User talk:Coelacan/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Response

I responded to your comment on my talkpage. --Valley2city₪‽ 07:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals

Thanks for the quick response --Steve (Stephen) talk 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course, it wasn't so much the talk page blanking as the disruption that wasn't going to go away. Thanks for clarifying. --Steve (Stephen) talk 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for protecting the ACN Inc. page. It seems there are some people with vested interests in keeping the page vague. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tristan.buckmaster (talk • contribs) 23:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks coelacan!

And re: This. As the proud father (and rabid feminist since her birth), of a strange, wonderful, beautiful, perfect and gay daughter, I can assure you that yes, women do have lives, and that sanity and tolerance will eventually prevail in this country. The dinosaurs will die off, they always do.

--killing sparrows (chirp!) 02:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniella Morris

Hello, I moved this page for capitalization and then came across the prior deletion discussion which you participated in. Can you please use your mop to see if this page is a simple recreation vs. new content? --After Midnight 0001 04:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty close, and I strongly suspect that this is the same article author using a different username. However, the first article did not actually get deleted at that AFD; it was speedy deleted as {{db-author}}. So {{db-recreation}} wouldn't apply anyway (as WP:CSD#G4 only works if an XfD resulted in deletion). So, sigh, this probably has to go to AFD again. The sources still aren't "sources", for the same reasons I outlined in the old AFD. Do you want to do the honors, or shall I? — coelacan — 04:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter to me which of us does it, but it is after 1 AM here and I need sleep. You can feel free to do it if you have time, or I can deal with it sometime tomorrow. --After Midnight 0001 05:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was my pleasure. (No kidding! Amusing to say the least.) — coelacan — 08:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thanks for informing me. How can I make the articles on Kendall Gaveck and Daniella Morris better? They both are notable especially on IMDB which is an official movie database. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsaybabay (talk • contribs) 15:33, 24 April 2007

Reporting Vandalism

You said a user can't be blocked until their last warning. Who has the authority to give a last warning? CJ 10:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading this conversation between you and CJ. Sorry to intrude but I wanted to ask you another question, if you don't mind... I have seen in the past conflicting instances of the following situation. An anon IP vandal (for example) goes on and on until they amass the test4/final warning, then the IP stops. Then, maybe a few weeks later, the IP vandalizes again. I've noticed at AIV that sometimes different things happen. Sometimes I have seen the IP user blocked immediately, and sometimes the IP is not blocked (with the reasoning being that they have not vandalized for a few weeks since the final warning). I can see the logic in both actions, but I am uncomfortable with the fact that in the wording of test4, the IP user is warned that if they vandalize again, they will be blocked. (Sorry for the long preamble) My actual question is, is there a firm policy about this? Should an administrator block after vandalism occurs after the final warning, even if that vandalism occurs maybe months later? Thanks for any insight you can give. κaτaʟavenoTC 17:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No firm policy on it. If they haven't vandalized for months, the admin may be thinking that the person who's doing the vandalism hasn't seen the warnings. It's all admin discretion and we have different opinions about appropriate block times and lengths since last warning (within the last week is commonly seen as recent enough). If you see a school or other repeat vandal that has been blocked multiple times already, nobody's going to yell at you if you add {{repeat vandal}} to the top of the talk page, which will make a block more likely next time. — coelacan — 17:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I figured it was something like that. I was asking about it because I usually post the vandal on AIV at the very next incident of vandalism after final warning, even if it's months later. κaτaʟavenoTC 19:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's an IP with a long block record but no warning in a month, someone might block if you make a note of the block record when making the AIV report. — coelacan — 19:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged. Thanks again for all your info. It helps. κaτaʟavenoTC 13:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Well, I won't be closing AfDs, as I find them terribly boring, but MfDs are more interesting. I'm sure I won't close any straight away (unless if it was unanimous, and therefore uncontroversial), but rather wait until I feel more comfortable with the process. Hope I answered clearly; please feel free to ask more questions. · AndonicO Talk 10:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft IP Blocked

Hi Coelacan, Thanks for your concern. I didnt find a significant change (some "and" was changed). So, I guess you can remove the block upon our company's IP. I can try to follow it up if one of my friend wanted to play around with.

Balajiviswanathan 01:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was pretty much surprized when one of my coworkers pointed out this to me and they were jokingly putting all the blame on me for this and so I messaged immediately. Since we have over 50000 users with this IP, we dont have much mechanisms for policing this ourself, unless there is also a way to get MAC address or something of the edit to get the actual person who did this.

Balajiviswanathan 02:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Help

Hi Coelacan - on the Al Franken page we have one editor and an IP (possibly the same person?) who continue to put in unsourced POV statements into the article, with a citation that doesn't support those statements. The User has been warned, and it's now just vandalism. Can you please put a block in? They have already violated the 3RR rule to put these statements in, and been warned several times. It is User:Hughey. --David Shankbone 15:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response on Al Franken. I am not the submitter of the material in question. My part has been only to revert the removals by David Shankbone and another. The removal by them seems in violation of the vandalism policy. For clarity, I realize where I erred, here, in as much as too many reverts. Still, that does not excuse their behavior. Hughey 16:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hughey, our behavior was correct. You had not checked the article in question. I was the original person who put the "Issues" section in there, using the article in question. I knew it didn't say what you kept inserting. Had you read the article, you would have seen this as well. I also directed you to the talk page of User:Croctotheface so that you could read the article yourself. I understand you're new, but there was nothing wrong with the behavior three editors who reverted the addition of this material; especially, you know, since we read the article in question. --David Shankbone 19:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Cheney

Regarding your revert of the Dennis Kucinich claim. The cite did lead to Rep Kucinich’s home page but in itself the connection to Impeachment is non-existent. The House Resolution that he claims to have authored (HR 333) has nothing to do with Cheney or impeachment. I did a little research and HR 333 is relative to an amendment of Title 11 of the US Code. It was authored by Rep. George Gekas [2]. Hughey 18:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually refered to the 109th Congress HR 333. My mistake. You're right it was added confusion. Hughey 18:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy Coord?

If you don't have enough to do on Wikipedia (that's a joke! :), why not sign up to be a deputy coordinator? I think you'd be great at it! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to studiously avoid that. Thanks for the suggestion, though. I'm a mite too busy irl to pick up anything else on wiki. — coelacan — 19:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thecheez@hotmail.com

Sorry to be a pain, but you blocked the above user for having an @ in the name, but the user created this account before it came into policy and WP:U specifically says that these are still allowed. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thank you very much for bringing that to my attention, Ryan. It was reported on AIV, but I'll have to remember to check the account creation log next time. — coelacan — 20:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it was, I was removing it when you blocked it - I'll have to be quicker next time :-) (don't think I was trawling through your logs!) Ryan Postlethwaite 20:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you happen to know offhand when the policy was changed? WP:U just says "established" but that'll mean something rather different a year from now... — coelacan — 20:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to date, but I know when it was changed, the software was changed at the same time so usernames with @ couldn't actually be created. You could trawl through the history! (I would but I've got very limited internet connection). Ryan Postlethwaite 20:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well, then basically we just don't block these usernames. — coelacan — 20:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wp:aiv

Oh, sorry about that, I wasn't aware that the bots read particular templates. I don't like to use vandal templates when the activities are not really vandalism (such as name problems). I'll use userlinks from now on. Thanks for letting me know. Corvus cornix 21:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD notice

Only because I saw that you have used it at least once, I've nominated {{db-product}} for deletion at templates for deletion due to its misleading nature regarding products and A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Matthew Oakley

This isn't like me at all, but I'm going to ask for clemency. The guy had a couple of good edits, some time away and then some vandalism (how did you find it, btw? I thought I'd reverted it all!). With some care, he could become a useful contributor. Would you consider unblocking? If he comes back to vandalise, I'll look silly, but he could always vandalise as an anon... and I'm keen on trying to retain him as a useful contributor. --Dweller 16:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's going to be indef-blocked for username anyway, because he can't play Matthew Oakley. Normally I'd have left account creation enabled, but the vandalism convinced me to turn it off. Do you want me to change it to a {{usernameblock}} and enable account creation? I'm willing to do so, if that's what you'd like. — coelacan — 16:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be kind. Up to you... you've more experience in this than I do... I just stack em up at AIV, you're one of the folks that knocks em down! lol. --Dweller 16:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Have fun with that one. =P — coelacan — 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What'd the copyright status be on this image?

Just another quick query; what would the copyright be on this image (http://www.chemistry.msu.edu/Portraits/images/ingoldc.jpg), and if it's not available, are there any others that'd qualify? ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 17:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, but i think it'd be a good image to illustrate his page; Christopher Kelk Ingold ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 18:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that John D. Roberts was the photographer [3]. The information was supposedly here, but the ultra-reliable aspx can't provide the page. [4] ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 18:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 81.78.68.197 (talk · contribs)

I was looking at that report and it doesn't look quite like vandalism, more like a clumsy attempt to introduce a new article on someone with the same name. —dgiestc 06:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like pure vandalism to me. Google says there is no "Jade Goody" who wrote a book called "A Beautiful Pig", nor any "Beautiful Pig" winning a Booker Prize, nor any Jade Goody winning a Booker Prize. They do have the unblock template if they want to use it, and they're getting the orange bars, because they've blanked the page already. ··coelacan 06:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe your nonsense detector is more sensitive than mine... —dgiestc 06:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked one more thing too, there's no Jade Goody who writes for The Economist. So imo that seals it. ··coelacan 07:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On closer examination, it's definitely a load of horseshit. —dgiestc 07:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image thing

No thanks, i've already resized the image myself :-) [5] ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 06:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Sorry, i'll change it. I think i copied and pasted it from somewhere. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 08:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the last two blocks, it seems like they would never stop. Keep up the good work! --Nehrams2020 08:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually do it with other templates, but have been forgetting to do it with the vandalism ones recently. Oh well, thanks for the tip. --Nehrams2020 08:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I went to bed for the night. Too much vandal fighting and early school classes. Yeah, every once in a while I'll look at the recent changes and show IP addresses only. But I revert vandalism on a lot of the hundreds of pages in my watchlist everyday. --Nehrams2020 20:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI block

Thank you. --Dweller 09:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I expect I won't be the last to have to do this. But yeah, it was about time you brought it back to ANI. ··coelacan 09:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AVI report

I gave the final warning, then realised that another user had already placed a final warning on the user's talk page, as my warning was the second final warning, I decided to file a report. Aiyda Smaiyda 17:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my mistake, sorry Aiyda Smaiyda 17:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

123456677899djahgiduahbmrhbebht (talk · contribs)

Hey, I may be missing something but given this account doesn't seem to have edited, did you mean to disable account creation and autoblock their IP address? The name is nonsense but that kinda seems a bit harsh... WjBscribe 19:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the block log. I misfired the first time, unblocked, and reblocked allowing account creation and without autoblock. I also made sure that no active autoblock on any IP had been initiated in the meantime. Should have all taken place within a few minutes. Did I overlook something when fixing it? ··coelacan 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have lifted this autoblock:

  • 18:39, April 27, 2007, Coelacan (Talk | contribs | block) blocked #481048 (expires 18:39, April 28, 2007, account creation blocked) (Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "123456677899djahgiduahbmrhbebht". The reason given for 123456677899djahgiduahbmrhbebht's block is: "{{usernameblock}}".) (Unblock)

It still listed by the autoblock finder tool [6]. WjBscribe 20:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's really weird. I checked the autoblock tool with that username once and nothing came up. =( ··coelacan 20:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another weird thing is I had to unblock twice in order to change the block. Even though the log shows unblocked at 18:39, I couldn't reblock to change the parameters. Anyway, thanks for showing me that. Maybe there's a lag in the autoblock tool? ··coelacan 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think autoblocks show up until after someone tries to edit with the IP and is actually autoblocked. Did you lift any autoblocks after the unblock of the account? Not sure about the unblock glitch though. WjBscribe 21:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I first checked (probably close to 18:43), I saw no autoblock to lift. Now I'm a mite confused about what exactly happened. I have now lifted the autoblock though. ··coelacan 21:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you did :-) (lifted autoblocks are crossed out on the tool [7]). Don't worry about it - no one complained about being autoblocked. Guess its worth checking the tool every now and again to see what shows up against our accounts (and letting each other know if we see an autoblock that looks odd from another admin)... WjBscribe 21:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Although with a name like that, I do expect that their new account will be vandalism-only. ;-) ··coelacan 21:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs on AN3

Fixed. Thanks for catchintg that. MSJapan 02:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thank You

Thank you for providing me links and information on how to properly report someone who violates 3RR. This was the first time I've ever seen a need to report a user for it, and I appreciate your clarifications. MelicansMatkin 04:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thanks MelicansMatkin 06:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do MelicansMatkin 07:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 3RR report

From WP:3RR#What_is_a_revert.3F: An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted.

Thanks for reviewing this. FeloniousMonk 06:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters much now, but I just saw your question on Feloniousmonk's talk page, and as a matter of fact I was not aware of the 3 revert rule until after I had broken. After that, I tried very carefully to avoid breaking it, but figured I was going to spend time in the penalty box for it in any case. Frjohnwhiteford 03:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for declining the misleading report regarding 3rr. I had to reach my 3rr limit due to the group trolling activity in that particular article. From the diffs you can see that I am just adding back cited content with reputed sources. Thanks once again. Praveen 19:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you see the history of editing, I am not the only one who is reverting the "cited content removal". User Venu62 reverted it. Even though he has not reverted, User Aadal has expressed his opposition to this content removal. These edits are pertaining to Ancient Tamil music's contribution to Carnatic music.
Could you please check the block log of all the users involved in the 'revert war'? Praveen 20:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you know

i won in both of my arguments, which is why i had been blocked. I was fighting with 3 admins and 4 users. All of them did not want to follow consensus on the project page for the Glock_19 and Walther_P22. I fought strong and was blocked 3 times by admins who were involved in tyhe dispute, even though they claimed they weren't you can see in their editing histories, they were.


I was blocked for calling somoene a vandal, and yet here [8] a user can say I am falsifying information on my page and I am lying about credits??? and there is "no such business as cine group east"

Amazing www.CineGroupEast.com

This person also goes on to claim I am 2 other ip addresses and users on wikipedia and yet he shows no proof, he never has, and never will, because my first visit here was to fix an article on the hd110u a camera we use here.

I'd expect a block, but you know, it's wikipedia so no one really cares about rules, they just find a punching bag and jump on the bandwagon. It's so much easier to fook with a person who is making waves and trying to do the right thing if you see other people doing it.

That is my entire issue.

CINEGroup 20:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No comment yet at all regarding this? It's amazing how an editor can go to an admin and say "He called me a vandal" and I'm blocked for 24 hours, yet osmoene can say I post false information on my page, I'm a banned user, I don't own a business and I'm lying about it all and they can walk away clean. CINEGroup 20:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for the behaviour outlined in this archived thread, and for 3RR as outlined in this closed thread. What exactly do you take issue with, in regards to these blocks? And are you asking that Ispy1981 be blocked for questioning whether your userpage is accurate? ··coelacan 21:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
blocked by dina, and within minutes of the block the article was reverted, MiFeinberg and asmas10 was labeled a vandal and the article was reverted to MY edit BY the admin and the article was LOCKED. As Seen here Glock_19 and Walther_P22. It took my blocks (Which 3rr is not considered in effect when reverting clear vandalism, as it was defined by the talk pages on those 2 articles.)

Dina claimed she had no conflict of interest in the article, yet, go read her talk page, her, Asmas10 and ISpy, MiFeinberg are all very good buddies doing this to a number of users on wikipedia. CINEGroup 21:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's not asking, he is telling. Big difference. Yes, I take great offsense to it, read it in it's entirety. He is not questionging anything, he is making a statement that is not true and presenting it to others as if he had diligently researched it, which obviously, he didn't. This is the kind of bs editing that people should be getting warnings for. This is ISpy playing a game on wikipedia but I guess as usual, your a bandwagon admin, just jumping in when others are already bashing and you spend no time actually looking into the truth for yourself. CINEGroup 21:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

read this very very very well especially the email part: and notice, I posted that and told SWATJester who would show up , and guess whop did? Guess who left me a warning a few minutes on a different user account?

