Polarscribe (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Bakasuprman (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 255: | Line 255: | ||
== Talk pages are not free speech zones == |
== Talk pages are not free speech zones == |
||
There's no need to make unsupported personal attacks on people on Wikipedia talk pages. That's not what talk pages are for. Discussion of source reliability can be made without inflammatory language. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 04:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC) |
There's no need to make unsupported personal attacks on people on Wikipedia talk pages. That's not what talk pages are for. Discussion of source reliability can be made without inflammatory language. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 04:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Wikipedia is not a platform to promote your personal grudges and religious biases. Quit monkeying around and behaving like a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMichael_E._J._Witzel&diff=153885108&oldid=153883542 "maladroit hack"].<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<font color="black">Baka</font>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<font color="green">man</font>]]</b> 04:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:44, 27 August 2007
Previous discussion: one two (Mar 21 2006-July 11 2006) three (July 20 2006-Sept 24 2006) four (Sept 30 2006-Oct 31 2006) five six seven (May 2007) eight (June 2007)
Steve Stavro
THIS SOURCE SAYS HE IS AN ETHNIC MACEDONIAN (GLOBE AND MAIL NEWSPAPER)[1] Uuttyyrreess 03:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It says: It's worth noting that Steve Stavro, majority owner of the Gardens, and John Bitove Jr., who is running the tourney, are ethnic Macedonians
List of LGBT composers
Hi! I'm curious about how you reached a "consensus" of delete for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT composers? I know it's not a "vote", but the responses seemed fairly evenly split. And would it be possible to get a copy in my userspace? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I am new to the ways of Wikipedia. I am curious about why this important list has been deleted. I was using it to assist me in preparing a recital of songs by LGBT composers. Lists such as this are of practical interest for projects such as mine, as well as being entertaining, and providing a sense of belonging to others just addressing their LGBT issues. I would argue that it is not sufficient to include these names in a list of LGBT musicians. This is a list of creators rather than performers, and the list provides a starting point in locating original creative work that addresses GLBT experience. If the deletion of this important article is inevitable, I would like to know how I can receive a copy of it.Thanks for any insight you can offer. TheOperaGuy 04:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help and for indulging a newbie. The LGBT composer category does indeed do the job, and more rigorously than the original page.I saved the link, so I will be able to find it again, but I note that the average Jane or Joe looking for a page on LGBT composers will not know that a category has been created, or how to find it. Category pages inexplicably are apparently not brought up in searches nor is there any link from the original deleted page.
- Thanks for asking, I am a baritone so my recital will be homoerotic and gay-themed vocal music. Let me know if you want any more info about this. Maybe when I grow up I will also learn how to indent a thread properly. Thanks again for your much-appreciated help.TheOperaGuy 05:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry etc
Thank you for your involvement. I have filed a report [2] Mr. Neutron 21:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Williamsburg oil spill
Please let me know why this article which had been rewritten to avoid copyright infringment was deleted and how deletion can be avoided. Wburged 01:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem; I'll revisit the article tonight and see how it can be improved. For one thing, it seems to have accumulated some material and "See also" links that are irrelevant to this specific historical schema. Deor 19:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Give me a little more time on this. Figuring out how to improve and reference this article, and to relate it to the concepts (explicitly paralleled in medieval sources) of the days of creation and the ages of man, has proved rather more involved than I thought it would be. I'll deal with it over the Fourth, when I have a holiday. I also think that I should give a heads-up to User:Stbalbach, who created the article, although he doesn't seem to have been active on WP lately. (By the way, I think that the article should be moved to "Six ages of the world," since no modern scholars seem to treat this as a proper noun.) Deor 01:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. There really should be a WP article on the ages of man (known to most folks from Jaques's speech in As You Like It) as well. There's been an entire Oxford UP book on the subject, by J. A. Burrow. Perhaps I'll get around to writing it someday. Deor 01:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Literary filiation and bathroom fitments
LOL, thanks. "Literary filiation and the subtitle, or Virtue Rewarded" is a great idea, academic publishing needs more nihilartikels. It reminded me of the quite acrimonious old 1 April 2005 quarrel, I don't think you were around for it. All ancient history. Please feel free to edit and improve here ! If you're able to improve the inline citing, that would be great. It's sure looking under-referenced by modern FA standards. Bishonen | talk 08:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC).
