User talk:SchmuckyTheCat

This is some black text in an orange box with a blue link. (Water is wet.).

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave me messages or even flaming bags filled with poo.

At least 100 years ago I archived a few years worth of people's comments. And then I did it again! I'll keep doing it, over and over, as many times as I want to, as hard as I can. Then I gave up and started letting a bot do it.

I award you The Purple Star for getting a bad rap for being a good editor. I thank you for defending Wikipedia against sockpuppets and other vandals. Let's hope future Purple Hearts won't be necessary. - Jeffpw

		Defender of the Wiki
		I award SchmuckyTheCat the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for his fearless, persistent determination in upholding the light of knowledge in the face of overwhelming darkness and ignorance. —Viriditas | Talk 12:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:China

Taken to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood, add anything further if you wish. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

SPA title in NW:TW

I have created this account to show that the move for the PRC and the potential move ROC will create inconsistencies with numerous articles that are against Taiwan being a sovereign sate. I would only support the move if this line "Taiwan is a sovereign state" is not there because it's wrong. I am not die-hard ROC supporter but it's merely wrong. It will confuse the readers rather help them understand the issue. They will be confuse with the line "Taiwan is a sovereign state" and the purpose of Taiwanese independence. I would aid other topics but this issue has draw my attention. I don't need you to agree with me but that is my stance on this issue. If the ROC move is successful and mentions that line above, I will give up arguing this issue despite that it's wrong and implicating WP in supporting Taiwanese indepndence.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI re Huayu-Huayu

I agree the edit summary wasn’t the best, but I don’t think what happened rises to the level requiring admin action. I think Huayu-Huayu has received the point that civility could be improved. Anu objections if I close the ANI thread?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No, none. His editing area is running hot and it would be nice if others kept an eye on it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Well, that was interesting, maybe good I got distracted and didn't close.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. B^e——C_ritical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:HOUND

Hello SchmuckyTheCat:

I would like to point your attention to the Wikipedia policy WP:HOUND – and please note that is it not a guideline, like WP:MOS, which is a suggestion, but a policy, which is mandatory. To quote from it:

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. ... The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason.

I note that you have followed me to quite a number of articles which you have never edited before, in order to undo formatting edits which I made which differ from the MOS, but which nonetheless improve the visual look of these articles -- but which you, personally, disagree with. I would appreciate it if you would stop this behavior, which I do indeed find to be an unenjoyable part of my Wikipedia experience. If you do not stop this activity voluntarily , I will be forced to compile a list of these articles, showing my first edit to the article, my most recent edit, your first edit, and your action. It will show, as I'm sure that you are well aware, that you come to articles which I have edited specfically to undo my formatting edit. I would then take this evidence to an admin in order to have them take steps to cause you to cease hounding my edits.

It does not have to come to that. We can resolve this without resorting to such an extreme. I have not followed you around, and I do not intend to. You can go about your business making the edits which you believe will improve the encyclopedia, as will I. All you need to do is to stop following my edits, and breaking policy in order to enforce a non-mandatory guideline.

Thank you.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Follow up

I know you deal with socks quite a bit, so is there someone that deals with ISP relations locally? I'd really prefer to nip this in the bud now rather than have to log back on to find a wave of socks. Nightw 22:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abuse response, but they generally want a more egregious case. This may count as an exception considering he claims to have access to a /10 IP range to abuse from. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Ok, thanks. I'll get them to take a look at it just to see what they think. Nightw 22:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. Looks red-tapey. I'll get on it if it comes back after protection has expired. Nightw 23:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I imagine though that the admins who follow and act on that page have quite a bit of experience. You might ask one for advice and to watchlist the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Seems to be the same guy. Made a report on WP:3RRNB. Thanks for keeping an eye on it! Nightw 15:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

GDP by Country

I am asking you to call for a consensus vote on the issue of the inclusion of the EU in a list of Countries. Each vote must be tagged by place of birth. Can you make this happen? 75.194.236.73 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: discussion here and RFC already exists here.

Wikipedia discusses, not votes. A consensus vote is an RFC, and there already is one. Tagging commenters by nationality or birthplace is not going to happen. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Trolls and the Taiwan move discussion

Who, aside from User:Instantnood (and their various Hong Kong IP's) do you think is a banned user who has participated in the discussion? Additionally which other pages do you think the discussion needed to be listed on? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

PS It seems I missed User:Huayu-Huayu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). But who else have they used as a sock in the Taiwan (disambiguation) discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop your persistent unexplained removal of the {{fooian fooers}} template from Macau categories. This is vandalism. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What is being removed is the CFR tag without accompanying discussion. You know this as you always hide your bad edits with something neutral and then complain about the neutral part. Go away sockpuppet. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

218.250.159.25

Hi Schmucky; you seem very sure that 218.250.159.25 is a sock puppet of some sort. While several other IP's from Hong Kong (which are clearly SPA's) have similar voting records.. do you have any other evidence that justifies 218.250.159.25 being a sock puppet (and of whom)? Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably most of the Hong Kong IP's are the same user :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

For whatever reason, Hong Kong has a lot of puppetry going on. It also has IP editors unwilling to get a username and ISPs who proxycache which makes those IP editors consistent to follow. For a city of 7 Million, it has about 500% more representation on EN Wikipedia than any other territory in Asia.