[9]

I just look dumb. CINEGroup 21:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I offered my assistance but if you're going to come here to insult me then I'm not interested in helping you. ··coelacan 21:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


btw want to see all 4in action including the admin?

[10]

bang bang bang bang.... Or do you think this is totally NORMAL for non sock accounts that just HAPPEN to follow each otehr around wikipedia and edit the exact same stuff? ALL within 10 minutes of each other, or do you really believe theyre are all at home talking on the telephone hahahaha.


CINEGroup 21:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I offered my assistance but if you're going to come here to insult me then I'm not interested in helping you. ··coelacan 21:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


and you never were interested in the first place. what separates a real admin from a joke admin is what they do with their responsibilites. I've shown you all the evidence, now which kind of admin are you. CINEGroup 21:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any obligations toward you or anyone here. I am a volunteer, and this is my hobby. My only responsibility as an admin is to not actively abuse the "protect", "delete", and "block" buttons. The extent to which I involve myself in any particular discussion or dispute is entirely my prerogative, and my interest in your problems has dropped to zero. Good bye. ··coelacan 21:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CRBR

User: CRBR Uh, Hello?! I just wanted to say, I had resources. But User:MelicansMatkin deleted them. So just pointing out, if theirs someone to blame, its him! Thanks for your time —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CRBR (talk • contribs).

I actually did. Just the user kept deleting the source. Then he's blaming me that I didn't have any source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CRBR (talk • contribs).

AN/I

That sure was some unnecessary disruption. Thanks for finally fixing it all. Picaroon (Talk) 23:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if I did, I was just lucky and fast. I still don't get how the GreenJoe thing showed up twice. But I see it's now problem solved for a while. ··coelacan 23:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image use

Hi There, I see you have been having loads of fun with your new adminship! Can images from other wikis be used here? I want to add this to the article on Widukind and the permissions on the image page say it is in the public domain. If so, does it need to be uploaded to our wiki or can it be linked directly to our page. Thanks!--killing sparrows (chirp!) 01:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magic - (well actually the pic is on Commons [1], all Commons images can be used on any Wikimedia project) WjBscribe 01:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi killing sparrows! I guess WjBscribe has already answered your question. I'll go into exhausting detail. =D If you find any images on other Wikmedia projects that have the Commons: logo, then the image is already on Commons and there will be a link near the Commons logo to the image's page there, in this case, Commons:Image:Widukind2 b.jpg. You just use them as though they are already on Wikipedia under that image name; see Commons:COM:FAQ#Technical questions. If you find an image on another Wikimedia project that isn't on Commons yet, but has a license that's libre as explained at Commons:COM:L, then you can move it over by basically following the guide at Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (if you don't speak the language on the other project, you don't have to figure out how to tag the old image for deletion though). ··coelacan 03:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I guess Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons is clearer than Commons:COM:FAQ#Technical questions. ··coelacan 03:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I've already put the image in the article. I want to add other images from de to en for German articles and some are not on Commons so I'll go to the pages you mentioned and read up on the procedure. I have an adoptee who edits on de and I've been helping copyedit her translations to en.wiki. What fun!--killing sparrows (chirp!) 04:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carnatic music disputes and the larger issues

Hi, there had been serious problems in reolving a number of issues in a host of articles. Carnatic music is just one of them. Please see the archived discussions in Carnatic music and you'll see that many editors (more than 8-10) have come at different times to fix the problems in the carnatic music page, but just a few of the editors are using group reverting tactics and thwarting any efforts to improve the article and they seem to project a narrow view. I've provided many authentic references including inscriptional evidences but in the name of 'content dispute' they are resorting to group-reverts. I had spent literally hundreds of hours and all have been nullified by this group of editors. I would be interested in RFC, or any other dipute resolution mechanisms (we tried this earlier as well!!), but the 3-4 editors continue to push their POV, instead of promoting NPOV. It is not just in Carnatic music it is happening, it happens in numerous other pages. The editors pushing for a POV in my view are - Sarvagnya and usually KNM, Srikris, and occasionally one or two more. Praveen may be trying to 'fight' alone now and Venu62 may be trying to 'fight' alone another time etc. Sarvagnya and his friends don't seem to appreciate that the contributions and content disputes are to be constructively worked out. Sorry for my long message, but I would greatly appreciate if you can advise the best way to solve this problem.--Aadal 04:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little busy at the moment; I will get back to you soon. ··coelacan 04:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you keep an eye on Asahi Shimbun?

I would think that DDRG's comments about his block should be indicative of his attitude towards the situation, and also a clear indicator of why this problem is never going to be resolved without intervention. MSJapan 05:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing and 3RR at passive smoking

Hi - I saw your warning to 124.168.82.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) regarding his/her edit-warring at passive smoking. S/he has continued to make the same reversion, and is now up to 4 reverts in <24 hours, all of which have been reverted by various users. I've reported him/her at the 3RR noticeboard, but if you're around it may be quicker if you take a look. Sorry to bug you. MastCell Talk 16:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind... it's been taken care of. Sorry to bother. MastCell Talk 18:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was out. Glad to see it's handled now though. ··coelacan 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strike outs

How about if I change the text that was struck out to a version where it doesn't have issues with trying to circumvent the truth by using "allegedly" and PoV everywhere? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fnagaton (talk • contribs) 19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Out of curiosity...

...did you get an "edit conflict" here? That's a bug we keep complaining about. (Don't worry, I know it wasn't intentional... I've been yelled at over this same thing) Antandrus (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! No, no edit conflict. In fact, I was using the little + sign to make a completely new section. I thought the software was supposed to handle the append automatically. =( ··coelacan 21:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism sections

Hi Coelacan, sorry to bother you. I have a quick question about criticism sections. I have an anon IP (from Poland) arguing that "criticism of criticism does not belong in articles" on talk gender studies and talk feminism. As I understand policy the IP user is incorrect about this. I've quoted the essay on Wikipedia:Criticism#Neutral_point_of_view: ""If there are valid counter-arguments to the criticisms, then these must be fairly included." Am I in the wrong here?--Cailil talk 22:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Disallowing rebuttals would enforce an arbitrary limit on the extent of WP:NPOV. Per NPOV we have to show all significant perspectives that can be reliably sourced (note "significant", we do not need to give undue weight to fringe views, and some for some very fringe views, any coverage more than zero is undue). ··coelacan 23:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coelacan, sorry to complicate things a bit more but Cailil clearly misrepresented my position. I didn't say that criticism of criticism doesn't belong in articles. I said that criticism of criticism specifically doesn't belong in criticism sections of articles, particularly when the criticism in question has a Wikipedia article of its own, where the criticism of that particular criticism natively belongs. In addition, a sentence that Cailil omitted when quoting Wikipedia:Criticism#Neutral_point_of_view expressly limits the scope of the quoted statement to "criticism articles" (i.e. separate articles created with the purpose of documenting exisiting notable criticism of a topic). I basically agree with this policy (except for my reservation about the "valid counter-arguments" wording) but it says nothing about criticism sections of articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.24.119.127 (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
User:83.24.119.127 I don't believe I did misrepresent either your position or the guideline. I don't agree that the guideline is "expressly limitted" to criticism articles as I have noted on the talk gender studies page. I understand the removal of balancing views from the criticism section to be the same as saying 'criticism of criticism does not belong' in these articles. (Perhaps in my first post here I should have used the words "to paraphrase" rather than inverted commas as they were not precisely your formula of words). I have recommended you request comment and if this issue excercises you so please go a head and RFC, I am more than happy to abide by consensus--Cailil talk 23:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "guideline" might have been misrepresented by you or not, but it is no longer a guideline. Wikipedia:Criticism has been demoted to an essay. As a result, no statements contained in it have any normative power whatsoever. (This also applies to wherever I might have quoted that document to support my position). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rulatir (talk • contribs) 05:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your handling of COFS

He was a problem user very frequently. Thanks for what you have done.--Fahrenheit451 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this OK

Hi there, It seems that User:Matthew Yeager is offering to adopt nearly every person on the list of users awaiting adoption and I see from comments on his talk page that he was warned about using some kind of a bot to deliver welcome messages. He is on the list of users offering to adopt, but every one of them? I have been starting some conversations on the adoption talk page about getting in touch with people who have been waiting, revitalizing the program and such and others talking about changing the template to list potential adoptees in chrono order but nothing by this person, no comments or announcement about these messages, nothing. I left a message on his talk page but I wonder if this is something that shoud be dealt with more swiftly. Thanks!--killing sparrows (chirp!) 04:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had prior dealings with Matthew- I'll have a word. He's very er - "enthusiastic". But this is a really bad idea... WjBscribe 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{edit conflict) He's probably going to get swamped. Anthony.bradbury and I were doing something like this at a much slower pace last month. Keep in mind that most of those users are never going to reply; they sign up and then they disappear. I was just going around and removing adoptme userboxes from users who'd been gone for several weeks; I was assuming they'd add them again if they ever return. This is probably the somewhat more polite and somewhat less sane way to do it. I don't know what to tell you except try to convince him not to do this again. ··coelacan 04:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left him a note and so did WJB, I think a few users have already accepted. I'll watch and if he gets swamped try and help him out.

Talk:Matt Sanchez

Hey, I'm going to be offline for a while and was hoping you could keep a vague eye on this page for me. I've had to edit protect the article due to edit warring and WP:BLP concerns. The subject edits Wikipedia as Bluemarine. It seems he is unhappy with the amount of detail in his article about his early life, when he was pornstar and escort in the early 90s (especially the M/M aspects of this). It does seem to be rather dominating the article for 5 years of his life. I've started discussions but will be away for a few hours. Could you possibly keep an eye to make sure things don't get heated? WjBscribe 05:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. ··coelacan 05:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. So we're acting for the "the far right wing" are we? Never been accused of that before. I'm a little annoyed that Mr Sancez has yet to participate in the talkpage discussion after all that. WjBscribe 04:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if I was still keeping my list of insults, that would be a new one, I think. Hopefully Matt is taking a bit of time to cool down. ··coelacan 07:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow- you gotta feel sorry for the guy... [11] WjBscribe 02:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Nixonian. I don't have to feel anything except self-satisfied smugness. =) And re your email, I feel you. But that's the way of teenagers. Drama has to come first. =/ ··coelacan 03:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Plaut

Thanks for your message. I have replied oon my own talk page, as well, noting that I had intended to submit the same checkuser/sockpuppet request. Whatever Jpgordon found, I am certain that these are linked accounts. I am sure that they also linked to User:Truthwinsout, who earlier made similar edits. In fact, they are very likely Plaut himself, or his associates; and probably linked to the User:Runtshit vandal who persistently defaces pages with abuse of me and others. RolandR 14:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

Thank you, Coelacan, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course.
Thank you once more,
· AndonicO Talk

Really? I'm allowed to do that?!?! ;-) · AndonicO Talk 17:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, in that case... · AndonicO Talk 17:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CineGroup

Please stop defending the blanking produced by a blocked user, whose death threats were made justifying his 3RR violation here. I have restored the text before CineGroup began his revert war; it probably should be shorter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you reverse my edit, done explicitly on the ground that CineGroup's revert war should not stand, then you do support him. Will you accept mediation (I think the Cabal; WP:Mediation's efforts are too easily torpedoed)? An offer is on the talk page; if it expresses doubt of editors' good faith, it's because no-one has acted in good faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply regarding Walther/Glock debate

Hello Coelacan, I'm aware of Griot's activities, as I have been monitoring the movements of members involved in this argument. I assure you that, whilst I am utterly sick and tired of this discussion, I intend to see it through to the end. The only way Wikipedia will ever be respected as an encyclopedic resource is if this project is handled in a professional manner and, as I've already stated in the discussion, Encyclopedia Britannica would certainly not have a "See Virginia Tech massacre" section at the bottom of a page pertaining to the Walther P22 or Glock 19 firearms. This one link (and others like it) determine whether or not Wikipedia can be relied upon as a professional educational resource, or whether it is perceived as a bunch of trivia and headlines tacked together and deemed important by the people who edit the articles. Cheers. Gamer Junkie 22:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with consensus issue?

Hello and sorry for causing a 3r block. I fully admit the circumstances, which have been extremely frustrating. I would like your suggestions on how best to proceed in gaining consensus in this particlar situation: As a student of Elizabethean history and a theatre professional for 30 years, I have come to investigate and participate in the Shakespeare Authorship Question. The frustration I am experiencing is that a group of editors - all vehement Stratfordians who oppose the very existance of the subject - insist on comparing the debate to Flat Earthers or Holocost survivors, thus labling it as a "fringe theory" and a "non question" and using those labels to delete any material that furthers the debate. When a debate has so many notable proponents [12] and [13], I don't think it is acceptable to label it "fringe". I thought that consensus was supposed to be a 'give and take' as you build. Unfortuantely, on the pages William Shakespeare and Shakespearean authorship question, these editors, who are clearly Stratfordian, are using the "consensus" standard to create a block, insisting on an all or nothing approach to their edits. For example, the group has recently forced a "consensus" of a particular version [14] and then upon gaining consensus, they inserted a different version [15] that is clearly different and further limited the information given to Wiki readers. The discussion is here at [16]. In fairness, I will add that several of the more minor changes were talked about on another talk page for another article, and somewhat of a consensus consensus was achieved. However a major change has been added that is not being defended. Here is the offending edit [17]. If you were an average wiki reader and wanted a quick introduction to the authorship debate, wouldn't you want to know who the clear frontrunner is? To delete this information and only present the Stratfordian POV I think breaks the spirit of Widipedia. How would you suggest I proceed? Thank you - and again - sorry for causing you extra work.Smatprt 05:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry I've been in and out lately and haven't looked at this yet. Let me go block some vandals and then take a look over the details here, and I'll get back to you soon (I'll reply on this page). ··coelacan 05:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I want to add that there are a number of decent editors that are not part of this. AndyJones and AlabamaBoy have, at least, tried to achieve consensus by honest give and take. Nunh-huh, Dreamguy, Paul B and Bishonen, however, are not even trying - only issuing ultimatums. I tried again to engage them today and they all refused to even answer [18], except with added scorn. I believe at least one is an administrator. Smatprt 05:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I am now seeing even simple MOS edits reverted.Smatprt 05:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - have you had any time to look at this? Thanks.Smatprt 23:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I never heard back from you. If it's nto too much trouble, I would still like your opinion on all this.Smatprt 16:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anacapa is back (again)

Hi Coelacan, I'm really sorry to bug you yet again but I just spotted the return of Anacapa (talk · contribs). As before they had been using a number of IPs during march and April but last night (April 30th) they reactivated their user account. They are engaged in a subtle POVpush on Talk:Shunning (where they have broken WP:AGF arguing that some editor are apologists for that practice) and are making the familiar long winded contriburtions. I've updatyed the report and I'm wondering if there's enough evidence to reopen at CN and should I engage Anacapa on their talk page directly (ie asking them if they are drop in editor)? I've just dropped a line to Durova about this too--Cailil talk 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cailil. I think it best if you do not approach them with the question. In my opinion you have already demonstrated it to be the case, so there's no reason to tip your hand. I will look into the actual edits being made. We want to propose a ban when the problem is blatant so that consensus will be strong. Keep in touch here; I'll go watch the user for a while. ··coelacan 11:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know Coelacan that's probably good advice becuase I missed it. I opened a CSN before reading this and I've also dropped a line to Anacapa. I uncovered bullying by them of User:SecondSight and a recent edit war at Shunning. This might not have been the best way to go about it I realize but I hope the evidence speaks for itself. Sorry if I've created a mess--Cailil talk 13:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coelacan, I have to admit I respect but don't really understand armedblowfish's response. If things don't work out I will suspend the request pending further evidence and further engagement with Anacapa. However I think it will be a while before they return. If they've seen my question on their talk page they may avoid using that account totally, or they'll wait for the CSN to close and then come after me (but I doubt they choose this option). Thanks for your advice, I'll review the situation tonight--Cailil talk 18:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Hi again, I'm taking your advice. I've made a suggestion that if Anacapa and their IPs are a)identified as 1 user and b) warned against disruption I will withdraw the request--Cailil talk 22:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glock 19

In my opinion, the matter of whether to link to the Virginia Tech massacre was not decided at the Glock 19 article. I see you've only been on Wikipedia for two weeks. Wikipedia being what it is, there is not official means of deciding these things. I submitted this matter in good faith to the mediation cabal. Let's see what disinterested parties have to say about it. Otherwise, we just keep chasing our tails... Griot 00:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking Pwok

Could you please look at what User:Bluemarine put on User:Pwok user page? Then could you please explain why this behavior results in blocking for Pwok, but no repercussions for Bluemarine? There's a real double-standard at work here. Some consistency would be much appreciated. Aatombomb 01:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a couple of days ago, and Bluemarine has been warned for civility in the meantime. It was not, in and of itself, such a vicious attack as to be a blockable offense. If you honestly compare what Pwok said on the article talk page just before I blocked, I think you'll agree the comments are a couple of degrees of magnitude apart. ··coelacan 07:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is really a joke. The Sanchez article is a travesty. Those who have worked on it are not editors, they are p.r. agents and censors. This whole thing has been a real eye-opener. Of course there is a double standard at work, when Wikipedia allows the subject of a negative article to edit that article, and cherry-picks blogs to insure that unverified (and unverifiable) material from a Christian evangelical ex-gay blog is included, while factual audio interviews are excluded.

