stated above. Read. pschemp | talk 03:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You are acting outside your remit. Please reconsider! 8-(--Light current 03:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter what you think. Pschemp has the authority here; what she says goes (that is, if it it is correct, which in this case it is).
Also, that comment does not belong on a talk page. They are about discussing improvements to articles; maybe you should read WP:TALK. Cbrown1023 00:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The Reference Desk pages are not talk pages and are not intended for discussing improvements to articles. I don't see how WP:TALK applies. (I further fail to see what is rude and offensive about this response to a response.)  --LambiamTalk 08:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Correct. And frequently abuses it!--Light current 00:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
As posted on another user's talk page; try not to piss of admins who block frequently. Please also see the other suggestions I posted at User talk:StuRat. Cbrown1023 00:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Oakzabc

User:Oakzabc has been vandalizing pages after several warnings, most notably Nathanael. -WarthogDemon 04:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:DRV

You are invited to discuss Briefsism at deletion review. Please do so, now. --5jackson1 14:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For your very helpful intervention in Sarah's ridiculous RfC. I'm glad to see it has now been deleted. --Guinnog 15:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked ottawaman for a week for disrupting with the spurious rfc. I suggest aggressive action if he continues and immediately blocking of any socks that pop up. pschemp | talk 15:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I thoroughly approve and will continue to keep an eye out. If this is to be believed, we won't have to worry any more. Hey, maybe I could actually get some articles written! Thanks again, --Guinnog 20:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. i really appreciated your comment at the RFC. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

IP unblock

Hi, I think you may have got the wrong guy when you blocked 152.91.9.144 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS). Saw his unblock request ([14]), with a plausible explanation that his were only the two posts on WP:ANI#Banned users asking trolling questions at ArbCom elections, not the original trolling questions on the Arbcom pages themselves. Different person, apparently, and with a general pattern of good contributions. As you seem not to be online right now and the guy was getting impatient, I've gone ahead and unblocked. Hope you don't object. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

np pschemp | talk 16:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Light current

This comment was uncalled for! First of all, I didn't read any discussion on WP:AN until just now, because I had thought the discussion was on WP:AN/I and couldn't find it. I was rather responding to this edit he made at the reference desk, in which he seemed very frustrated but totally non-specific. Nowhere did I say he was right or that anyone was being abusive; I was simply trying to ask him to explain why he'd said what he said.

If you want my thoughts on how to deal with LC, I'm happy to discuss, but I thought I'd get this out of the way first. It seems to me that you rather misunderstood my position here, and the way you called me out at WP:AN kind of bothers me. -- SCZenz 17:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

And how else am I to interpret "Admins giving you crap?" That was totally uncalled for on your part. Might I suggest that next time you find out who those admins are before you make such comments? pschemp | talk 17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It was a question. He said admins were giving him crap (or similar), and I was asking about it. I can see the source of the misunderstanding: you read it as me agreeing he has a problem, and offering to help. That was not my intention however, it was more to say "Oh, admins are giving you crap, are they?" and ask him to clarify. I apologize for the ambiguity. -- SCZenz 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
FWIW (butting in here and replying to the original post), SCZenz, that's how I interpreted your post to LC's talk page (the same way pschemp did), until I thought about it. I realise you were just quoting LC's words and reflecting his interpretation, but you have to be more careful of how you express yourself, IMO. Because part of LC's MO is that he seeks community approval for his position, then once he thinks he has it, he really digs in and gets aggressive. IMO he's interpreted your communication to him as support for his position, and he's been correspondingly more hostile and positional as a result. Anchoress 17:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Your comment is noted, and you're probably right. The ambiguity was a calculated decision on my part; my intention was to give him the impression that I might take his side if he talked to me, in an effort to get him to discuss things rather than continuing to inflame the situation. It appears that was the wrong thing for me to do. -- SCZenz 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Whee, I was actually hoping that was your intent deep down when I first read the comment because you've always seemed reasonable in past interactions. Thanks for making this clear. Anchoress is correct here, that's the pattern. My only aim is to see the reference desk be a bit more professional and not used for personal discussions so much. pschemp | talk 18:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Anchoress is wrong about me this time. I actually put SCZ s comments on the back burner whilst I was replying directly to the main protagonists. Any hostility or aggression shown by me (of which actually there was remakably little if you check my posts) was a pure reaction to that shown to me by pschemp and others. Nothing at all to do with SCZens offer of help which I have now accepted BTW. Hope that clears that misunderstanding. 8-)--Light current 18:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My proposal to LC

Hi Pschemp,

In response to LC asking me (giving the different tones I've taken with different people in an effort to resolve this) what my position is and whether I'm serious by helping, I wrote/proposed the following:

Good question. I'm being put between a rock and a hard place by the two sides here, so let me be 100% clear on what I think, and what I propose we do:
  1. I think you've made some comments that were inappropriate.
  2. Others have tried to point this out, and you haven't reacted well.
  3. Threatening to block you has not been a productive way of handling the situation, nor are pile-ons of many people saying the same thing.
  4. The situation has been inflamed, as I said, by both sides focusing on their own "rights" and the other party's excesses.
  5. You are an extraordinarily helpful editor, in general, and I think continuing down the current path is all too likely to result in hardened positions, frustration, and Wikipedia losing your contributions. This would be very bad.
  6. I can convince pschemp, and others, to leave the situation to me, in the mentorship discussed above. They will expect me to keep you from saying inappropriate/unhelpful things at the reference desk, and I will do this. However, I will do it as far as possible by discussing issues and helping you understand what the complaints are, rather than by removing your comments or making threats.
  7. As long as I am able to work with you and roughly meet these expectations, other admins will leave you alone and none of them will block you.
I have tried to take a concilliatory tone with both sides in order to sort this out, but this is my honest proposal. I'll copy it to the other pages where this is being discussed. Can you accept it? [end of quote]

What do you think, pschemp? -- SCZenz 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Good luck. Btw, the block threat was for re-inserting the removed comments, not for actually making them. There is no current threat to block, nor have I looked at his contributions (or plan to.) I was happy with the rewrite of the comment that's already been done. pschemp | talk 19:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Pictures Discussion with AcadiaMagic

Hi pschemp. Thanks for the comments you added to my User Talk. Rather than adding my additions here, I have posted them at my User Talk. Add more discussion and comments if you can. AcadiaMagic 04:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, that's how talk page discussions usually work. I automatically watch every page I edit so I already saw that you had responded. pschemp | talk 05:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I do not know which country you are from. I am from Pakistan and hockey is our national game. :) --- ابراهيم 16:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)