Goa Inquisition
After you pointed out the discussion on the talk page I didnt remove the tag see this revert and the other revert.Bakaman 17:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- There are two reviews of Priolkar, and both are positive.
and
Bakaman 17:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Apollo semi-protection
This article has been semi-protected for almost two months, can you re-evaluate and consider unprotecting? 64.126.24.12 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. Although you could edit it in four days if you registered an account... --Akhilleus (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- See my talk page; I have an account (sysop even), but I don't log in from work. 64.126.24.12 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Got it. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- See my talk page; I have an account (sysop even), but I don't log in from work. 64.126.24.12 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Unsolved problems in Egyptology
I noticed that you closed the AfD as "delete" when there were seven for deletion and five for keeping. Since it had already survived a previous AfD, I would think that that would argue even further for a response of "no consensus". Mdotley 21:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Coldmachine
I unblocked Coldmachine because he was able to persuade me that he is not a sockpuppet of Emnx. The checkuser came back "probable" but the rest of the evidence seemed circumstantial. In any event, hopefully all will be well.--Jimbo Wales 19:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a poor article & motivated for all the wrong reasons we know too well. I appreciate your vigilance in staying on top of the ever-spreading Petrarch Code tentacles. I have to admit, if there were a well-read, NPOV Wikipedia editor going around creating articles on these circles, I'd welcome them. "Sigh" certainly summarizes my feelings, since looking at Doug's work makes me feel tired and impotent. In this case, the person has been the subject of a scholarly conference. What should happen is that the article be reduced to a stub and carry a notice, "waiting for an article not by Doug." But that would require a community consensus that articles by Doug are hurting the encyclopedia, which isn't there, yet. Meanwhile, I can certainly support any level of aggressive pruning back of dubious material, and even of potentially valid material that is improperly cited and/or mixed in with dubious material. Wareh 20:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- I came here instead to apologize for supporting this article and for opposing your proposal at Ownership forking--apologize because i in generally strongly support your work. But I also support Doug's--though I wish it were based on wider reading. I think we are better trying to delete the articles that really need it--for example, the ones that use a biography of a semi notable figure as scaffolding for a large dissertation of the overall subject. But I see I have no real need to apologize, for I've commented on the article about the conference, and that should be a sufficient apology.
- Frankly, I see it as a wildly excessive reaction to what is really somewhat excessive attempts to delete, and I think the net effect of it is unfortunate. Again frankly to an experienced editor, may I suggest compromise? I've suggested to LoveMonkey that he should userify his article, and i suggest that you withdraw the AfD nomination.
- As for the policy proposal, I'll comment there. I'm not sure you see the harm it could do. DGG (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I think at this point you're trying to support something you no longer believe, simply because of your opinion of another editor's doings on Wikipedia. You apparently knew there was an academic conference about Diogini, yet persist in saying he's not notable. I also suggest you simply withdraw this nomination, pause and reconsider what you're doing, then move on from there. KP Botany 22:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- PS Good editing, and thanks for the copyedit. KP Botany 22:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I will side with the opinions of a group of Italian scholars as better judges of notability than I am. KP Botany 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's too close, as was the early Genealogia version to EB, even from the freebie peep. That has been largely rewritten, which I think can be done with this, or the bits cut. But soomeone needs to have a word with Doug, who I don't know. Johnbod 21:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Library
That would be useful.[3] You can obviously read well which will make the various articles better, and I know you'll have fun--what an incredibly interesting age in the Western World. KP Botany 00:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Ron liebman
I've posted a thread at the admin noticeboard regarding his currently outstanding unblock request, since it seems discussion may have stalled. Looks like you've had some involvement in this, so I thought I should let you know. Feel free to comment. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksey Vayner. Would you look at the above article to see if it's basically a recreation? --Tony Sidaway 12:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
"Neutral"
In light of your recent actions I refuse to accept you as mediator on the Goa Inquisition article. When anwar and other users on on your side of the arbcom were stalking me there was no censure. It seems you are on a witch-hunt to demonize and attack me, isnpired by Rama's Arrow and Dbachmann.Bakaman 19:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of Kirk Fraser
Im sending you a request. I've look over the deletion of Kirk Fraser, The original article had the incorrect spelling of his last name. Check out the (http://www.answers.com/topic/kirk-frasier) the article is still wrong. We originally created a new page on Wikipedia with the correct spelling and paste the content from Wikipedia with the incorrect spelling of Frasier. It was shortly deleted, we once again created it again, and it was also deleted. We don't know what to do. It seems like once it's up it taken down again, when it was originally put up by some one else. We just wanted to change the spelling of the Last name and fix the content that was wrong. Can you please help me in guiding me to correct this issue.