Blogs that favor the controversial subject of the article were included, while the most authoritative source isn't even mentioned. Wikipedia "editors" solicited point-by-point comments, and then removed those comments when they weren't to their liking.

The "editors" of the article, which concerns a conservative spokesman who turned out to be a porn actor and a prostitute, have altered the article to refer to the reports of his prostitution -- which have be definitively PROVEN -- as "rumors," even though the article's subject acknowledged his prostitution in a nationally broadcast radio program and in an article under his own name in Salon.com. At the same time, they insured that material from an unverified "interview" by an evangelical "ex-gay" blog was included.

When I and others pointed out that none of this is true, one of the editors, a hack who goes by the name "Elonka," replied that Wikipedia is not in the business of telling the truth. That's for damn sure!

I never knew that Wikipedia was in the business of running a Nixonian whitewashing operation that flushes the truth down the toilet and calls it "neutrality." Wow, you people are scary good at telling lies. How much do you people get under the table for this sort of thing, anyway? Pwok 08:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newer users like Pwok often encounter frustration in attempting to navigate Wikipedia. His remarks ought to be seen in that light. I have not been around much to offer insight to him about the way in which we work.Wjhonson 18:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coelacan, it would appear that Pwok's behavior is starting to escalate again (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography and Talk:Matt Sanchez). If you have a moment, could you please take another look at the situation? Thanks, Elonka 07:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And User talk:Pwok.[19] --Elonka 08:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not about to read all that, I'm afraid. There's a huge volume of content that you're referring to in general on these pages. The diff you gave is rude but I'm not going to pile on him over that. I left a note on his talk page suggesting disengagement. Without other diffs, I wouldn't know what specifically to address. ··coelacan 09:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply regarding Walther debate

Thanks for contacting me. I don't have a preference if it is mentioned or not. My concern, which was addressed, was that the format should remain consistent. If you do one for Glock, you should do it for Walther. Someone addressed this by letting me know:

The formats differ because people are constantly editing, reverting, and re-reverting them. While there is no strict guide for where they should be, a separate 'trivia' section is wholly inappropriate. It should be mentioned under usage, history, or some similar heading.

I disagree with that, but if that's the way it is I can accept it. Still, there are a ton of articles with trivia sections. :) Pgrote 01:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about the debates as well. I put my late votes in. --Gloriamarie 01:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Wikiproject

I need your help sorting things out now that Dev is on a Wikibreak for her exams and Satyr is not back til May 8. In light of this I have:

  1. extended the deadline for nominations at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Coordinator/May 2007 until May 5
  2. assumed responsibility for running those elections

This should give time for new nominees and some publicity of the event. Unfortunately, the Newsletter wasn't even started until a few minutes ago, so I'd appreciate you help getting it up to a standard where we can send it out first thing tomorrow.
I am looking forward to the coordinator team taking over :-). WjBscribe 20:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've fucked it up so it needs be redelivered to the people I've done anyway. gr... WjBscribe 02:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when your happy with it. I'll work from the top and you can go from the bottom? WjBscribe 02:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I posted it in the wrong place on the first page and then copy-and-pasted. Sigh. I always mess up copy-and-paste. I once sent off a job application full of praise for how wonderful the competition were.... WjBscribe 03:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're done. Sigh. Thanks for the help :-). WjBscribe 03:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image use

Hi Coelacan, Long story short, an adoptee asked a general question about fair use. One response was a complete quote of the policy. I gave this simplified answer...

I'll give you a more basic answer, less complete but simpler. An image may qualify as fair use if used...
  • To illustrate the object in question.
  • Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.
An example might be a picture of a box of Cheerios. The box design/graphics is copyrighted and you can't copy the design for your new bargain breakfast cereal, Cheeperios, but you can use a low resolution image of the original box to illustrate the Cheerios article. The same 'fair use rationale' lets us use a low-resolution picture of the cover of a Harry Potter book or Star Wars video to illustrate those articles. One thing to remember about fair use is that fair use images can only be used on articles, you cannot use fair use images on user pages. If you have a specific image in mind, point a link to it and I'll take a look.--killing sparrows (chirp!) 14:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I just went to the Cheerios article and there is indeed an image of the box there, but the image is tagged 'public domain'! This is wrong. The person who took a picture of the box should have labelled it 'fair use'. Tammi, you can see that the various permissions for images are pretty complicated. if you have a specific image in mind it would be best to give us a link to it. There is also Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... page if we can't find an answer. I hope this helps you. Cheers!--killing sparrows (chirp!) 14:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Was I right that the Cheerios article image should be tagged fair use rather than public domain? Thanks!--killing sparrows (chirp!) 14:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct in everything you've said here. The Cheerios image, by the way, is what's known as a derivative work, and the information depicted therein is still copyrighted by General Mills.[20] Since it is copyrighted and not libre-licensed, it can only be used under fair use. You should go ahead and change the license tag on that image to {{product-cover}} or {{fair use in}}, if you're feeling up to dredging up a fair use rationale. Or tag it for WP:CSD#I6 if you'd rather not. ··coelacan 07:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, we actually have a {{cereal box cover}} template... ··coelacan 07:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was somewhat embarrassed that the example I used To explain the concept (plucked out of thin air) turned out to be tagged wrong! I'll use product cover. And as far as bad jokes go, well...--killing sparrows (chirp!) 07:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The person who uploaded the Cheerios photo also did the same for Grape-Nuts (which I will also retag), and has added photos to three other articles. The 'summary' for each photo is a link to a website for a photography studio. Uploader User:Diaphanous has no user page and no talk entries, is this Something Posing As Meat?--killing sparrows (chirp!) 08:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COFS and CSI LA

I have been investigating the block and editing of COFS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and CSI LA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have doublechecked the checkuser results which do indeed show some editing from shared ips. I have examined some of their edits and find them aggressive, but not that disruptive. The exception seems to be this exchange where it got pretty nasty. Obviously these are editors closely associated with Scientology which maintains a sort of headquarters in Los Angeles. CSI LA admits to being on staff. Anyway, I don't think an indefinite block is justified for a single instance of evading a block. How about shortening it to a week? Then taking them to dispute resoluton if you feel there is enough of a conflict of interest or other problem to justify action. The checkuser results are clear enough, but do not show a sustained pattern of using the socks for nefarious purposes. Fred Bauder 18:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the block review. As I initially said on ANI, I am not averse to reducing tbe blocks, but as there appeared to be clear abuse, I wanted to give time for matters to be clarified (intended as literally "indefinite", not necessarily "permanent"). I don't actually follow the discussion in the Scientology areas, so I wouldn't be one to bring up dispute resolution; I'll try to get input from those who do know the issues. As to these blocks, do you propose that both accounts be unblocked, or just the main one (User:COFS)? ··coelacan 00:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CSI LA is the one I'm talking to. I think they may be two different people anyway. So I guess both. Fred Bauder 01:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have asked the person who filed the RFCU to comment here, just so we'll know whether we're overlooking anything really horrible first, as I expect them to be familiar with the case. ··coelacan 01:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to notice behavior which led me to believe that there was one person based on general editing style and the peculiar pattern of editing. As to what if any punishment should be applied I had planned to leave up to the editors who have dealt with CSI LA/COFS the most. Would it be ok to invite their opinions here?
The manner of discussion employed by CSI LA/COFS doesn't bother me on a WP:NPA level, but others have made complaints. Anynobody 01:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if others are more familiar, please get their attention. I'm just trying to make sure I'm not overlooking anything really terrible before I reduce the blocks to one week. This isn't about "punishment" per se, as blocks are supposed to be preventative and not punitive. The CSI LA account doesn't seem to have gone further than the "Goebbels" comment, and I'm not looking for anyone to just air dirty laundry here but if there's a pattern of abuse from the COFS account that's not already reflected in the block log for 3RR, let me know. ··coelacan 01:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified the editors I think might be able to provide examples, and put together a couple of examples I've seen of COFS and CSI LA, beginning with the latter:
CSI LA
  • Accused a neutral sysop of taking a side for enforcing a one week block of Misou given you probably have access to checkuser, when you say Misou is on that IP I believe you.
  1. CSI LA advocating unblock of Misou, calls neutral sysop anti-Scientologist for not unblocking
  2. same as last diff but on WP:ANI.
  3. CSI LA advances notion that Misou was "set up"
COFS
  • The Sunday Times printed a statement given to them by the CoS, the entire article is enclosed in a pair of quotation marks indicating it is the words of Scientology rather than the Sunday Times (kind of like when Penthouse published the Unabomber manifesto). COFS insists they are the words of the paper itself, and reflect a retraction of a previous story without saying as much.
  1. [21]
  2. [22]
  3. [23]
  4. [24]
  • He tends to self rationlize ways that Hubbard's biography can reconcile the exagerrations with the actual history:
  1. COFS, using OR to reconcile Hubbard's story vs. how the government really works
Anynobody 03:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC) updated 05:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I remember the Misou thing on ANI. Pretty far out, as is the Sunday Times stuff. But, okay, what I see here is some wackyness that can be handled through normal dispute resolution if necessary (if consensus doesn't already favor ignoring the fringe stuff). I should have been more specific. What I'm trying to ask is, is there abuse of the sort that the blocking policy covers, that is not already reflected in past block logs? ··coelacan 05:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand I mean no disrespect to the person or persons in question when I say that yes indeed it does. If there is more than one person, I think they are using meatpuppet tactics. If there were really two people, and they knew they were on the same IP they could have mentioned it when trying to assure me that each account is that of an individual. I think the whole thing is a load of fecal matter either way, one way it's one person with multiple accounts the other it's multiple people supporting each other in a non-intended way (I really doubt this is what Jimbo had in mind). Anynobody 05:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I do agree. Puppetry already noted. At least a one-week block for that, and we'll keep close eye on their behavior in the future to make sure that they aren't over-represented. See my comment #on puppetry below. ··coelacan 05:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The forgoing is part of why I think there are two people, COFS seems to be off in the fog, while CSI LA seems more or less in touch. I will spend more time looking at both of them. I have restarted a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#COFS_indef_blocked. Fred Bauder 04:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that as well, which is why I didn't submit the WP:RFCU in early April. It occured to me later that since COFS is the primary account he has time to collect himself and sound more grounded when posting as CSI LA. Anynobody 04:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to the puppetry, I think it's safe to say that whether or not these are one person, or two people in the same building working together on a POV here, they should not be voting together, or anything like that. Policy does allow for certain acceptable uses of puppets, though. As long as they aren't treated as "oh look, two separate and independent people agree with X", then they can function here under policy. ··coelacan 05:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what decision the arbitration committee would make should this matter come before them. But I think an indefinite ban on the whole bunch requires that level of deliberation. Fred Bauder 12:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you're including "community discussion on WP:CSN" as "that level of deliberation", I agree with you. I hope I made clear numerous times that the blocks were until this was discussed further. Anyway, I asked for other evidence that might have been overlooked and besides the puppetry I think the other matters can be handled by dispute resolution, so I'm going to go ahead and reduce the blocks. ··coelacan 18:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proof?

What proof has been provided to show that it is two or more people as they claim? This is so against WP:SOCK that it makes me wonder why we have WP:RFCU if a person can just e-mail and say it's several people on the same IP. Again, if he/they were not up to anything subversive why not simply have said so before the WP:RFCU went through? If you are inclined to reduce/remove the block then why not put this before the arbitration committee? I also remind you that the socks were all working together to give the impression several independent editors were giving opinions. Anynobody 18:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is not proof that they are not the same person. I know this is frustrating because I've been in your position before. But one instance of block evasion does not automatically mean they must be blocked forever. They want second chances; we can AGF one more time for them. From many observations of many disruptive editors, I'll tell you it's likely that this will not be the last time these users are blocked. They do not appear to be here for the purposes of building a collaborative encyclopedia. However, to demonstrate that beyond a reasonable doubt, they'll need Enough Rope. In the meantime, we can be certain that if they are not sockpuppets, they are meatpuppets, and while they should not be prevented from giving opinions, anyone weighing consensus should be informed that they are not acting independently. They will not be able to over-represent consensus in the future. ··coelacan 19:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Anynobody, this matter needs to go before an Arbitration Committee. The verdict of the ArbCom should determine the block length. In the interim, I think it should stay indefinite.--Fahrenheit451 19:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you are jumping the gun by suggesting ArbCom. Note that Fred Bauder, who suggested the block reduction, sits on ArbCom, and his opinion for a second chance would likely be echoed by the others. This is a first offense. Wait and see. Use a user-conduct WP:RFC, or mediation. Keep admins informed of anything blockable. ··coelacan 19:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. We shall see how things go. I have my own suspicion of what the future course will be.--Fahrenheit451 19:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

coelacan I realize you are trying to remain neutral, so I'm not frustrated at you. (I'm sort of frustrated at myself since I don't think I'm explaining the problem I have very well.)
I agree that under most circumstances a first offense would not be cause to indef block or ban, in this issue however there are several mitigating factors against treating the accounts in question as an editor worthy of WP:AGF.
  1. This is not the first offense, it's the first time they were caught. In early April COFS was blocked and this is when I met CSI LA. T
  2. The second was when the socks were caught after the second block evasion at the end of April.
  3. The third is that yet another WP:SOCK, Misou, is revealed. I haven't finished researching how this account could have been supporting still more socks, at this point we really should check.
  4. The requests to unblock are based partially on a misrepresentation (CSI LA saying 1000 members are being affected, that can't be true and also hides the actual number being affected (if there is more than one editor).
It's important that more community discussion be done before unblocking anyone, seriously this is a really weird situation that can not be closed without more investigation. Anynobody 22:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Anynobody, you are very good in letting this sound "caring". Cut off the nice words and there is an intention which can create rancor and could summarize to trolling. Does not build an encyclopedia, that's for sure. Stop your personal attacks on me - that's 3. above - to start with. Thank you. And yes, Anynobody, let's do an investigation! Let's find out where everybody in this place is going to. Wikipedia may not be the right place for it. Because this is an encyclopedia, not a club. Say a place and time. Misou 23:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attack was made against you, Misou. "Sockpuppet" doesn't sound like a nice word, I'll grant that, but it's the established jargon here for the way that your account relates to the others in question here. ··coelacan 06:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misou I did care about your opinion, before it was reported that you are also operating in the same IP range as the identified socks (if you'll look at the date on your link you'll see my point). Since you mention the discussion though, why didn't you mention the "shared ip" when we were talking about the COFS/CSI LA issue here: User talk:Misou#? Re comments on...? Anynobody 01:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this whole incident with interest, and feel it necessary to voice my opinion about what's been going on. I feel that the current block is warranted. I've witnessed COFS and CSI LA do some truly disquieting things since arrival.

The question of whether this is more than one person editing from the same IP, or two sockpuppets, seems irrelevant to me in this case.

