Baseball Bugs (talk | contribs) |
Jinglesporjab (talk | contribs) →article deletion: Kingles: new section |
||
Line 148: | Line 148: | ||
It's a fake. Somebody pulled a fast one on the Library of Congress. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 08:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
It's a fake. Somebody pulled a fast one on the Library of Congress. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 08:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
:Not exactly a fake. It was a proposed design. It looks like a combination of the Minnesota and Arkansas state capitols - both of which were cities that the architect had lived in or visited at one time. There's a discussion about this at the Humanities reference desk. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 08:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
:Not exactly a fake. It was a proposed design. It looks like a combination of the Minnesota and Arkansas state capitols - both of which were cities that the architect had lived in or visited at one time. There's a discussion about this at the Humanities reference desk. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 08:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
== article deletion: Kingles == |
|||
You have recently removed my most recent article 'kingles' entirely, citing vandalism. I am offended by this as no information published on the page was false or made for any reason than to inform the public. Removing the article is nothing short of censorship, and the article should have been protected by the freedom of information act. |
|||
You seem to be dismissing the article as inaccurate just because it does not conform to your views of normality; the facts given on the page are just that, facts, and cannot be disproven. What you have done is bordering on illegal, a you are taking away my right to publish information, and the public's right to view this information. |
|||
If the article is restored then I will not take any further action. Thank you, [[User:Jinglesporjab|Jinglesporjab]] ([[User talk:Jinglesporjab|talk]]) 12:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:00, 1 September 2009
- I will probably reply here.
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 15 sections are present. |
![]() |
---|
8 June 2024 |
- Categorize: WP:UBLP
- Check new BLPs: WP:NEWBLP
- Participate in AFDs: BLP AFDs
- Help resolve content issues: WP:BLP/N
- Monitor recent changes to BLPs: BLP watchlist
- Remove BLP vios: WP:BLPFIX, Unsourced statements, All unreferenced BLPs, BLPs lacking sources
Possible vandalism or libelous edits, as detected by edit filters 39 and 189. Removal of Category:Living people (filter 117)
Sock Puppet Tags
Why haven't you placed any sock puppet tags on the accounts of the user for this case? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Tagging isn't always done if the case does not involve multiple accounts. In this case I have tagged it, since you asked. Cheers, — Jake Wartenberg 20:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
deletion of page for jeff titus created by brian
Hi Jake,
My name is Jeff Titus. I just received an email through my info@jefftitus.com address from a fan named Brian in Seattle, WA (is it good netiquette to share email addresses here, I'm happy to do so).
He said that he tried to start a page on Wikipedia.org about me (he sent me a link to earlier and it didn't even have a photo of me or much content). It was almost immediately deleted due to "sock puppetry". He sent me your name in a screenshot as the person who was recorded as deleting the page.
I'm not worried about being listed on wikipedia, necessarily, although I am certainly referenced on Michael Manring's page ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Manring</ref> under his Discography / Collaborations section. I thought that perhaps one day my guitar playing and recorded works would one day, in fact, merit a mention. I just finished a short stint of concerts with Alex de Grassi and Michael Manring, which was an honor, but I'm definitely not as well-known as either of them.
Regardless, I'm not sure there is anything that can be done, but as he did contact me about it and I am honored by his attempt, I thought I would follow-up with you directly and ask if there's anything that would allow him to post the page in some other form as it would clearly benefit me when people are looking for more info about my music.