Thanks.
Deletiom of fluid entropy
I don`t hide myself behind a nickname or IP number! Your reaction is hurting me a lot!!!!! It is also posted a long time after the deletion, after closing the whole issue. Can you explain that to me, please? I feel being attacked on EN-Wikipedia. --LidiaFourdraine 10:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Deletion of "fluid entropy" = the way in the barbarous ages!!! --83.5.154.101 09:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Belated thanks
Hi, Akhilleus. Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage last month. As you can see, I haven't been as active on Wikipedia lately as I once was, and I only just noticed that the page had been vandalized. It's nice to know that even when I'm not around, people are looking after my userpage. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
VK35
Hello Akhilleus. Because you have previously reviewed the evidence of puppetry in this case but are otherwise uninvolved in any dispute, I invited you to review the information presented here: User talk:VK35#Unblock -- intention. · jersyko talk 03:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Stephen Tweedie
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Stephen Tweedie, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. mms 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
HarveyCarter - and his sockpuppet drawer
Ive been off for a while coming back slowly having more time at work. Not up to my few thousand edits RC patrol like I was but I am looking around alot more. Anyway to the point. A while back you helped me with 3 sockpuppet reports on HarveyCarter. [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] Well while I was away he used multiple alias including [[7]] and others. I don't have the time all at once to type up the report and look it all up copy paste etc etc. But is there a way to keep all these alias together? automatically? Also I suspect the new user BillRodgers [[8]] his contributions are again virtually identical in wording and subject matter. On the Jimmy Stewart Talk page [[9]] he even picks up the arguments of his former accounts. (doing the same on the Elvis page) If you don't have the time can you fwd this or point me out whom to ask these questions. I bring this to you due to my off and on time on here. I am only at my desk in spurts latley and can't dig and compose a big ol report (took over 1/2 hour last time). Thanks again. --Xiahou 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I went ahead and took the time to make a report added one that I missed reporting with the last bunch to. [[10]]
Serena (actress)
Could you please conclude the RfC on Talk:Serena (actress) page you initiated some time 2 months ago, and fix the Infobox on the main article page in accordance with your decision. Thank you. 66.232.153.106 23:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Blnguyen has oversight which he regularly abuses, but no checkuser, or am I wrong? 19:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Unconscionable canvassing?