They should be considered sockpuppets of one another, for the purposes of votes, discussions on the same page, etc. The reason for this should be clear. If we allow them to NOT be considered sockpuppets, then we have two editors working from the same IP who CAN "sockpuppet" by agreeing with each other and coordinating on discussion. And if we don't let the RFCU keep them marked "sockpuppets" of one another, as well as rooting out all other sockpuppets in this range (Misou and Grrrilla seem to be within this range or at least editing very close to it and generally backing up a Scientologist viewpoint in discussions that overlap with COFS and CSI LA), then we write a blank cheque for mayhem.

If we end up not punishing these users for collusion in the same, say, talk page discussion or afd, then we open the door to twenty, thirty, a hundred, or a thousand Scientologist editors to all show up from the same IP, and agree in the same topics, without officially being "sockpuppets" for all we know. Thus, I request that COFS and CSI LA as well as any other editors found to be editing from this set of IPs, be considered sockpuppets of one another for safety's sake. After all, they're editors with nigh identical opinions and goals within Wikipedia, editing the same general areas, and all from the same IP. Seems to fit the definition of "sock" to me, and if they're allowed to stack discussions to make up imaginary concensus from the same IP, we've failed.

I feel the block evasion was a taunt in the face of Wikipedia's standards and does much harm. No apology from COFS or CSI LA has been offered, presumably because the contention still stands that they are two different people. But, even if this block is reduced to one week, I wish to ask: will they be considered sockpuppets of one another in future discussions? And if anyone else is discovered to be editing the same kinds of articles from the same IP address, will they too be considered so? That's all from my end, but this being a single proxy for a large workplace should not allow the door to be opened to a hundred disruptive sockpuppets who may vote in droves.

Another issue has to be raised, and that rests, politically incorrect though it may be, with the general practices of the Church of Scientology. While it may be considered crude of me to say it, as an organization they have been responsible for increasing censorship and pushing their point of view in online fora for some time, and I do not think that the scenario above is necessarily a paranoid imagining, but exactly the type of thing which could occur. One must never forget the ruthless practices espoused by those official Scientologist documents which are, ironically, -archived- on Wikipedia, and which cannot go a single week without being assailed by one Scientologist editor or another who wishes to remove even verifiable material from such articles on either tendentious or deliberately vexacious grounds. And... that's my two cents. Take care, sorry to spam your talk page. Raeft 22:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible sock

Identified here Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser#Can a confirmed case be re-listed?, I'm sorry to use up so much space on your talk page but this might be insidious on their part. Anynobody 21:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on somewhat unusual (?) idea.

Well, i was thinking the other day about when we managed to secure ourselves a somewhat "net exclusive" on the Hermann Lux and Håkon Flood articles, and it led to an interesting idea. Suppose that if i wanted to get some information on a popular chemist or physicist that isn't just small information seen in chemicals books and textbooks and i mailed or contacted the university or establishment they were at to see if they would be able to spare information, and possbly release an image through GFDL or public domain. Now, how exactly would i reference such information, or would APA style references for correspondance suffice? 

Personal communication: for email and other 'unrecoverable' data Personal communications are not included in the reference list.
... (R. Smith, personal communication, January 28, 2002). or R. Smith (personal communication, January 28, 2002)...

Regardless of it's "Citeability", would such references be okay for Wikipedia? ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 19:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asahi Shimbun

I'm picking up the sources tomorrow, but will likely not have a chance to look at them until the weekend, though page numbers will make the process a lot easier. However, I'm going to bet that all of the materials are going to be written by Ikuhiko Hata, since 2 out of 3 already are. MSJapan 03:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Potvin

This is a WP:BLP issue, regarding the edits of a single user, FactsFirst (talk · contribs), repeatedly adding smears against the subject of the article. According to that policy,

"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

The user is citing sources, but improperly, cherry-picking pejorative quotes from an especially mean-spirited newspaper editorial, such as "rambling ignoramous," without providing context. By treating it as a regular edit-war, i.e., insisting that we work out a compromise on the talk page and then grovel back to you people to unprotect it, seems a big contradiction with not only the BLP guideline, but also the showy BLP tags intimating that Wikipedia takes BLP's seriously. It also implies that I'm equally guilty of edit-warring by reverting this user's additions. FactsFirst's user account, with one exception, is dedicated solely to smearing the subject of this article and s/he has been nothing but patronizing and rude to me; I won't be discussing anything with this user because the assumption of good faith has been spent, and in fact I shouldn't be anyway given the BLP policy quoted above. I'm an experienced user, having been a major contributor to 3 wikiprojects, created dozens of articles, helped to neutralize numerous editing disputes (rather than edit-warring), etc. I'm familiar with this issue because of where I live and decided to take it on because of that, not because I have strong views about the subject (I don't). It may be impersonal on your end, but at some point it's just insulting for me.

I try to read the rules and follow procedures, as onerous as they often are. After going through this time-consuming effort, I'm told that FactsFirst can't be blocked because I didn't use the correct template? According to the blocking policy:

"A variety of template messages exist for convenience, although purpose-written messages are often preferable. [my emphasis] "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking. Users who have been made aware of a policy and have had such an opportunity do not require further warning."

I've gone out of my way to refer this user to the relevant guidelines and policies and have given them numerous warnings on their talk page, including 3RR. I've made the case elsewhere as to why full protection is inappropriate for this article, and was met with administrator inertia and defensiveness, and I'm not about to go through that again because of your arbitrary decision to fully protect it. So far, taking on this article and trying to keep it POV-free has been quite discouraging. I imagine FactsFirst will also be heartened by the fact that the "final warning" template I put on their talk page was meaningless because admins wouldn't support it. I suppose that if no one else gives a shit, I shouldn't either, so I'll try and take the full protection (presumably sans expiry date) as a victory because it's my version that's been protected. bobanny 06:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the 3RR warning you gave was not at all obvious to me when I looked at their talk page. It was buried in with a lot of other acronyms. And your report did not link to a diff of the warning. You can hardly blame me for not seeing it. The fact is that the article is protected on your version, so you came out lucky. ··coelacan 06:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you do not necessarily have to work out a "compromise". If you get consensus through an RFC to not include that information at all, then there's no compromise. You just show up at WP:RFPP and show that the community doesn't want that stuff, and "moving forward" just meant verifying that, and you're good to go. ··coelacan 06:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go have a second look at the specific content that was being added and see what the BLP issues are; brb. ··coelacan 06:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with you that "someone called him an ignoramus" is hardly useful encyclopedic material. I'll go weigh in with a comment to that effect if you want, although involving myself in the content dispute means I won't be able to use admin tools. Let me know if you want me to join in on the talk page. ··coelacan 07:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need to step back from this at least for a couple days. You may have sensed that my wiki-exasperation goes beyond this issue. I also made a report at WP:ANI requesting a block, which is still pending, so it'd probably be best to see what decision comes of that, since it would affect consensus building. Once that happens, I'll post a proper RfC and see what comes of it (FactsFirst put the heading on the talk page, but didn't post an actual RfC, from what I can tell). I'll keep you posted of any developments. Thanks for your thoughtful response, and I apologize for being overly dramatic. bobanny 08:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now another admin is editing it without any justification on the discussion page[25]. In my original request to get this article unprotected, I was indignantly told by two admins that this would be a "serious breach of applicable policies" and "an abuse of the sysop bit"[26]. Moreover, "fall," the season, should be lowercase according to WP:MOS. bobanny 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the case for adding more references to Kevin Potvin

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and thought the Kevin Potvin entry would be a good one to beging working on because I followed the extensive media coverage about this Green Party candidate and found it fascinating. I suspect bobanny may be a personal friend of Mr. Potvin since I didn't consider any of the coverage "mean-spirited," although it all pointed to Mr. Potvin is the author of his own misfortune. I think a couple of things should be kept in mind. This fellow is a politician who, in violation of Wikipedia rules, first created his own post as part of a publicity campaign to get elected to city hall. Within that post he inflated his resume. Now, he can dissemble all he likes on the discussion page, but saying "his work appeared in Harpers and the Atlantic" when it was nothing more than a couple of letters is exaggerating his credentials, to put it politely. Most people would consider it lying. Mr. Potvin, a politician, has made his character and his honesty, or lack thereof, a public issue, which is why I think it is important to include the National Post article. The feature writer is disinterested -- there's no indication anywhere that he knows Mr. Potvin, and he comments on the man's writing and public behavour, all of which Mr. Potvin has volunteered for public scrutiny. In addition, at least two other editors would have seen that piece and considered the description fair comment. It passed the lawyer's approval, too. (I was a fiction editor, but I know a little bit about how newspapers work.) This article wasn't the only one to make similar observations, or the only newspaper. Mr. Potvin also said a great many similarly ignorant, foolish things on TV and radio. On the second point, I think it is even more important to include Mr. Potvin's own explanation of how he does journalism (which is defined as the gathering of factual information on behalf of the public) in that it illustrates quite clearly that he is indifferent to the definition of words. His only reference is his own feelings and beliefs. For readers -- many of whom may also be voters -- that is significant information. I'm sorry that I didn't get all the references in. Because I'm new, and still figuring things out, I was adding the contributions in stages. Every time I went to add the links, I found bobanny had erased my contribution. One other point that makes me think bobanny is acting on behalf of Mr. Potvin is that when I tried to maintain consistency in the article either by adding the names of all the authors or removing the only one in the post, bobanny insisted on mentioning only one. I looked it up and realized that he was the writer who did the Globe and Mail article which first caught Mr. Potvin inflating his resume. Then bobanny added something about there being some sort of animosity between the writer and Mr. Potvin. I find that implausible. But having looked at Mr. Potvin's own paper I found more than one article by him claiming that different reporters were out to get him. Clearly, the man doesn't need any help. But for bobanny to have accepted such a silly idea suggests, again, that he may be acting on behalf of Mr. Potvin. As a compromise, perhaps we could just list the Post article in the references? Although I would like to see Mr. Potvin's own words describing his way of doing journalism in the body of the entry. Thanks for taking the time to look at this FactsFirst 02:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome!

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for the welcome template/message on my talk page. I think it's great, and I look forward to contributing to LGBT articles. Have a nice day!Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 16:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Phi Alpha

Can you place to the article my last version which is how it has appeared for over a year. Justinm1978 wants his version to remain while the discussion is progressing. This is not in-line with wikipedia's policy on wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle regarding changes to articles. Once his change was initially reverted, the policy clearly states, DO NOT REVERT back!, but that's what he's doing. thanks for any help.--Ccson 04:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to me? The article was changed by Justinm1978, user Real96 reverted, and now it remains in his version because he reverted. thanks for qualifying the policy for me and others involved in the discussion on which version should be current.--Ccson 04:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to discuss the wikipedia policy with the other editors and we decide on what the intent of the policy? I thought an admin could read and interpret the policy, my bad.--Ccson 05:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justinm1978 chose to have the disussion on the Talk:National Pan-Hellenic Council page because he has summarily changed 9 organiztoin with articles that are addressed by the NPHC article. I am participating in this discussion, however; the wikipedia policy suggests that it remain in the original status until the discussion has ended. Justinm1978 is not adhering to this and I don't want to be engaged in revert war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccson (talk • contribs) 05:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccson (talk • contribs) 05:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your comment on vandalism related to the Alpha Phi Alpha article is duly noted and acknowledged. Hopefully consensus can be reached in discussion on the NPHC talk page, and then can be replicated to the appropriate talk pages. Justinm1978 05:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sockpuppet

I saw you removed the tag on User:CSI LA. However, doesn't the statement: "This user is a confirmed sock puppet of COFS,
as established by CheckUser." still hold true, as per the resolution of the process? Therefore, shouldn't this tag remain in place? Smee 08:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, it holds true, and no, it should not remain in place. We're not in the business of attaching scarlet letters to users who are not indef-blocked. Specifically, they're meatpuppets, and as long as they don't break the rules of WP:SOCK, they're permitted to use these accounts. Let me or another admin know if you see them trying to fraudulently pump up consensus, or vote-stack. ··coelacan 08:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I am somewhat unfamiliar with the term "meatpuppet". Can you go into this a little bit more? Smee 08:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Sure. They're like sockpuppets, except there (very probably) are different people behind the different accounts. But they are editing with the same POV, from behind the same Church firewall, and are in contact with one another off-wiki. It would be erroneous to consider them to be acting independently, so they are puppets: "meatpuppets" (different people in meatspace). If you read WP:SOCK you'll see that they are permitted to use these puppet accounts as long as they aren't used for abuse or for over-representing consensus. So they can all post their opinions somewhere, as they will have minor differences of opinion, but anyone weighing consensus (usually an admin) needs to be aware that they are not acting independently. ··coelacan 08:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, but regarding your statement: "..anyone weighing consensus (usually an admin) needs to be aware that they are not acting independently." -- Would it not be helpful for these types of puppets to be logged somewhere where Admins can monitor/be aware of this? Smee 08:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well, they're sort of logged here on my userpage, and the Checkuser pages. If the list continues to grow, I might make a userspace subpage to keep track of them, but for now you can just point admins to this discussion if need be. I don't want to make them carry around scarlet letters in their userspace, though. That's not helpful for WP:AGF.

The accounts include, by the way:

I'm not aware of any others. ··coelacan 08:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMakoshack&diff=128592780&oldid=82522274 ··coelacan 08:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most interesting. Thanks. Smee 08:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
No problem. And try to be understanding with them. As I understand it, it's not really their fault that they're stuck behind this content filter. I'm not sure they have much choice in the matter. ··coelacan 09:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted. However the fact that there is this "content" filter, is quite interesting in and of itself. Especially in light of the quote by Jimmy Wales: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." (July 2004) Slashdot Interview (28 July 2004) -- For certain individuals working on a project whose stated mission is thus, to voluntarily remove their own access to knowledge, whilst working on a project to expand access to it... Smee 09:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well, I'm trying not to pass judgment. ··coelacan 09:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks for all of your patience and explanations in this troubling matter... Smee 09:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
coelacan, your behavior is irritating. Are you honestly saying that people who might know each other are not OK for Wikipedia? Pandora's box, I'd say, especially as I didn't know the Scientology editors on WP before you and Josh Gordon posted their personal data, which makes this a complete lie. You should have a look around in this scene, check multiple account user Raeft, Anynobody, Smee, Fahrenheit451 and some others who back each others up to make their POV-edits, sending each other email and are soooooo in agreement that Scientologists are all the same. Must be, otherwise there is no case. Is that ok? Are you also saying that using a proxy makes them not OK for editing in Wikipedia? Ok, I don't need this proxy. Don't know anybody who does. I also don't need those NPA-violations you triggered off by feeding Scientologists to the smiling snakes. Sorry to say, but I think you should review WP:NPA :There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse." Open both eyes and stop supporting discrimination. Thank you. Misou 18:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of hard to believe that five people who edit from the same IP, on the same topics, and from an IP apparently used by scientology (Fred said something like this IIRC), "might know each other", aren't a sock- or a meatpuppet. --Tilman 18:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<< Tilman, this IP is the proxy for every CoS computer worldwide. So, as an IT guy, you would certainly understand that the staff member in, say, Australia might not know the staff member in LA. They might know not any more about each other than you or I know about them. --Justanother 11:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am an IT guy. It is hard to believe that every scientology org worldwide would use a common proxy. This doesn't make sense, and would make any traffic really slow. Plus, I know that someone in the german wikipedia has edited from a Munich IP address that belongs to scientology Germany, signed as "Sabine Weber" (a staff member of OSA Germany), and this speaks against your "worldwide proxy" theory. Unless the "worldwide proxy" is in Munich :-) --Tilman 17:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not so far-fetched. My own firm with 15,000 employees and many diverse locations uses one proxy. I would not be surprised if, for ex., a US Army base in Germany goes through a firewall in the United States. It is security and you know that the CoS has reason to have security concerns. I was told that all Church staff use the proxy. That is what the person that clued me in believes. Could there be exceptions that he is not aware of? Sure. The point is that it is the proxy for a large organization, that is all and sometimes (often) people who work in the same building do not know each other. To be honest, I would not know if the person in the next office to mine were editing Wikipedia. --Justanother 18:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misou, all I am saying is that people editing the same topics from the same IP cannot be considered to be acting independently. That is a fairly boring and old convention around here. If you believe I or others have made personal attacks against you or others, please bring specific instances to my attention. And if you believe that other editors are engaging in puppetry, you have the option of requesting a check at WP:RFCU. In the meantime, please follow WP:NPA yourself and don't call other editors "smiling snakes". ··coelacan 18:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias

Happy Cinco de Mayo if that means a thing in your time-zone and local culture. (Big deal around these parts). I appreciatte the MfD fix. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yeah, in some US state removed from the Mexican border, we've figured out that we are supposed to get drunk, but that's as far as the tradition has been adopted. =P ··coelacan 09:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip

I've just finished answering the questions. :-) Cheers! Raystorm 13:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for promptly responding to my autoblock removal request. --NMChico24 01:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oromo Liberation Front

I'm not involved in any way beyond this, I'm simply trying to keep everything nice, tidy and neutral. HalfShadow 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know that, could already see that. I'm sorry if I gave any other impression. Thanks for the ANI report, by the way. ··coelacan 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, this was mostly in case you were to question me on anything. I don't know anything, I just saw a mess happening and acted on it. HalfShadow 22:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandal

He hasn't stopped, he just reverted your revert on Mario Strikers Charged. He had been told WP policy, given a link to it, and recieved many warnings, and he continues to do it. Maybe it's time for a block for him? TJ Spyke 01:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I honestly did think that was vandalism since I had explained to him/her why they were incorrect and how things work on WP but they continued to do it. Next time I will just seek out an admin to intervene. TJ Spyke 01:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non policy Deletion

Please explain how this deletion [27] fits with the "wiki" policy you have described? Prester John 02:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should explain this [28] as well.