Thanks for keeping it real on Wikipedia. I'm sure your action was totally appropriate. :)
Best wishes and thanks for your time,
Jeff Titus Jeff (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your understanding. Unfortunately, the tone of the article was not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. It was also not in compliance with our licensing policy, having been taken from here. There was some confusion, as the behavior of the account your fan was using was similar some other ones, and we have a policy prohibiting use of multiple accounts by one user to avoid scrutiny. If your fan would like to create an article about you, he should read our notability guideline for musicians and then do so from scratch. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 02:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The User page spammer SPI page
Hello, regarding that SPI page, the fact that they were using proxies shows clear bad faith and I am concerned this is a shared spamming tactic. How can we address this? This activity is ongoing (eg [1]) Triplestop x3 20:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- That looks like a possible article to me, and besides it is in userspace. You could take the subpage to MfD if you want, but there is nothing blockable. — Jake Wartenberg 20:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 20:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations
Belated congrats on your recent adminship, Jake! 𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 talk 00:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Blythe
The info I posted is all factual thus far. Needs clean up and formatting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedTomKidd (talk • contribs) 01:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Any particular reason you decided to block before he responded, despite my clear choice to wait until he did? ÷seresin 03:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Someone brought it to my attention, and I thought 30 days had been enough time. Please feel free to unblock if you disagree with my action. — Jake Wartenberg 03:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Someone brought it to your attention. I am going to read that as: IRC machinations. Anyway, I'm not going to unblock, but it's on you now. ÷seresin 08:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Sock Puppetry Accusations
Hi Jake,
My name is Diligence 5960. I was recently accused of sock puppetry for adding a comment on Glenn Beck's page. This comment (which has since been removed by a different editor) was a simple statement saying that if we include a controversy section on this page, we should do it for all political commentators. Two other editors are included in this charge who I have not even heard of prior to this incident. I became a member of Wikipedia about a month ago and have only one account, but I have only edited by including that one comment. I was pretty much at the level at learning how to edit, hence the reason for the delayed amount of time between creating an account and editing my first discussion. I do feel that the charges are not in bad faith, but that they are false; at least on my end. How would I go about proving that the charges are false, and that I am innocent? Thank you for your time. Diligence 5960 (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Diligence 5960 11:12 (EST) 27 August 2009
- Sorry, the comment I posted was not deleted. My mistake.Diligence 5960 (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- There isn't a good way to prove your innocence, but fortunately you are innocent until proven guilty. I don't expect anything to come of the case. — Jake Wartenberg 17:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
SockmonkeyGee
You asked me to report additional cases on the original sockpuppet's page. He's back. How? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've taken care of it. I'll have a checkuser done, too. — Jake Wartenberg 23:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:TW
Per what policy was this shortcut deleteable? It's making a bunch of red links in edit summaries now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just came by to ask the same thing. Amalthea 21:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm just pile-on at this point. Thanks for restoring it. — Σxplicit 21:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I was using an autodelete script; I must have clicked a wrong link. I hope it didn't cause too much disruption. — Jake Wartenberg 21:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, alright, thanks. Might want to tweak that script though, a deletion summary of "per speedy deletion policy" isn't particularly helpful for newbie editors. Cheers, Amalthea 21:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Right, that's just the default. I didn't realize I had actually done anything. — Jake Wartenberg 21:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, alright, thanks. Might want to tweak that script though, a deletion summary of "per speedy deletion policy" isn't particularly helpful for newbie editors. Cheers, Amalthea 21:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I was using an autodelete script; I must have clicked a wrong link. I hope it didn't cause too much disruption. — Jake Wartenberg 21:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm just pile-on at this point. Thanks for restoring it. — Σxplicit 21:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
User:76.120.151.113's weird re-categorising
Thanks for helping with the mass-reverts. I'm still baffled as to that user's activities: it's not quite disruptive enough for vandalism, but shows a single-minded bizarre determination. I dunno, someone really OCD? Thanks for the help! MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Talk Page
Hello Jake, may I remove the sock puppet accusation off of my talk page? Thank you. Diligence 5960 (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Most definitely. — Jake Wartenberg 01:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Merged pics
Just wanted to say I love the Jimmy goes swimming comp, except the first image isn't obviously the one used for the merge. It think it would be clearer and more impacting if you cropped and flipped File:Atul Chitnis and Jimmy Wales.jpg, maybe even colour corrected it too. I know all that stuff is part of the manipulation but it needs to be more obvious than it is at present. Cheers, mikaultalk 03:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Help?
Hey, Jake..