Nevertheless, since I know that you're familiar with the classical languages, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explicatus and register your opinion, whatever it may be? (I promise that I'll get around to Six Ages of the World soon; I've just been very busy in real life lately.) Deor 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Ostrich's egg
Sir, while I greatly appreciate your judgement, I am just curious to know why you fancy ostrich's egg? [11] I would be happy if you indef my account which has served its purpose. Blurbarium 16:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
New Hkelkar sockpuppet
Please take a look into this new puppet.Anwar 18:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I saw that you have previously removed a speedy tag on this article. Having just cleaned up the article (per the cleanup tag), and investigating some of the claims which would have generated notability, I have found that they are unsubstantiated by other sources. Specifically, the newspapers which have written her up are not themselves notable, and the article about the award she allegedly won does not corroborate that claim. If you can still identify any claims to notability please let me know, otherwise I will leave the tag there. Cheers. Jdcooper 17:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Sock puppet
Would you like to look at a sock puppet investigation, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram, and see if it makes sense? Jehochman Talk 20:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Two posts removed from ANI
I've deleted the post that was here - you may want to check your history but I don't think you'll want it on your talk page. Kelpin 18:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Sock Puppet
I wonder if I could ask for your advice. Another user has been accusing me of being a sock puppet both here [12] and here [13] I have asked him to make a formal complaint or withdraw the comment (I have even suggested that as you blocked me last time he might want to make the complaint to yourself) but he refuses to do both. I don't want to make an issue out of this, but I also don't want to get a reputation on Wikipedia for being a sock puppeteer. Can you suggest how I should approach this? Thanks. Kelpin 18:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
New Hkelkar sockpuppets
- User:Kahifarr revert warring here and here
- User:Kihim_barr revert warring here and here
- User:Bazaar4568 revert warring here
- User:Heavyweightlifter revert warring here and here
- User:KnowledgeHegemony
- User:Maya Rudolph revert warring here and here
Anwar 14:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Help needed regarding block
I would be greatly obliged if you can help me in this issue.I was told to approach you as you were one of the impartial admins.I was blocked for something that was posted in my talk page which is the last place I would put something for others to see..[14].I came from one country to another with a group of students even my IP address belongs to my University.I have edited allowed my computer to be used by others and also university computers are used by others students as well mainly for studies,listening music,email etc rarely for editing Wikipedia in both countries and the use of the computer also corresponded to our examination schedule.I believe one of the students may have the said ID.But now it is vacation all the students except me have left my University.It seems the concerned user is abroad ,I think to either California/Texas/Lousiana or India where most of my friends have gone and is appealing for a admin to check his case and has put the tag wrong.[15].Now how do I go about if he does not appeal his ban.I seek nothing ,I served my ban .I am not appealing his ban.It is between him and Wikipedia.My name is mentioned which I would like to clear after serving the ban.I just want my name removed from his userpage or a checkuser done.Now a self request is likely to be declined as per normal policy.Harlowraman 01:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
A question about Sockpuppet report procedure
Hi there. I got in touch simply because I saw you write on Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets a couple of times, so I assue you know the score about how cases are dealt with.
There is a case against me, and I know that I can't ask an admin to process the case. However I was wondering about two things.
1. Is it possible for you to either clear the current backlog so that my case can be dealt with faster by someone else, or for you to ask someone to clear the backlog but not my case?
2. A template was put on my talk page saying I had been accused of sockpuppetry. It linked to a list of points that mentioned here how if a checkuser request has to be made within 10 days I can remove the template - is that correct?
By the way, please reply on my talk page. Cheers, John Smith's 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your time. I have been doing other editing in the meanwhile, so will try to put this out of my mind more. :) John Smith's 17:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Ideogram banned, socks need blocking
Hi, I don't have admin powers, so you could block the confirmed socks of Ideogram? It will help remove the temptation for him to evade the ban. Thanks. - Jehochman Talk 04:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Agressive IP
Hi Akhilleus, I'd be very much obliged if you'd look into this for me. An aggressive IP is being extremely incivil on Talk:Men's rights. They have posted what I identify as an attack twice[16] [17]. I removed this and warned the IP the user was using at that time.[18] This user seems to be using at least a dynamic IP in Australia but maybe connected to a user making similar comments to Misandry using open proxies [19][20] (IPs 89.210.111.19 & 189.155.54.100 which have both been blocked). User:Edgarde identified these IPs as possible sock-puppets of the banned user Anacapa - I don't know whether they are or not. Can these comments be removed or am I wrong here--Cailil talk 13:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that Akhilleus, I just wanted to be sure I was doing the right thing--Cailil talk 15:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Request
I see you review SSP cases and just blocked User:Eeky. Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975? It's been languishing w/o attention. Several different ediitors have submitted evidence... IPSOS (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
My sockpuppetry allegations
Thanks you, for considering my applications. What confuses me is that the IP address still looks like an obvious sockpuppet supporting two editors who have used up their 3 reverts.
How should I report an obvious sockpuppet when I don't know who's using it?