I don't think that level of participation in Wikipedia is really that high, but most IP edits aren't that big of an issue until the big political battles start. When all of those IPs rally to a cause we have no way to differentiate which are good faith, and which are not. There is a mix of both.

Now, 218.250.159.25, is a sock of User:Instantnood. IMHO, other editors often see a bunch of contentious edits from an HK ISP and point it at him. Sometimes they are right, and sometimes wrong. Even when identified wrong, it doesn't bug me much because a variant thinking of WP:DUCK is that someone who edits so alike to someone banned it doesn't hurt to block them too.

In this case though, it is an obvious case:

• He writes like him. I communicated with Instantnood offsite and onsite saw him argue and filibuster talk pages for years. His English has some very obvious peculiarities once you recognize them.
• Bot-like tackling of hundreds of similar edits in a single session.
• Focusing POV edits into presentation issues like stubs, templates, and categories. If those stick, it has the largest "win" by covering many articles (potentially hundreds to thousands)
• Constant spam, rebuttal, and filibustering on every discussion everywhere related to the battle of the moment.
• Revert warring is part of it, but isn't really necessary to recognize him. Neither is violation of other WP policies. He's learned to be entirely disruptive while strictly following rules. Eventually ArbCom said "Enough." and that was the end.

At one point, I believe he edited in good faith, even though it was severely disruptive. If he mailed me and asked to correct something, I often would. Then at some point there was a disruptive username, and CheckUser was ran, and they found a big huge nest of sockpuppetry with accounts going back years. Some were still active. Others he'd created, made innocent edits, then let them go idle until he needed a new account. I lost my AGF after that.

So tl;dr - an abusive HK IP address is not necessarily Instantnood, but once you see other characteristics, they become recognizable fairly easily.

SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

500% is pretty high - at first glance I would expect it to be roughly the same edit rate as Singapore, so you'd expect it to be about 50% higher overall. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

500% is ex-recto, don't quote me on it, but the point is that that the number of HK editors is extremely disproportionate. Not all of those are individuals. You're right about Spore. Spore editors care about sinosphere articles too, half their mums taught them the family language and culture. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Given that this editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet, do you think it is appropriate to remove his "contributions" to Britons in Hong Kong [1] (see also Talk:Britons in Hong Kong)? I have my own (quite virulent, as you can see) point of view on this matter but I'd appreciate the opinion of other Hong Kong editors. Thanks for your help, 61.18.190.15 (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinions on that article but contributions from banned users may be removed by anyone. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, B^e——C_ritical 22:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD for Santorum (disambiguation)

I'm having the experience of wading into a tidal wave. The further I look into answering your questions, the more I find that I don't have answers. In the spirit of AfD, I will come up with responses for your questions. However, it is unlikely that I will within the next 12 hours or so. I am leaving this note to let you know that I am not just brushing off your valid arguments, but rather that I am researching and likely sleeping. Having (intentionally) stayed relatively a-political for the last few months, I didn't realize the traction that this issue had gained on WP. I remain confident that there is a way to address the issues involved without compromising the project, but the case of a well known and (at least by me) relatively well respected public commentator intentionally disrupting the public discourse is a test of how we respond as a project. I look forward to working with you to find an answer that honors what we are both up to here - even if that means withdrawing my delete for the dab page. Thank you for really holding my feet to the fire to come up with well-reasoned responses. I look forward to tomorrow. --Tgeairn (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh... Rocks are hard, and water is wet. --Tgeairn (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You owe me no duty to answer. I just put a pragmatic workaround ahead of holding to the letter of guidelines that don't work in this circumstance. WP is designed to be flexible just for this reason. Very few of the guidelines and policies look like they did when I first started editing years ago, but the spirit is the same. It's that flexibility that allows consensus and collaborative editing to function.

Don't worry about disrupting the public discourse. An article built on reliable sources is a notable subject. That subject should be reasonably simple to navigate to via title, redirect, categories, searching, et al. Let readers determine what they want to read and let them find it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hello, SchmuckyTheCat. You have new messages at BrownHairedGirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Orphaned non-free image File:Windows 98 RC0 Disk.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Windows 98 RC0 Disk.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to this local event!

Since you attended a Seattle Wikipedia meetup in the past I thought you might live in Seattle.

I would like to invite you to attend a Wikipedia meetup described on Wikipedia:Meetup/seattlewp. This meeting is scheduled for Tuesday 6 March 2012 at 7pm in Café Allegro. Thank you for your attention and I hope to see you there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)