Please do not abuse the admin privileges you have been given. The normal procedures exist for a reason. Prester John 02:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says it right there in the edit summary ' Templates that are divisive and inflammatory.', thats why they were deleted. MrMacMan Talk 02:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on your talk page. But yeah, I gave my reason in the deletion log. WP:CSD#T1. ··coelacan 02:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#T1 is very broad. care to trim it down a tad? Prester John 02:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quit blocking me

Oi quit blocking me, it costs 25c to get a new ip —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.228.140.178 (talk)

Much thanks

I think that might be the first time I got protection. Hehe, I can finally go to sleep! (silly Eastern Standard Time). A great big thanks from MrMacMan Talk 10:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Good night... you'll dream of Vandals though... ··coelacan 10:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the protected talk page

It really wasn't necessary, but thank you for the page protection. --OnoremDil 10:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary for me, though, to get back to other things. ;-) ··coelacan 10:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Turning your quote into a personal attack?

Coelacan, User:Justanother seems to be spinning something you stated on AN/I into a personal attack User_talk:Justanother#F451.2C_are_you_.22truth-challenged.22.3F. I would appreciate if someone could set him straight on WP editor conduct.--Fahrenheit451 22:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coelacan, please cite in wikipedia policy where it is your job to chase users off of AN/I when you feel their complaint does not merit posting there. Sorry about my response to Justanother's incivility, but I think you have an issue of your own to address here.--Fahrenheit451 02:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coelacan, I wonder if you are misusing your admin privilege in this case. WP:IAR does not apply here. Rather, I think you should take a look at DBAD. Accusing me of trolling clearly demonstrates to me that you are ignoring WP:AGF. I have no objection to a mutual parting of company here. We see things quite differently and further involvement is likely to create more antagonism.--Fahrenheit451 16:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OLF

Could you un-semi-protect it soon? The vandalism/POV-pushing taking place on that article seems to be the result of the actions of one registered (although on the day of the vandalism) user on that day, rather than recurring vandalism by one or more anonymous/new users. There's an anon wanting to edit the page to counter POV, but can't, and I want to encourage him/her to help contribute. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 00:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Anacapa on my talk page

Hi Coelacan - would you mind having a quick look at Anacapa's comments on my talk page. Last night Anacapa responded to my question (asking whether they were drop in editor or not) with a long comment on my talk page, and on Talk:feminism. They've also made edits to the feminism article again altering the section on scientific research into another criticism section. I think there are elements of not assuming good faith in their response to me, as well as adding off-topic screed to the talk page- what do you think? The words "you SEEM to be blind to the insane bullcrap and inane cowcrap (conservative, liberal or whatever) that prevails in the NAME of NPOV on Wikipedia" parse like a personal attack to me. Perhaps I'm being hyper-sensative but Anacapa's repeated comments about editors using fascist/"maoist" editing "tactics" followed by a "don't take it personally" a form of gaming WP:NPA and WP:AGF? In any case I thought you might like to have a look. I'd very much appreciate your opinion on the situation and thanks again for all your recent help--Cailil talk 22:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I also found another link between Anacapa and the IP 128.111.95.217 [29]. If you have any advice on how best to proceed I'd very much appreciate it--Cailil talk 19:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be busy off-wiki for a part of the day upcoming. I'll definitely have a look at this when I get back. ··coelacan 19:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Ah, you're back. Excellent. Could you have a look at this RfA - a 3RR block of yours seems to be rather at the centre of it... WjBscribe 07:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, sure. Actually, before reading further, if that's the only thing against Dynaflow, I'll support and hopefully put in a good word. ··coelacan 07:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh lawd, it's a little more complicated than that, isn't it? It wasn't a mere misunderstanding, it was a revert war. And I don't quite see that being acknowledged. ··coelacan 08:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's my prob with him. Its not the 3RR block itself. If he'd agreed he was wrong and expressed why not edit warring is important- I wouldn't have opposed and might even have supported. But the way he characterises it as a 'misunderstanding while reverting vandalism' makes me think that he either doesn't know what 3RR is or doesn't know what vandalism is. Either would be a problem. And the way he addressed it in Q3 rather gave me the impression he was trying to sweep it under the carpet. WjBscribe 08:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:COFS on COI/N

Hi Coelacan, I noticed you earlier asked Smee to let you know if the scientology meatpuppets / sockpuppets (x-puppets?) were being used to build consensus? It appears they are, and the issue is open at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COFS_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29 - as the original investigating admin with the case of the x-puppets, you input would be most welcome and appreciated on the matter. Regards, Orsini 12:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at the noticeboard, but I'd like to make an additional note here for anyone who may be investigating similar issues in the future. The problem only arises when more than one of the puppet accounts is used to inflate consensus. That has not happened here; only User:COFS was involved. That's not a violation of WP:SOCK. ··coelacan 18:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pastordavid

Oops, totally forgot about it. Sorry about that. In any case, I see it didn't have a significant impact on the final result, which was good. ~ G1ggy! Reply | Powderfinger! 23:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article was recreated as a requested example from talk page discussion

Please see my response at WP:ANI and on my talk page. Smee 23:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Your clarifications are spot on. I would have most certainly moved the page to a user space if this had even just been brought up or politely requested, but it was not. In any event, thank you for your kind and polite demeanor in this troubling manner, and I will most certainly heed your advice as to creating such a page in user space in the future. Yours, Smee 01:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Coe, I feel that we are all being played for fools. See that, before I reported her, Smee "corrected" a wikilink to point at her new "example", diff. In a widely used template, no less. She did try to cover her tracks though, diff. --Justanother 01:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded on what is and is not acceptable for sandbox staging, on Smee's talk page.[30] Hopefully that is clear and sufficient. I'm not going to take administrative action at this time, because I don't think this behavior is going to be repeated. Let me know if I overlook anything, Justanother. ··coelacan 09:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, Coe, I understand that you assume good faith on the part of Smee and that it entirely appropriate given that you have no history with her that I am aware of. I will be restoring the draft RfC/ArbCom that I removed as part of my failed agreement with Smee and I will show you that this sort of "sneakiness" is very common on her part and a number of editors have caught her at it. For now, here are two of us catching her trying to sneak a plug for a POV website into photo captions (1, 2, discussion). Smee has inserted plenty of images in her time, she knows there is no "clarifying the free-use nature of the image" in the caption. I have a whole gallery of this sort of stuff. Her M.O. is to do this WP:TE POV-pushing and, when caught at it, back-pedal furiously and rely on the fact that few have followed her career or realize her WP:SPA nature and those who do are, IMO, usually dismissed as "cultists attacking an established editor", even if those words are not voiced. I have brought Smee to AN/3RR a number of times only to have her 3RR vio dismissed; I think she might have gotten a 3-hour block one time because I pushed and pushed but more often the violation is dismissed as if Smee had an inexhaustable supply of "Get out of jail free" cards. I gave up trying to get others to address the issue and started to prepare an RfC/ArbCom which got her attention and she agreed to practice 1RR with me but she has so repeatedly violated that agreement that I got tired of being played once again and called the agreement irrevocably broken (here). So if I sound frustrated, I am; frustrated with her and frustrated that my repeated calls for someone to just let her know that she should STOP have gone unanswered. And I mean let her know with a block, becuase she ignores everything less and carries on regardless. --Justanother 13:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was due to User:Milomedes's comment that the article was sharp, and well edited. Please stop reading into things and belaboring issues where others and Admins have told you there are none. Thanks. Smee 01:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
coelacan I added a follow up question to Justanother's WP:ANI request regarding this affair. I didn't remove the resolved tag because the situation as resolved is fine, just need a bit of clarification. WP:ANI#Tendentious editor disrespects page protection and recreates disputed page. Thank you for your time, Anynobody 05:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I don't see a question there. I'm not sure what else you want me to comment on. I advised Justanother on appropriate WP:DR procedures. Further "should'ves" seem unnecessary. ··coelacan 09:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To put it bluntly, would you have deleted the page or simply moved it had you seen the talk page discussion of it's purpose? If I understand the situation correctly you first deleted the page and then later restored it in Smee's user space when the purpose was explained to you. I'm not faulting you in any way, either way, but I'm saying that given the attempt to communicate it's purpose on an article talk page Justanother edits he made it sound much more sinister than it was. This is something he has done in the past, if it's sanctioned behavior I just want to know so I can start adopting similar tactics. They seem to work, and I don't mean that in a smartass way, I mean it literally worked in the past. Anynobody 09:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have since communicated with Justanother about the necessity of bringing such issues to user talk before ANI, and Justanother has apologized for handling it in this way. If you're looking for a license to troll, resist the temptation. ··coelacan 09:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, your actions are just fine. It would do no good for me to explain it to him, which is why I was asking you. Thanks again, Anynobody 09:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New user subpage created, checking with you here

  • Created a sub-page in my user space, User:Smee/Groups referred to as cult in the media. As part of a discussion at Talk:List of groups referred to as cults. As per above, I want to check for your feedback on this action of creation of an article within my user space, that may have the potential to be construed by some if it were to be created as an article in main space as a "fork". In other words, what do you think of the creation of the user sub page, not a potential mainspace page? Yours, Smee 08:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Replied on Smee's talk page. ··coelacan 09:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on my talk. Please note that this is for the purpose of furthering discussion on the talk pages, and eventual move to main space pages. Smee 11:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Please Note: I am getting some positive and good feedback on the two proposals that I had put forth, via examples to user space at the moment. So that is exactly why I wanted to have these example pages, and that is exactly what they are currently being used for, as per your helpful advice. Just wanted to keep you informed. Thank you for your time, patience and understanding through all this. Yours, Smee 12:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Response to above.
  • User:Justanother's assertions above are ridiculous, not to mention highly offensive to be called an WP:SPA! I will let you respond to him in some fashion that this is inappropriate. As per putting links in captions of images - Justanother never remarked on a talk page that this was disagreeable with him, he simply removed it without any discussion. If he had questioned it on a talk page, I would have removed the captions, myself. Unfortunately there is a pattern for this editor that has been blocked in the past for: Violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT and WP:NPA. Smee 13:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Sorry, it was User:Wikipediatrix that made an inappropriate usage of edit summary instead of inquiring on a talk page: Diff. Smee 13:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Checkuser

I moved the CU to non-compliant per request. Real96 10:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that'll do fine. =) ··coelacan 10:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To let you know, I read on the Dianetics page that the BBC aired a special about it and Haubbard. The reason I submitted this request is that there is a decent chance the new editor could be someone who just saw it and was not related to VolcanoXeni. I figured WP:RFCU was a good way to make sure my suspicion was correct before requesting action. Just so I know for the future, is there some other action I should have taken? Anynobody 21:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since this was just a vandal account, a quick report to WP:AIV would have done it. In fact it was this report that resulted in the block. RFCU is only for complicated things. There are only about a dozen users with CheckUser privilege, and we don't want to wear them out. ··coelacan 21:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand the necessity to bring complicated cases there, in most cases a vandal account wouldn't need to be taking up their time. There is a fairly complicated issue that could be involved here though, I'll summarize as briefly as possible. The L. Ron Hubbard article has seen some contentious editing, and lately those who feel the subject is being defamed have been unable to counter the arguments of those who just want the most accurate article as possible. It's is conceivable that these vandal accounts, if the same IP, could be a tool to shut down editing. Had the BBC show not aired recently, I would have included all my suspicions upfront. Since it has, and these two could just be a coincidence, I wanted to take the WP:RFCU one step at a time. If they were the same, I planned to expand the search citing some evidence I've noticed. If not, I was planning to give feedback to the new account to warn about that behavior. Anynobody 22:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're worried about the article being unnecessarily protected again, just keep taking vandals to WP:AIV for short-order blocking. I understand where you're coming from, now, but I really don't think the CheckUsers would have taken that case yet. I'd prefer to keep their workload minimal, and if they get the feeling that you are bringing unnecessary cases their way, they will no longer be interested in responding to you. "Cry wolf," etc. The only things that should go to RFCU are those issues where an account cannot be blocked solely on the evidence available without an IP check. There are a lot of little incidents of vandalism in many corners of Wikipedia that I'd like to know more about, connections, etc., but the CheckUsers simply don't have time for all that. ··coelacan 22:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to give you the impression I plan on relisting it this time by asking these questions, because if I'm right whoever is doing it will probably do something else to cite as evidence. Given what happened with COFS/CSI LA, if it were to turn out that they shared the same IP as the vandal(s) I mentioned, it would be quite interesting. Thanks for taking time to answer my questions. Anynobody 22:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Coelacan, thank you for your thoughful and insightful questions, your kind words, and your support of my RfA, which successfully closed yesterday - hopefully I will have at least a day or two before that particular thread shows up on AN/I. Please feel free to drop me a line any time if there is anything that I can do for you. Pastordavid 15:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your information

Hi. I thought you might like to know that I've just spammed a proposal for getting along better, and freeing up ANI, on the talkpages of Smee, Justanother, Lsi John, and Anynobody. I figured my notion is so simplistic it just might work. Well.. one chance in a thousand is still a chance, isn't it? Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 20:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think it's good advice, and even if some of them don't follow it, any that do will probably benefit from doing so. Thanks for sharing the sanity! ··coelacan 21:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Was trying to find the culprit... Cheers, – Rianaऋ 07:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until I looked a little closer, I was about to yell "It's you who's playing silly buggers, Riana!" =) ··coelacan 08:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, yes, I thought I could get away with it. You caught me :) – Rianaऋ 08:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Is there a way for me to talk to you off-Wiki other than email? WjBscribe 11:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeesh, I don't have hardly any communication mechanisms. =( Would it be possible to make a user subpage quickly and delete it when we're done? And does this regard the coordinator thing I just closed? because I can go revert myself real quick like. ··coelacan 11:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK :) . WjBscribe 11:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would do it, then. ··coelacan 11:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'll leave messages on each of the candidate's pages. Do you mind updating Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Coordinator? WjBscribe 11:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to ask Satyr, "you know what you're supposed to be doing, yes?" Because I'm a little unclear on the duties and all. I will note what I can, and they can fill in the rest as they figure it out, I guess. ··coelacan 11:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I was more thinking of reflecting the fact that there are now 1+2 rather than just 1. I guess they'll be doing the same thing Dev is (I advocated we should just have coordinators, not a coordinator and some assistants). WjBscribe 11:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rhythmnation2004