BTW the sockpuppet User:72.220.146.66 has also technically broken WP:3RR although the first revert is one I've also had to do myself at [21]--Peter cohen 12:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
We've got a new obvious sock, User:Kremm. See [22]. IPSOS (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, they got two of them. We should have seen that one coming and semi-protected the AfD when the others were blocked. IPSOS (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Another one, Pleasereviewcarefully (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Check contribs for evidence. IPSOS (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
EdwinCasado
Was there any confirmation as to whether or not he was a sockpuppet? I thought the evidence was pretty strong. 64.131.205.111 02:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
So then why was my account taken away and his allowed to remain? I behaved far better and was a very good vandal hunter. I stated I would not use multiple accounts. I never used meatpuppets like he did. What was different?
With the evidence things can be implied but no admin stated that we confirm that this is him! 64.131.205.111 02:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppet case
Hi, i see you handled the sockpuppet case i made. I wanted to ask you, after the block expires and if similar edits continue, what should be done? -- LaNicoya •Talk• 03:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm curious, wouldn't getting a RFPP for a page be worse in the sense that it would be difficult to monitor the persons edits because they can simply make a new account, therefore escaping blocks?-- LaNicoya •Talk• 03:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Not severe, it is mainly trying to introduce wrong information, pushing pov, removing legitimate information which is sourced, things of that nature. Of course, before the first block it was worst, lack of civility, accusing editors (mainly myself) of being racist, ect. The user mostly focuses of the Nicaragua article (tourism section) and the El Salvador article.-- LaNicoya •Talk• 03:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Please edit MediaWiki:signupend
Can you please do me a favour? I'd like you, who is an admin, to edit that page, by adding a sentence saying that if the person who wish to register found that the desired name is already been registered, he/she/it may go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations to request for using that username, if that username has no log at all (Except user creation log). I make this request because once I've changed my name from Edmundkh, then re-register with that name. Now I'm regret for doing that, so I'd like to help the person who wish to register with that name.
Thanks for helping! --Edmund the King of the Woods! 03:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
I am grateful and honored to be still here, as you considered and decided justly in this case, having weighed all the evidence and my good faith. Actually, as I stated, when I registered here, due to my little knowledge of wiki rules, I used user:judgefloro, and them I registered this one, because I preferred this one and told User:FisherQueen that I would no longer use the first account; thus I consistently used this, but I committed a mistake in editing my own article and was warned by her, so I admitted the minor mistake, she re-wrote Florentino V. Floro. As to user User:Juanatoledo it is good that you blocked the account so that as I stated I do not know that one, and I submitted my own stance that many enemies and detractors had been pestering me using my name in other forums etc., and I concluded that I was used, without my knowledge.
Thanks again, and regard, good luck.
--Florentino floro 04:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for doing admin work.
I would like to thank you for the many hours of work you did Aug. 22-23 clearing up the backlog of sockpuppetry cases. This is the kind of work that helps keep Wikipedia running smoothly. --Coppertwig 23:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I add my thanks regarding the backlog, in particular the User:Jebbrady case (and that you took the trouble to help coach him on his talkpage). FYI, he's now the subject of this RFC/U. -- LisaSmall T/C 16:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Sock puppet work
Hi Akhilleus, and allow me add to the thanks you have been receiving for your work in clearing the backlogs. Thanks! I do have a question as well: You recently reviewed and blocked Eeky for being a sock puppet. Now Gamer Eek (talk · contribs) has appeared, and at even a passing glance it seems quite clear that this is another sock puppet of Eep². Does a whole new case need to be opened or do you have discretion to take action without that? Thanks in advance for any guidance you can offer. Cheers, --Paul Erik 01:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation—much appreciated! --Paul Erik 03:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Agressive IPs again
Hi Akhilleus, sorry to bother you with this again but the IPs at Talk:Men's rights are at it again.[23] I've removed the comments again and warned the latest one (User:211.28.114.219) with {{Uw-multipleIPs}}. If this continues should I bring it to WP:ANI?
Talk pages are not free speech zones
There's no need to make unsupported personal attacks on people on Wikipedia talk pages. That's not what talk pages are for. Discussion of source reliability can be made without inflammatory language. FCYTravis 04:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a platform to promote your personal grudges and religious biases. Quit monkeying around and behaving like a "maladroit hack".Bakaman 04:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)