User talk:Trebor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives:1, 2, 3

If you leave a message here, I will probably respond here. If I've left a message at your talk page, you can respond there or here.

I am an administrator (blocks, protects, deletions), so ask me if you need assistance requiring the extra tools. I am open to recall; if five editors in good standing (which I will judge liberally) request it, I will stand for reconfirmation.

Add a new comment

Contents

[edit] Jakob Dylan

Thanks for your support on the Jakob Dylan dispute. Once we find out the outcome of the AfD and Sockpuppetry reviews, we can likely come back and ask for it to be unprotected. Daffidd (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, although I'm not supporting either version, just preventing edit warring. Hopefully the dispute can be resolved quickly. If you want non-controversial edits to be made to the page in the mean time, add Template:Editprotected to the talk page along with a description of the edit. Trebor (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh I understand you're not taking sides. I just appreciate taking a rest on the back and forth edits. Once we know which way it goes on the AfD it will help in making a decision when to unprotect. The offending user has been banned for 12 hours as well, so we'll give it a few days. I'm a newbie so thanks for the direction on what to do next!

Daffidd (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for noticing the problems with the Jacob Dylan page and associated pages. Hopefully some (more) credible references will be dug up before long, or this whole thing exposed as a hoax. Bigmouth strikes (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] that weirdo tranny

What correlation is there between x amount of citations and uncited content? If i have 90 references for 15 out of 20 statements but none for the rest, the rest still need citations. There is an error in your logic. I have mentioned it on the talk page. I could give additional information if necessary, however I believe it it pretty obvious what needs to be done. Here's my line. In general the article's tone is very unencyclopedic, it is full of useless trivia, a lot of content is inserted repetitiously. its not a good read at all. basically. its a bad article. lets improve it. if it must exist.Myheartinchile (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And, as has been said on the talk page, all you're doing is saying the article is uncited without giving a single specific example. It's far from obvious what you think needs to be done. If you think the article has problems, state what they are (as in specifically, not general sweeping comments) and what should be done to correct them. If you get consensus for your changes then you can implement them. Don't just disruptively add tags. Trebor (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brown Edits

I logged in to correct some posts I made yesterday. Track attendance reported by ABC pre-race was in error, the corrected amount is 94,476. Also I wanted to post total wagers were $13,233,071 at the track for the day, the second highest number recorded, but was still less than the $14,461,402 bet during Smarty Jones appearance in 2004 [1].

Thread is locked and I am listed as a new member so I can't get in. Eedlee (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I get a response at least? Eedlee (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. The article was semi-protected in response to vandalism following the race. Until your account is autoconfirmed (4 days old and at least 10 edits) you can ask others to make the change for you on the article's talk page. Trebor (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Korax1214

Requesting unblock and claiming he's not a sock. Who's the puppeteer, and what's the evidence? Daniel Case (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The puppeteer is User:CanuckAnthropologist who was banned yesterday for repeated disruptive editing. The relation to Korax was raised on ANI and upon review of the evidence (supported by User:LessHeard_vanU) I found it likely they were the same user. Evidence includes the restarting of editing after a (admittedly short) break soon after CA was block and the moves of similar pages (those starting Afro-) against general consensus. If you disagree, feel free to overturn or go to WP:RFCU. Trebor (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Since you've said "feel free to overturn," I'm overturning. There is a lot more difference than similarity here. The page moves you were worried about: Korax's moves, though undiscussed, all gave edit summaries citing policy, whereas CanuckAnthropologist's page moves were much weirder and more poorly justified, and less systematic. Also, those moves were a long time ago (April), not a continuation of the behavior right before the block. Finally, CA seems to be obsessed with Blondes and Blonde-related articles whereas I see no evidence of this interest in Korax at all. (Also, please be aware that sockpuppetry blocks are very often contested and it's really really important that you at least mention the puppetmaster you suspect in your block summary.) Mangojuicetalk 14:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, my mistake in the summary. Moves of the same page were made on the 1 June by CA (as well as back in April), and then 8 June by Korax. They also both shared a propensity to put words in bold for emphasis [2] [3] [4] [5] and often make multiple edits for one talk page comment (adding sentences or fixing mistakes). They also both used wikilinks in their edit summaries for page moves. It's not conclusive, but myself and several others find it suspiciously similar (along with asking for a reduction to a month block while claiming total innocence). Trebor (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diffs

Perhaps you could explain to me a confusion I am having over diffs. On the issue in question yesterday, I was copy editing a FAC article when I noticed something strange. So I look in the history, saw the drive-by edit, and compared that diff with the next one. I have always assumed that the parts in red letters and symbols in the older diff were the parts added or removed by that editor (more or less - I know I am not explaining this very well). You are saying that is not the correct interpretation? The diff you provided was not the one I saw at the time. I voted in the RFA because, once I saw the diff which I saw as disruptive, I checked h his contributions for more disruptive diffs and saw he was running for admin.

Do you think that looking at the diffs by going through the article provides a different view than looking at diffs via a user's contributions? I really cannot account for the changing appearance of the diffs. Do you have any advice on how to examine diffs correctly? Thanks, –Mattisse (Talk) 14:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the bits in red letters do indicate the changed bits from one diff to another. You somehow ended up looking at the wrong diff this one, which is User:Wizardman removing the IMDB reference for Brewer's name - it doesn't show anything about Epbr123's contribution. To see what was done in a particular edit, go to the history page, find the edit you want to look at, and on the left-hand side click the "last" button. That will show the alterations made by that editor in that edit. So if you find Epbr123's edit, click "last" and have a look, you can see the difference. Trebor (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
O.K. I see what you mean. I apologize. I was under stress in editing the FAC Rongorongo and when I saw what had been done to the numbers in the beginning of the sentence [6] (using your method) I became very discourage and then angry. That sort of edit makes me feel like I am going crazy thinking that I had overlooked that error. I have taken Wikipedia and its accuracy far too seriously. I need to increase frivolous editing like those editors do with their automatic toys. Don't take it to heart, right? Thanks for your help. Best, –Mattisse (Talk) 16:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. I withdrew the RFA. The comments are appreciated and I will try to work on all of the concerns. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)