Since you've been dealing with Rhythmnation2004 (talk · contribs) as well, just thought I'd point out something I just noticed (not sure if you have or not). The "record label" that re-released the single was DEAD END! I checked out their website and it states that "This website is maintained and operated by Robert Koehler." Who is Robert Koehler you might ask? Rhytmnation2004. So he's adding this re-release of the single from his own "record label" to this article. In addition, the website he sells it off of no longer has the product available. Looks to me like there's a lot of self-promotion going on for this re-release that seems pretty shady and possibly not a legit re-release. Thoughts? Metros232 18:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me of that. I should have thought to investigate. I completely agree with you, and if it's notable and verifiable, someone else will come along to add it. There's no room for WP:COI here. If it continues, I'll support a block, or I'll issue the block myself if you'd prefer. ··coelacan 23:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Rock The House

I saw that you locked the article Let's Rock the House. Good for you. That's what should have been done a long time ago. It's a shame that Metros232 went and undid everything. Sounds like they're taking advantage of admin controls. Just thought I'd let you know. Rhythmnation2004 19:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PROT. I semi-protected the article, which means that any user registered for four days can edit it. Metros has done nothing wrong. But you need to lay off using Wikipedia as your promotional vehicle. Consistent WP:COI violations will get you blocked. ··coelacan 23:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent block of Aranherunar

Hello. You recently blocked Aranherunar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and they have asked to be unblocked. I'm inclined to agree with their argument for unblock: their claim that the single vandal edit you blocked them for was a revert mistake appears credible. Do you agree to unblock? Thank you, Sandstein 10:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

Hi Coelacan I can see you've had a lot to deal with over the last few days and I am sorry to keep bugging you but Anacapa has made another traunch of edits to Feminism in the last 24 hours - once again to the criticism sections - one particularly interesting bit of phrasing is "Feminist whistleblower, Christina Hoff-Sommers also shows how feminist misandry leads directly to misogyny by establishment feminists against (the majority of) women who love men in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women."
I still haven't responded to their comments. Am I wrong or is there a case for warning them on NPOV grounds for their edits and WP:NPA for their comments?--Cailil talk 14:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC) PS. I also found a warning that Irishguy gave to one of Anacapa's IPs for POVPUSHing in November - i've doubled checked and I'm sure it was Anacapa using the IP at the time. You can see more at the report--Cailil talk 20:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

word order

Nothing wrong with this edit. I'm not sure why you warned the user. ··coelacan 22:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ••coelacan, You are absolute right! There was no reason for that edit. Sorry to say, as I noted on both my User and Talk page, I am currently working with a new Bot that is in the Beta stage of testing. Sorry to say it is a tad to aggressive at times. In fact, I was a victim of the same Bot just today by another tester who is working out the bugs on the on Bot, see above. My apologies to User:59.149.87.17, where I have already removed the tag, and placed a copy of this replay on there discussion page. Hope this explanation is satisfying to all parties. Shoessss 22:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. =) Just checking. ··coelacan 23:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot one thing... I really don't know the policies on bots and I don't know how yours is being used, but I know that unapproved bots can be blocked, and accounts running them can be blocked (under certain circumstances? I don't know exactly). Be sure you're approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. ··coelacan 01:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem ••coelacan Happy, or sorry depending on your point of view, to say you actually have to apply and than be approved by the Administration staff of Wikipedia before you can use this particular Bot.Shoessss talk

La Toya Jackson fair-use image violation?

Why was the image on La Toya Jackson not fair-use? It's a promotional image, that was issued out in promotional packets by Ja-Tail Enterprises, LLC. I know, because I got one myself. The promotional packet was free, therefore the photo is not one that has to be paid for. I've reverted the image because I don't see your rationale. Let me know - Thanks. Rhythmnation2004 23:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't consider photos of living people to be fair use for the purposes of showing what a person looks like, because a freely-licensed photograph could be created instead. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use: 8. An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like. The rationale is that this is potentially replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph. I'm going to go ahead and delete Image:Startin' Over - Original Image 2.jpg now. ··coelacan 01:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, never mind on that last bit about deletion, it's being used in Startin' Over, which is okay.. ··coelacan 01:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE Tenebrae's RfA

I see what you mean, and that's a good argument against canvassing. But at the same time, someone who is an uncivil user/tends to get on the wrong side of people is unlikely to be able to find a whole host of users who will support them, even if canvassed. And those who have a lot of friends and supporters are, most likely, perfectly suitable to be admins anyway, as it shows they're good at working with others. All too often, I think that those of us who are regular RfA voters (including myself) tend to make shallow judgments based on editcount and answers to the questions; that isn't anyone's fault, it's just that it's not easy to make a really good evaluation of someone based on the data presented at RfA. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just think that there are sound arguments in favour of canvassing, and it shouldn't merit knee-jerk Opposes. Walton Need some help? 09:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Your signature contains [[ user: coelacan |, which contains three spaces more than are needed. This is confusing at least one bot on RfA. Could you change that section of code to [[User:coelacan|, to help reduce the bot's confusion (it should make no difference to the sig's appearance)? --ais523 12:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will use a tighter sig for RFA tallies, at least. ··coelacan 06:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts

You proposed this name at this CfD. The current category is sort of in limbo. The name suggestions that the Christian subcats of Category:Illuminated manuscripts (namely, category:Gospel Books, Category:Illuminated biblical manuscripts, Category:Illuminated psalters, and possibly Category:Music illuminated manuscripts) should be moved out of the parent cat and into the new Christian cat. Anyway, I was just curious if you could take a look at the current state of Category:Illuminated manuscripts in consideration of the newly named cat and the subcats, and see if any re-arranging is due. Also note that Category:Illuminated biblical manuscripts contains at least three articles for non-Christian manuscripts (but these articles are also included in Category:Jewish illuminated manuscripts). Anyway, the situation is rather confusing as it was, and now the recent name change only makes matters worse, so I was hoping you could shed some clarity on the situation. Thanks for your consideration!-Andrew c 04:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for your quick and timely intervention with User:Sintheg2. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 10:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Let me know if they continue with any more nonsense, and I'll block. Or take it to WP:AIV if I'm away from my keyboard and not responding. ··coelacan 10:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


My continuing quest for mediation

Dear Sir, please see my talk page for my response to your comment.

justice-thunders-condemnation 14:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Sir, please see my talk page for my reply to your response. justice-thunders-condemnation 15:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir, thank you for your response. Please see my talk page for my reply. justice-thunders-condemnation 22:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

I was looking through the Burakumin page for some research material and noticed a typo, so I fixed it. I got this message from you:

"Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. One or more of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Burakumin, has been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ··coelacan 07:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)"

What? It was a typo. How is fixing a typo unhelpful or unconstructive (which isn't a word by the way; the negative form of constructive is "nonconstructive")? On top of that, it was a date. An typo in a date can be a big deal. What if somebody typed that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1767 or 7176? A person who reads that might get a lower grade on their paper, wouldn't you think? Do you just make it a habit of reversing every anonymous edit you see without looking at it?

In any case, I changed it back. Hopefully you'll leave it that way this time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.69.94.54 (talk)

J ETS

Saw them late last night on newpages, but didn't have time for it--glad you also noticed. Will be answered in full on Talk:List of theological journals (probably tomorrow), because it's a whole project, and those guys very much need some help. They are unaware of the basic working principle at WP these days, that extremely skimpy articles on unfamiliar subjects without references or links don't stand a chance, regardless of intrinsic importance.

Turns out this particular journal is possible, though I didn't think it would be, judging only from the article. There are two minimal criterial for real journals: to have more than a primitive online version, and to be listed in Ulrichs. (Otherwise they may still have merit, but as a web service of some sort--there are some I know without either which are or have been major communication channels, & I intend to add them, but I'm not going to attempt it without good references to back them up.)

Beyond the rock-bottom minimum, it is published in paper as well as a primitive online version, so it will be listed in library catalogs, it is indexed in the appropriate indexes, it has been going for a while, it has several thousand subscriptions, and I can probably find cited articles from better-known journals. Let me work on it through the weekend as an example for the project, so they will do the work on the many others. Tag it for AfD then if you wish after checking it--I respect your judgment--but let me build it up first. DGG 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (Emens)

Thanks! It's about time there is an article on her. Yes, I'm interested, I've done some work on other articles and am on the notice board, but am intermittently active so didn't join the Project. Thanks also for the invite, I've been more involved of late, and will join. Evolauxia 02:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'Lumotec Oval notability

I have attempted to expand the D'Lumotec Oval article and provide citations. The majority of citations are from the manufacturer, however, as to avoid citing pages that sell the product (I don't want the page to come off as an advertisement or endorsement). I suspect there are more suitable citations on the web, but most of them are probably in German (as this is a German product).

What do you think?

-- Citeoplasm 06:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S(nake)InTheG(rass)2 is lurking

Can you ease up a bit. I don't know why I was warned. The snake was just posting constructive edits. Thanks in advance, I know you will take the snake's comments on board. -snake out- Sintheg2 11:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Sintheg2[reply]

Vandalism of RFC/ECON page!

Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs) - yes, he's the same person who requested that an editor place $10,000.00 in an escrow account as a pre-condition for his re-filing a request for mediation - has abused the Wikipedia community by vandalizing the RFC/ECON page. He twice deleted an RFC which I authored concerning the use of the expression "New Orthodox Marxists" in the TSSI article! He also deleted two other RFCs which I wrote! Of course, he left his own RFC's on the page. This repeated vandalism is an attack on the entire Wikipedia community as RFCs are an important and integral part of the process of dispute resolution. Enough is enough! I ask that user Akliman be indefinately blocked. Watchdog07 12:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Behavior Modification Technique"

Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs) -- yes, him again! -- has changed the Wikipedia guideline WP:SHUN so that it now says that "difficult editors" can be confronted in an effort to get another editor to "reveal" her or his "motives" and as a "behavior modification technique"! After changing the guidelines, he then used the changed guidelines as a rationalization for his demanding and aggresive questioning which in fact is clearly a form of harassment. For pity's sake! How many more insults to the Wikipedia community will it take for him to be permanently banned? Watchdog07 23:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for taking swift and decisive action with regards to today's incidents - and more importantly for trusting my judgement on these socks. Best regards --Yankees76 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I did check up on the editing backgrounds and I agreed with your judgment. ··coelacan 23:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of new ones to add to the list: User:Querllat, User:FankY76 and User:Mezzdrecker. Further validates a correct decision. Cheers. --Yankees76 00:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs

Hi. Here are my drafts for simple diff instructions plus a more complicated diff and section link tutorial. The second is off-putting, no doubt, but, man, I wish there had been something about permanent section links when I was a new user. It took me about two years to figger out... ;-) Anyway, I would muchly appreciate edits and advice. I expect different skins and browsers do it differently, for one thing. Best regards, Bishonen | talk 01:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I may need your help?

Remember me? I may be involved again in an edit war. I'm laying off, but I ask if you can keep an eye on me as I'm having a hard time on the article Inquisition. If you knew my background, you may be surprised by my edits, and persistence. But, I believe in fair, balanced, truthful historical information, not whitewash. Please see my feedback request on the article's talk page here. I know I should back off and I will... I'm going to bed now. I hope to get a fair third party, such as yourself, and we have a bit of history in regards to 3RR. That is, if you have time. Thank you in advance. - Jeeny Talk 05:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've made a hundred and twenty two[citation needed] edits on my feedback request on the article's talk page ... to clarify. :) I really am going to bed now. - Jeeny Talk 06:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made a comment on my talk page to you and some. I'm awake, barely. I may need adoption. :)- Jeeny Talk 17:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean WP:ADOPT? I can do that. I'm online somewhat sporadically lately though; the help desk is always good when a particular person isn't answering. ··coelacan 22:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, do we need to sign some type of papers? :p What is, if any, the procedure, etc.? Thanks! - Jeeny Talk 22:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically we just decide that it's on. Optionally you can stick template:adoptee on your userpage, like {{adoptee|coelacan}} and that will put your page in Category:Wikipedians adopted in Adopt-a-user (presumably this is useful in case anyone ever wants to study the adopt-a-user program to ensure that it's working). And we decide where we'll converse; we can just use our normal talk pages, or we can use a subpage (see user talk:coelacan/killing sparrows for an example) that would give us a dedicated area, such as user talk:coelacan/Jeeny. What seems best to you? ··coelacan 01:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I put the template on my talk page, and made an inappropriate comment on the user talk:coelacan/Jeeny page. I'm short on time tonight, lots to do. I had a weird day (after a weird night), starting with the police ringing my door bell, just two hours after going to bed! He was nice and didn't give me a ticket, as I forgot to move my car from the rush hour side of the street. Usually they begin the ticket then honk their honker, or whatever it's called, (it's loud) to get your attention, so they don't have to stick around for the tow truck. This officer was so nice! He actually got out of the car, walked up the steps, and rang my bell! No ticket! This, after being illegally parked for half an hour. Whew! Nice guy. . Got to go off line. Thanks for adopting me! :) Hope I make you proud. - Jeeny Talk 04:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

attack sites and whatnot

Look, I'm all against linking to attack sites. Crum375 concisely sums it up in his comment: There is no reason to ever link to such a site - if need be, the information can be emailed discretely to ArbComm or anyone else, on a need-to-know basis.

However, I for one believe that anyone should always consider the possibility of being wrong. The better arguments should prevail. What I deem political about that anticipated opposition is that I perceive it as a way of using the wrong means for the right ends. But they're wrong means nevertheless. —AldeBaer 13:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already know that you agree with Slim's general sentiment; I'm not arguing that, only the appropriateness of it as an RFA oppose. If Slim et al feel that a user's promotion can result in detriment to Wikipedia, then RFA is the appropriate venue for that opinion. If this is "politics" then I guess I just don't agree that all politics should be off-limits to RFA. ··coelacan 13:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if you were not already an admin, I would never oppose your RfA over such a peaceful disagreement between us. —AldeBaer 15:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. You realize I'm not opposing Gracenotes's RFA, right? I'm not voting in it. ··coelacan 15:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't even oppose you over that :-D —AldeBaer 15:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nraden

There's a reply to your legal concerns on User talk:Nraden. I'm just letting you know, I'm not committing either way. WLU 23:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - I'm not advocating for Nraden, his actions or his right to sue. But I've been blocked myself, and know how frustrating it is to not know if your comments are being read by the relevant parties. My involvement will be restricted to alerting you of Nraden's comments so they don't get lost in your watchlist. I'm not paying attention to the content as I don't know the policies well enough. Just a courtesy post. WLU 01:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I appreciate the notes. I have been busy and I've overlooked Nraden's replies. On a related note, am I being clear enough in my notes to Nraden? I don't think it's ambiguous, to say "stop making legal threats" but it seems I'm not getting through. ··coelacan 01:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I have not been reading the back-and-forth. In my interactions with Nraden, I have repeatedly pointed out policy to him, and he has either a) not read them, b) not understood them or c) not bothered applying what the policy says (in other words, I'm not surprised there's still some question as to his compliance with WP:NLT). I have many problems with how he interacts and edits on the T.S. Wiley-related pages, but I don't think his actions are so unrecoverably bad that he deserves to be outright banned (further, his use of his IP edits have been in good faith). I'd say that if he has any questions about why he is not being unblocked, it is up to him to ask them as I don't have any expertise or knowledge of the policy. I still see my essential role as being to alert you of any comments or replies Nraden has on his page. Your comment above assured me that you are amendable to discussion, so there will never be a need to involve any other admins in (which I'm quite pleased about as it's a pretty bitchy thing to do).

If I have time, I may look over his talk page and see what I think, but there's never enough time :) WLU 14:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would disagree that involving other admins is in any way rude. If you were persuaded that I was misinterpreting WP:NLT, and you were unable to convince me otherwise, the right thing to do would be to ask another admin or get a general review on WP:ANI. The interpretation of NLT is an ongoing and lively topic. The execution of it, though, is black and white. If a user is in violation of NLT, they are blocked until they are no longer in violation. If they are not in violation, then the block should be lifted. NLT is always an indefinite block (indefinite, not infinite). Now, in fact, he is not supposed to be editing from an IP either. I am really hoping to get a clarification from him soon on whether he will finally stop making legal threats. If nothing is forthcoming, I shall have to block the IP(s) as well. The only reason I haven't yet is because I get the sense that he is trying to figure this out. ··coelacan 15:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. I agree that he seems to be trying to figure it out also; the IP use I cited was actually to REMOVE legal threats from other pages where they were posted, so that's why I labelled it appropriate. It really looks like a sincere attempt to make good on past mistakes rather than to bypass the system. Also, new reply on Nraden's page for you to have a gander at. WLU 16:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments for you on Nraden's page. WLU 20:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WLU, you've been very helpful. Nraden is in the clear now as far as WP:NLT. The two users may still need mediation, though. Are you doing WP:ASSIST or something like that? Or did you just run across Nraden? ··coelacan 21:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did you do that for?!?!?!