I've managed to get myself into what seems like the beginning of a dispute meditation scenario. I am not a mediator. I do not believe (from what I have seen through my own cursory investigations) that this dispute can be resolved via our mediation process. Although I am not biased myself toward any of the parties involved, I cannot help but feel that while User:Xenos2008 edits in good faith, their edits are biased to the point of violating NPOV, to say the least. Now, I don't really believe that these edits constitute vandalism, per se, but do believe that on the whole these edits are nonconstructive. I have no clue what ought to be done about this, so I pass the buck to you. Advice? Action? Ignore? Should, perhaps, based on my edits, I become a mediator?
Clueless,𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 talk 03:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
A request
Respected Sir/Madam,
Since you were involved in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Heliosphere/Archive so please help
I would like to point towards an injustice which happened in the past. 3 editors were blocked as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurbinder_singh1. I along with some unknown innocent editor User: Gurbinder_singh1 were blocked in this RFC, i.e. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurbinder_singh1 because no check-user investigation was done at that time. An administrator User: Nathan later documented that User: Gurbinder_singh1 was totally un-related to this case but it appears that no one has cared to unblock him and clear out his blocking history.
Actually, User: Morbid Fairy kept violating Wikipedia policies so he was later caught per ‘’’my’’’ evidences[1] and hence a range block was implemented against his IP addresses and his user IDs (except one) were blocked as well [2].
User: Gurbinder_singh1 was lucky that his user account was finally investigated, and he was found innocent through check-user during User:Morbid Fairy’s new sockpuppet investigation[3]BUT even though it was me only who did days and days of research to expose User: Morbid Fairy aka User: Heliosphere[4] but no one has (check-user) investigated so far if I am sock of any of these guys.
Since a truth has come out, so please do justice and unblock an innocent editor User: Gurbinder_singh1 and please clear my blocking record as well. It hurts me all the time that some injustice had happened with me and other innocent editor and my IP was tagged with a blocking historyfor life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.210.210 (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Your recent blocking of User:IH8reggins
I only recently became an admin and you probably have lots more admin experience than I, but I happened to be looking at the edit which resulted in this block when it happened. I had just concluded that the edit didn't deserve a revert, and was wondering whether some of the other warnings on User_talk:IH8reggins were deserved when you blocked him indefinitely.
The reason given for the block is that the account is a vandalism-only account, but I've looked at the user's contributions and it looks to me as if two [2][3] of his eleven edits clearly deserve reversion/warning. this one should have made it clearer that the assertion re Francis was not WP's opinion, should have included a page-numbered supporting cite from the autobiography, and contained what looks like an inadvertant unclosed <ref>; this one should not have linked so prominently to that outside site (perhaps not at all); this one expressed a conclusion not supported by the preexisting cite. The remaining six look OK to me.
Am I missing something here? If not, I think you should reconsider your indefinite block -- perhaps a shorter block with some counseling on his talk page would be more appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Funny your message should start like it did—I've only been an admin for eight days. You are definitely right; I should have spent more time on this one. The "tiny penis" edit sure didn't look constructive at a glance, and when AIV fills up this late at night it can be quite tempting to go too fast. In any case, I've lifted the block. Let's just keep an eye on things for now. — Jake Wartenberg 05:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Montana State Capitol
It's a fake. Somebody pulled a fast one on the Library of Congress. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not exactly a fake. It was a proposed design. It looks like a combination of the Minnesota and Arkansas state capitols - both of which were cities that the architect had lived in or visited at one time. There's a discussion about this at the Humanities reference desk. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
article deletion: Kingles
You have recently removed my most recent article 'kingles' entirely, citing vandalism. I am offended by this as no information published on the page was false or made for any reason than to inform the public. Removing the article is nothing short of censorship, and the article should have been protected by the freedom of information act.
You seem to be dismissing the article as inaccurate just because it does not conform to your views of normality; the facts given on the page are just that, facts, and cannot be disproven. What you have done is bordering on illegal, a you are taking away my right to publish information, and the public's right to view this information.
If the article is restored then I will not take any further action. Thank you, Jinglesporjab (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive70#user:Heliosphere_at_Sikh_extremism
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Heliosphere/Archive
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Heliosphere/Archive
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive70#user:Heliosphere_at_Sikh_extremism