Hey! That is my page, not yours thanks. I can put what I want on it thank you. And It's True! At least ask then delete. Although I will still change it back! Thanks Pianoloverizme 04:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One POV? It's not like it was a personal attack, just because It tells something about me and my personallity and you don't like it doesn't mean you can change it. I won't stand for it. Pianoloverizme 04:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well sometimes the truth hurts but.... I'll change it so it's not so truthful... Pianoloverizme 04:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Atari Reverts

The same person is at it again from multiple IP's on the Atari ST page. 213.54.176.188 and 68.107.79.224. --Marty Goldberg 13:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Um ... Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks for fixing that for me. Cheers. Pastordavid 14:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me...

... on the Poland reference. Give me a clue? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satyr! You forgot Poland! For shame... ··coelacan 14:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pbthth! I pay as little attention to that guy as I can get away with :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I knew you'd feel just terrible about your oversight.[31] ··coelacan 14:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - Jeeny Talk 17:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Signature help

Hi, thanks for letting me know about my signature not being linked. I tried to save the settings in preferences - did it work? Benjiboi 19:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! No sweat on the Falwell stuff, I'll just research and see where that leads. Benjiboi 20:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Thanks for heads up on minor edits flag, it was on auto set which I'll change. Benjiboi 19:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whoops...

Sorry about that The part about being brief was part of the pre-made template for reporting a vandal. I am using an old version or Internet explorer at work, so have to cut&paste the template. At home I have firefox and can report at the push of a button. I think that IP should be blocked for a loooong time for that sort of vandalism. thanks. —Gaff ταλκ 20:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Image:Christieplan.gif==

I am complaining about your rudeness in deleting this image. The image was uploaded before the new provisions came in about replaceable fair use and was not subject to the automatic deletion that applies to new images. I wrote a fair use rationale clearly explaining this, with the clear instructions to contact me if the image was to be deleted. I am in the middle of drawing a new one and had specifically asked that you hold off doing so until the image could be replaced properly. Yet you go ahead and delete it and don't even ask me. I am very annoyed - that's not fair and not on. You do not treat people like that. I would like an apology at the very least for not even bothering to contact me as asked. JRG 07:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Older images are not permanently grandfathered in; they are subject to deletion after time for discussion, and there was a discussion which you participated in. So you knew it was going to be deleted. I didn't see any purpose in notifying you of that which you were already aware. But if you need the image undeleted so you can get a copy of it, I am willing to do that for a few minutes while you are active so you can grab it. ··coelacan 07:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


==re: Ebon Fisher page==

Everything I posted at the Ebon Fisher page was provided to me by Ebon Fisher for that purpose.

Please restore the page as I created it as there are no copyright violations.

Thank you

Rydernechvatal 08:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advocate

Thanks for the message Coelacan! I knew we (the wikiproject) were going to appear at the Advocate, but I had no idea I (or 'my' article) was going to be mentioned at all. It was a really nice surprise. :-) So thanks for telling me. I will be coming back, by the way, but it may be a few weeks yet. If you guys need anything, drop me a message at my talk and I'll try to get back to you asap ok? Cheers :-) Raystorm 14:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about?

Regarding this edit [32]. You left a note on my talkpage suggesting that my description of "copyedit" was misleading. What are you talking about? I assume you know how capitals are used in the English language. Prester John 23:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Tate image

Why didn't you just leave the image of Darren Tate alone? I am not going to put it back up because I will get blocked. I just think you must have nothing better to do with your time than to find images and delete them, even though there is no real reason to. Cls14 00:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I do apologise for my slight outburst above. However I do not see how the image that I put up is not free when the person who took it and appears in it gave me direct permission to use it. Are the only kinds of images you can put on here really old ones, screencaps and pics your took yourself? Cls14 01:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts after User:Unauthored

It is good that you revert blocked users' edits, but it would be even better if you checked if they aren't useful. I don't think that restoring Islamic honorifics such as p.b.u.h or k.s.a is necessary. It's more in accordance with WP:NPOV to leave them out. Aminullah 09:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users are allowed to make changes to my edits as they see fit. But DavidYork71 is not allowed to edit, and I intend to enforce this. To be honest, he's made a lot of changes that aren't NPOV either, and I have no desired to pick through them all and decide what's worth keeping and what's not. If ever he finally learns he's not welcome here, he can get out of the way and make it easier for other editors to take planned and considered steps toward NPOV. It'll be more difficult as long as he's using Wikipedia, though. Sorry. ··coelacan 16:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Van Halen page

That image you removed...it's the only present photo of Van Halen as a band since the 2004 reunion ended, and the only one with the present Roth-Van Halen-Van Halen-Van Halen lineup. I'm not the best communicator - any chance you could e-mail Rolling Stone magazine for me (if I sent you a copy of the image to attach when talking to them) asking permission? I don't think people would respond brilliantly to me, and given your vast number of Wikipedia edits you're clearly fairly experienced at communicating ideas. I am after all, but 17 years of age. Any chance you could do that for me please? That photo is the ONLY one around and is very very useful (The Elfoid 15:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

RFA

Thanks for you constructive criticism. I appreciate your response, and, for the record, I have been so frustrated that I've wanted to scream, but I'm known for always keeping a level head in all aspects of my life, as I'm a psychology major going into law. Thanks again, however, and Happy Wikying! hmwithtalk 04:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear. Your RFA may pass regardless. If not, and if a chill approach continues, I wouldn't oppose a second RFA in a few months. ··coelacan 04:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Play65

I resent your attempt to speedily delete the page. Play65 is a well known brand and if less notable websites such as Tamagotchi Town or Adventure Gamers appear on wiki, there's no reason to delete the neutral play65 page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crippo (talk • contribs).

Vandalism block User_talk:71.153.249.2 needs renewing

The block you created on April 18th has expired and a new rash of vandalism has broken out. Would you mind blocking this school for even longer than 1 month? ManVhv 15:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6 months. We won't be missing out on any constructive editing from that IP. Thanks for the note. ··coelacan 19:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhhhhh.... Thank you, thank you. ManVhv 21:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for you staunch support of me at my RfA. I intend to respond to the additional questions you have posed as soon as I can dedicate more than 2 or so minutes to either or them. I'm currently a full-time student, but I should be able to get to them with in 6 or 8 hours and have indicated so on the page. Thanks again. GoodnightmushTalk 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 11:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anacapa

Hi Coelacan, I hope you're keeping well. I need a small bit of advice I'm preparing to take Anacapa to WP:AN and I could do with some advice. If you look at the rpeort you'll see that they've been warned 3 times in the last 2 weeks and have been involved in a number of disruptive POVPUSHES just in the last couple of days as well as over the whole month of May. Some of this behaviour includes tagging WP:GS with {{NPOV}}, POVPUSHING at rape, soapboxing on my talk page Shunning, Antifeminism, Sex differences and Christina Hoff Sommers. They are involved in tendentious disputes on these pages with User:Jehochman, User:Jbolden1517 and User:Sxeptomaniac. My patience is also running out. Have you any advice on this, would it be better if I opened a User RFC or went to Arbcom? Personally I think WP:AN is the best venue since Anacapa hasn't been blocked yet and since it would be hard to point out all the IPs used by Ancapa at a user RFC. Sorry to burden you with all this again, I realize how tiresome it must be. I'd be really obliged if you could give me your opinion on the matter--Cailil talk 20:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Releasing Checkuser information

I just read you Block Decline Reason on Klamber's talk page. One statement struck me as being odd: "The evidence from CheckUser is not available for you to see, due to our privacy policy." However the Help:CheckUser#Wikimedia_privacy_policy clearly states that this information can be released with permission of the affected user. Clearly Klamber is the affected user. I am intrigued by this apparent contradiction. Could you clarify please. Thanks. Martintg 12:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guppy

Don't forget to check the page. Also, your talk page needs archiving. JSYK. :p - Jeeny Talk 03:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of The Mixer

Hi,

I dont understand why you are pulling this down. The Mixer is a term used in many countries for a type of discussion. I am simply trying to explain what it is to others. Possibly some of the content was distasteful? How should i improve?

Bernard.sheridan

Fair enough, but isn't this a "Free Encylopedia" for all? There was never going to be email addresses submitted or any discussions posted, it was more an explanation of what it was, what it does and what it can do.

RFCU

Thanks, I think Luna sorta cleared it up also, it appears the check user was already done and they were confirmed. There's no end to User:Brya socks it appears. This makes me think I was wrong in arguing she shouldn't be banned--well, this and his/her vicious attack of me.... In another 5 years I might figure out how to do an archive. KP Botany 03:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

can we possibly run a checkuser on 4.137.196.6? I'm curious as to why (s)he's saying that. Whsitchy 01:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a CheckUser, so I can't do it myself. You could make a request at WP:RFCU, but I suspect you will get this result:
Checkuser is not for fishing.
I don't think it would jive with our privacy policy, either. People are allowed to log out and edit anonymously. As long as the person is not using sockpuppets to stack the oppose column, there's nothing "wrong" with what they've done, even if it's annoying. If you do suspect sockpuppets in the oppose section, then that would be a valid CheckUser request, but with the exception of one opposer, I recognize everyone there and I'm pretty sure we're not sockpuppets. =) ··coelacan 01:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. And thankfully, they're using actual reasons for opposing not just "per yadda" Whsitchy 01:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, double checking, one is, but... Personally, if this one doesn't pass, and she tries again in 2-3 months, I'd think it's go through with flying colors. Whsitchy 01:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message

I've now replied to the questions raised. / Pax:Vobiscum 07:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Portalanarchism.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Portalanarchism.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Q11

Yes, while trying to assume good faith, I would have chosen to do to wait, but now, after your advice, I will probably do what you said to do, as you have the experience of being ad admin, and I'm simply predicting my future actions. From what I hear, no matter how long one's been here, it takes a little while to figure everything as an admin. Thanks for your advice, and I appreciate your questions. We'll see how this RfA turns out. In the mean time, Happy Wikying!

On a side note, I enjoyed your picture and caption up top. hmwithtalk 15:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealey Plaza

I note that you have locked the Dealey Plaza page becuase of an apparent content dispute. Please note that there is no real content dispute. User: 70.109.54.8, User: 12.158.190.38, User:71.171.87.205 and User: 200.115.171.48 are all the same person. The tip off is for some odd reason he/she signs their posts as (CWC). In addition, said user is a troll. He/she is constantly haranguing agaisnt author Posner, and referring to editor's as Posnerphiles, even though Posner makes up one half of the article's sites. I have a strong belief that this user is related or may be the same user who has been banned for one year by the ArbCom. I have no problem with full protection, but please don't ask us to feed this annoying troll. BTW-- he/she is threatening to spread to other articles. [33]. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do regard this as a content dispute. The user is not obviously vandalizing. If they are unwilling to work on articles after they are protected due to the content disputes, and instead move on to edit war over different articles, then that is unacceptable behavior. I will warn the user about this. If you're tracking them, keep me informed on their movements; I may come around to your way of thinking if nothing constructive can be squeezed out of this user. I will have to see it myself, though. ··coelacan 17:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough but please note that Dealey Plaza was the second article this user spread to. He initially edit warred on the Lee Harvey Oswald page causing it to be locked. It's hard to point out diffs because he/she is using several different anon identities and it could take hours for me to catalog it for you. But it did lead to the page being protected by Steel359. The edit warring included adding incorrect information, and introducing long POV pushing blockquotes (a trademark of the banned user, RPJ, mentioned above). He then moved on to the Dealey Plaza article. Finally, I am not sure how fruitful discussion will be with the user. The majority of users on these articles view this anon as nothing more than a troll, and don't wish to feed it. However, I will see if there is any change in his editing behavior before I respond to any concerns he has, once he raises them. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did see the protection on Oswald. If the user fails to make the Dealey Plaza page protection worthwhile, I will treat it as trolling and block accordingly. ··coelacan 18:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dear coeLacan

Each and every aspect of the assassination here on Wikipedia is distorted to a level beyond even what Earl Warren or Gerald Posner could imagine. It is horrifying to think that anyone who might research the assassination on the very popular site would be indoctrinated with a whole new series of outright lies. For example, that 12 witnesses saw Oswald kill Tippit, the Warren Commission ballistics experts linked Oswald’s gun to the Tippit and Walker shootings, and that Jack Ruby’s primary occupation was a gunrunner?

I began to set the record straight with Lee Harvey Oswald’s biography. All my changes were removed within 5 minutes. (Not an exaggeration) I then attempted to enter their discussion page and politely point out 31 errors in their footnotes. They either fabricate testimony or cite someone’s (Gerald Posner) opinion as an established fact. If Oswald’s biography contained 31 errors imagine how many there are altogether. Also these 31 errors were merely outright errors. The whole article is extremely biased. Devoting space to Ruth Paines’ religious beliefs while at the same time mentioned nothing about her intelligence employment.

The ignorance by Walloon was overwhelming. Not only were my comments not answered, they were censored altogether! Just to reassure you, my comments contained sources and no personal insults or profanity.

When I inquired as to why my comments were being censored my IP address was banned from Wikipedia. This had little effect since I simply switched my IP address. Hence ALL discussion on Oswald’s biography was censored for two weeks until June 13.

It is extremely hypercritical to accuse me of “tendentious editing” when Walloon (McAdams) and others zealously removed all edits without explanation and censored all discussion.

If the Wikipedia history for the Oswald page had not been censored you would see that I “civilly” discussed for the last two weeks making changes to the article. However every single aspect of the assassination is dictated by only four editors who cannot cite sources. “Consensus building” does not come from deleting discussion. (CWC) June 3, 2007 8:29pm EST.

Update

Please note this. User has in fact gone on to post questionable material (i.e. original research, POV pushing blockquotes) on yet another article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you now. The user is not working toward consensus versions, only moving on to another article. I've blocked the user for 31 hours and semi-protected the article. Thank you for the note. Contact me here again if necessary. ··coelacan 00:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our friend has moved on to a new article with a new IP. See here. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help in dealing with the edit warring anon. Although, I am beginning to feel sorry for you, being dragged into this and all. Do you still want me to keep you updated, or have you had enough? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. This is one of the easier problems I have to deal with. Since I'm already somewhat familiar with it, it'd be easier just to let me know than making reports at WP:RFPP and WP:AIV. Although, if I'm out and not answering for long periods, you'll have to make reports there instead. ··coelacan 23:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please also be careful that you do not violate WP:3RR yourself, which is still in effect, even though the other user is apparently trolling. I don't think that reverts of this user's content would be covered by any of the few exceptions to WP:3RR. ··coelacan 23:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried and will continue to do so. Is there anyway you can simply semi-protect the following articles for about a week: Trial of Clay Shaw, John F. Kennedy assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald, Dealey Plaza, and Jack Ruby. My hope is that by doing this it will force the anon to begin acting appropriately. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's gone one to two new articles: Timeline of the John F. Kennedy assassination, John F. Kennedy autopsy. I figured I wouldn't revert his edits but just inform you of the new development. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable NPOV violation claims

What is up with the NPOV comment you added to my page? Nothing I have edited violates the NPOV requirement for Wikipedia. Can you clarify which posts you claim violate this policy rather than simply placing a blanket, unreferenced statement on my talk page?Mikedotnet 19:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your response on my talk page. I'm sorry that you interpreted my comment as "sneer" and that you interpreted the image as a "bad" representation of Rosie O'Donnell, but nevertheless, it is a valid image. Your interpretation actually violates the NPOV policy by definition. Please refrain from stating your own point of view on further issues.Mikedotnet 19:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Suits

I've already explained that the photo of Julia Suits is not replacable because there is no other photo of her. Pepso2 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emails

Well, thanks for deleting posts from other users, try watching what you delete. Site Wikipedia's policy and the jurisdiction law. -PatPeter 14:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So according to Wikipedia:Harassment I could post the emails just not the email address. -PatPeter 01:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter?

I'm at a total loss as to what to put in the newsletter that should have gone out two days ago. Any ideas? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually dig through the WT:LGBT archive for the last month to see what looked important that was discussed, or anything that might have affected the project's direction, or anything that was raised as "can we do this" but was not acted upon. And were there any bumps to GA or FA? I can get into the newsletter later in the evening if you're still hanging. ··coelacan 18:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moderation Management article deletion

Why was the speedily deleted? I disagree with it being nonremarkable, considering it is referenced in the Alcoholism page as an alternative to AA. Considering the animosity between the groups, I find this deletion suspicious. 12.134.194.7 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article made no assertion of notability. If you can show multiple sources that would meet the "general notability guideline" of Wikipedia:Notability, then I will restore the article. ··coelacan 18:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Play65

Hello, Coelacan. Last week, you speedily deleted the article Play65. The same user who created that article, Crippo (talk · contribs), has submitted an article by the same name at Articles For Creation. (You can find it here until the page is archived tonight; after archiving it will be here.) Could I trouble you to review the new Play65 article to see if addresses the concerns you had about the initial attempt? Thanks! Powers T 18:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I've looked over the article again, and it has been created. Your help is appreciated! Keep up the good work. Hersfold (talk/work) 20:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Hersfold's thanks, with an extra kudos for the speedy response. =) Powers T 20:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I shall also make a note on the article talk page to discourage any future speedy deletion; the article should go through AFD if anyone has doubts about it now. ··coelacan 20:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:ArmedBlowfish

Fair enough; I was, as I think I hinted, only asking for information, and !voting pending its reception. I will change to support.--Anthony.bradbury 22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always try to respond to comments ASAP, and quite often I agree with them. :-)--Anthony.bradbury 22:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he is blocked, why isn't the block showing up on his block log? Plus, it would be impossible to do a CheckUser on a Tor user to determine if they are running any sockpuppets. We've had a few instances lately of admins being desysopped for that. Corvus cornix 22:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the explanation. That doesn't change my opinion. Corvus cornix 22:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no open proxies is a policy. We can't have admins who openly flout policy with every single edit they make. If you disagree with the policy, get it changed first. Corvus cornix 23:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say in the policy that it doesn't apply to good users? Where in the policy does it say only soft blocks should be performed? Corvus cornix 23:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in admins following policy. Corvus cornix 23:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nop

Hello. You're certainly more than welcome to bring this discussion to my talk page. I've got lots of respect for your work around here and I certainly read your comment with interest and will ponder my opposition to the RfA some more. I do think that paranoia and adminship are an explosive mix although I'll concede that I might be making too big a deal of it. One of the typical problems I see with certain admins is that as you start deleting tons of crap everyday and blocking people there's a definite tendency of becoming entrenched in a defensive "me against them" attitude which inevitably leads to incivility, hasty blocks, undue deletions and all the other common mistakes that get occasional editors so annoyed. So anybody that states from the get-go his paranoia is in my mind more likely to suffer from this problem. As for examples, take for instance the recent fiasco of the hkelkar2 ArbCom case or the RfA debate of GraceNotes. In both cases, I believe paranoia has resulted in unnecessary complications.

As for the present RfA case (you may have already answered this somewhere but I'm too lazy to read through everything right now) but don't you feel at least a bit uneasy about someone requesting adminship primarily to avoid an autoblock? Ok, I understand the problem he may be faced with but solving it with an RfA seems like the wrong way to go about it. I must say that I'm not completely sure that, as you put it, providing anonymity to those who need it is a valuable public service, maybe because I'm just not paranoid enough! Anyways, feel free to spam me with your thoughts on the subject. Pascal.Tesson 02:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taharqa

I'd keep an eye on her talk page. I lost my marbles again has just posted a message on her talk page that includes an insult, and it's very possible that their back-and-forths will get out of hand again. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 07:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the note. I hope I've averted any train wreck. ··coelacan 08:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


what did i do? and why are you threatening me? Did you look at the comment i put on that person's talk page? the worst word i said was Ignorant. c'mon man.

you're using double standards. you did not remove the comment Taharqa gave me "you're coming off like a low-life racist Nazi" or give any warnings to user Taharqa when they said this.

If you are going to be this touchy than you could itleast be fair about it. why dont you remove Taharqa's comment from my page.

Ok i just looked your history and you were right. You did block us BOTH for 2 days. so you were fair. I probably wont even contribe to that topic ever again. There seems to be a huge edit war going on there without me anyways. I notice that the Topic (race and ancient egypt) has been fully protected since It was locked. And you have my word. I will never speak with Taharqa again. But Taharqa better not come talking to me.


EL Wire

Can't say I really disagree with the picture's removal. I'm sure there are more appropriate examples that could be included in the article. It did seem that Allyn's objective was to have his picture in as many articles as possible. I've removed quite a number of them, left the two in the EL Wire article because I didn't want to appear that I was attacking him personally. RP Bravo 21:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Can you block the vandal that made this page? [34] Prester John 04:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA ...

Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was successful and I am now an admin. Your comment about the AfD-DRV-AfD cycle for the lists of tall men and women prompted an interesting trip down memory lane ... that cycle served as a crash-course in deletion policy for me. If I'm not mistaken, my arguments changed quite a bit between the first and second AfDs and I also remember that it was my first DRV nomination. Anyway ... if I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC) By the way, this gem of a comment is either a sign of cynicism, great wisdom, or both. ;)[reply]

A bit of cynicism probably comes with great wisdom ... I guess that makes me a cynic, though the question remains whether I am wise one ... Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 06:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Wheel war? Well, I've always liked wheels and been interested in war, so ... sounds fun![reply]
You should then immediately unblock yourself, indef-block me with the summary "blocked to prevent spread of avian influenza", and then delete and salt my userpage. Of course, since any admin can undo any of these actions, we may eventually have to think of something more inventive (maybe an inter-species wheel war between the avian and piscine admins). ;-) No, I am familiar with the term "wheel warring"; I ran across it a few months ago when randomly checking various WP: shortcuts. ... I don't know whether I should have admitted that I actually do things like that. Oh, well. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of various 12-step groups' articles

I noticed that you speedily deleted articles for Overeaters Anonymous, Crystal Meth Anonymous, Codependents Anonymous, Sexual Compulsives Anonymous, Gamblers Anonymous, Nar-Anon, Debtors Anonymous, Depressed Anonymous, GreySheeters Anonymous, Sex Addicts Anonymous, Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous. If you do some Google News Archive searches or Google Scholar searches, you will find plenty of reliable sources discusses these groups. By that standard, I believe they meet WP:NOTE and should not have been speedily deleted. I'd like to request that you undelete them, and any similar ones I may not have listed. I will watch your talk page if you'd like to discuss this here. -- Craigtalbert 10:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, none of the articles passed WP:N when I looked at them, nor did they even try to. They were all deleted under WP:CSD#A7, along with Moderation Management, which someone else has complained about, above. I'll tell you the same thing I told them: show me third-party reliable sources that would make any given article pass WP:N and WP:V, and I'll undelete. ··coelacan 23:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Overeaters Anonymous, Crystal Meth Anonymous, Codependents Anonymous, Sexual Compulsives Anonymous, Gamblers Anonymous, Nar-Anon, Debtors Anonymous, Sex Addicts Anonymous, Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous, Al-Anon, Alateen. You are correct that there doesn't seem to be any scholarly information published on GreySheeters Anonymous. They are probably non-notable. Depressed Anonymous has results, but I would also call them non-notable. Co-Sex Addicts Anonymous should probably stay gone too. -- Craigtalbert 19:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article Codependents Anonymous stated "There are about 1200 groups in the United States; besides that, CoDA is active in more than 40 countries." The Al-Anon/Alateen website states "International Al-Anon: Al-Anon/Alateen meetings are held in 115 countries. There are over 24,000 Al-Anon and over 2,300 Alateen groups worldwide." Why are these groups not notable? Wouldn't it be appropriate to discuss deletions on the talk pages first? — DavidMack 22:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Coelacan does have a point about Codependents Anonymous. I just finished rewrites of Al-Anon and Crystal Meth Anonymous, and it was laborious but there was no lack of information. For CoDA I've found about six articles that sort of make it a little bit notable. — Craigtalbert 04:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not ignoring you; I've been away from Wikipedia. I'll respond soon. ··coelacan 23:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm recreating the ones that have reliable sources. -- Craigtalbert 05:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way of restoring the history and talk pages to the re-created articles? — DavidMack 23:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An administrator might be able too. Apparently they're too good for us. :) — Craigtalbert 04:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree Sexual Recovery Anonymous is non-notable. -- Craigtalbert 06:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Ebon Fisher page

[Ticket#2007052710004469] Ebon Fisher wiki page

Dear Coelacan

Will you now please put back the Eban Fisher page I created on him. See below:

You have permission to post materials, both text and images, pertaining to my work. It is free for publication under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL).

Forward to Wikipedia: Joseph Nechvatal is a well-regarded artist and art historian/theorist, especially in the field of experimental digital media arts. I am quite honored that he would endeavour to launch the Wikipedia site covering my works. He would be an excellent contributor to any encyclopedia on mine or any new media artist's work. I willingly release my images and text quotations for publication under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL).

Best, Ebon Fisher Af. Assoc. Professor Art, Music & Technology Stevens Institute of Technology Castle Point on Hudson, Hoboken, NJ


Original Message Follows----

From: Permissions < permissions@wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Ticket#2007052710004469] Ebon Fisher wiki page


Rydernechvatal

I'll check up on this and give you the article or an answer soon. ··coelacan 23:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Assassination

Dear Coelacan

Thank you for erroneously protecting the ‘Trial of Clay Shaw’ page. Now anyone whom accesses the page will know that the single minded view of the assassination cannot stand review.

Over the last three weeks I have politely attempted to discuss the Kennedy assassination only to receive verbal abuse and down right childish behavior.

The outrageous claims made in the articles are sure to convince no one who has studied the assassination.

I have repeatedly cited sources for all of my corrections because I honestly expected researchers to correct their mistakes. I now see they are not mistakes but outright lies.

The article quotes witnesses as staying things they never said or simply making up facts. 99.9% of all sources are merely a link to one opinionated website. Clearly the authors have no intention of even attempting to convince researchers of their opinions, only insult them.

Here is something to consider, 99.9% of the sources cited on Wikipedia come from McAdams’ website ‘The Kennedy Assassination Homepage.’ This is not a source. Why doesn’t Wikipedia simply automatically redirect to the website? Why is there an article at all?

You stated the discussion page exists to “build consensus.” But how can any discussion take place if you as an administrator erroneously delete comments, allowing only four people of the same mind to dictate the article. (CWC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.109.54.8 (talk)

I told you, I don't care about the content of the articles. It doesn't do any good to complain to me about what's wrong with the articles. You need dispute resolution, and to do that you should probably register an account. To answer your question, as it's a pretty simple one, consensus can come about if you actually stop unilaterally introducing your desired changes and instead use the article talk pages to propose compromise versions. That's what the talk pages are there for. When an article is protected, you're supposed to work toward a compromise instead of moving on to another article and starting a new fight there. Hopping from article to article and starting new fights just makes you look like a troll or a fanatic. If you're a troll, you will probably have more fun trolling webforums where people tolerate more ranting than we do here. If you're a fanatic, well, we actually have some good advice on how to not be a fanatic and get some of the changes you want accomplished. I hope you'll take that advice. ··coelacan 06:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
update: you're famous dude. URL EXPUNGED FROM PIGEONRANK Gzuckier 17:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copt

Hi Coelacan- The article Copt is having a recurring problem with vandalism by this banned user, could you help? I don't want to just keep reverting him, it's exhausting. What is the protocol for dealing with banned users who return? He's so far come back as 74.0.147.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), Impartiallaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and CopticFreedom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Zerida 19:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the procedure is:
  • If it's blindingly obvious, just find an administrator who will block. If you're not sure who to ask, make a request on WP:ANI.
  • If it's not blindingly obvious, start or expand a report at WP:SSP.
In this case, it was clear as day, and I've indef blocked the accounts and blocked the IP for two weeks. If the articles(s) continue to get hit by new sockpuppets very quickly, try making a request for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. ··coelacan 00:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help and clarification, Coelacan. — Zerida 23:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coelacan, would you mind terribly keeping Copt and Coptic flag on your watchlist? He just struck again with another IP and a username. He also keeps uploading the same bogus flag over and over again; these should be speedily deleted. I tried to get one of the pages protected, but was told not enough recent activity on the article. Not sure how soon is too soon. — Zerida 02:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it too. I was going to revert, but didn't want to seem like a gang war. It seemed obvious to me that this was the same person. Also, I do not have any idea which flag is correct, as I do not live in Egypt and am not a Copt. So, when in doubt, don't...my Mum's motto. :) - Jeeny Talk 02:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jeeny. He's driving me crazy. I would revert (I already did today), but I know from past experience with him that he won't stop. I'm hoping to get the articles semi-protected eventually. The flag that he keeps uploading by the way is the national Egyptian flag, but with a cross on it (the actual Egyptian flag doesn't have it). — Zerida 02:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Coelacan. — Zerida 02:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As User:Serenesoulnyc, the user was properly blocked for massive sockpuppetry and no admin is going to unblock unless the user starts playing by consensus. That means they're de facto banned and not allowed to edit. I have reverted the edits, per the banning policy, though not as an endorsement of that version (which I am not interested in either way). Jeeny, feel at liberty to do the same if you wish (or don't). If they ever start playing by consensus and talk page discussion, I might be willing to undo the ban, but not until there are strong signs of cooperation and civility. If they pop up yet again, I'll consider a semi-protection, but that's only somewhat helpful. You'll probably need to keep me informed on my talk page. My watchlist is huge and I'm likely to overlook problems if you don't grab me and point me in the right direction. ··coelacan 02:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was this user User:Voiceofraison. That other IP is from NY or NJ (seemingly to match the user Serenesoulnyc). Were the others located in the US too? I'm so confused. Zerida, I know what crazy feels like. %-{ - Jeeny Talk 04:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bassel

Hi You deleted my aricle about Bassel, and i want to explain what happend please.
while i was editing Bassel page i put some information as for Testing and i save it, then you came and deleted it.
Later i prepared the correct information in a better way to match Wiki rules and tried to insert it in that article but i couldn't !!
would you please help me to insert the new information.
Bassel.max 09:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can unlock the page if you can you give some reliable sources that show that this individual meets our notability requirements. ··coelacan 23:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Anonymous One

Coelecan, User:The Anonymous One is trolling the talk pages of Muslim editors with massively cross-posted spam.Proabivouac 03:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. I'll go revert now. ··coelacan 03:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, coelacan! I reverted one, and Itaqallah reverted his own...I'll try to get to a few more.Proabivouac 03:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I used admin rollback; they should all be fixed now. ··coelacan 03:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

boo!

Never disappeared entirely, but took a giant step back for a bit. I won't be participating as much as before, but will be doing some editing. Glad to see you have settled nicely into your role as admin. Jeffpw 08:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion?

Hi, how come you did this: [Diff]? He vandalized user pages. That's a no-no. (The warnings were not for talk page additions.) --User:RandomHumanoid(talk) 08:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me where the user vandalized user pages. There is no vandalism in Special:Contributions/Wowawea. ··coelacan 08:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, you're right. I was getting it from all sides for a moment, but it was someone else. Mea culpa. --User:RandomHumanoid(talk) 08:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. It happens. No long term harm done I'm sure. ··coelacan 08:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But come to think of it, he was heavily vandalizing the page he created which has since been speedily deleted, so it is no longer listed among his contributions. So the warnings hold. User:RandomHumanoid(talk) 09:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that I deleted the page and I can still see it; the user's last edit to it was at 08:13 and you kept giving warnings at 08:30, 08:46, and 08:55. Honestly it is better to give a new user a lot of room to stretch and make one test article. This is a wiki; people make tests. Please try to apply this principle and not alienate newcomers. Many of our best users started out with test edits, and we have appointed admins who once vandalized. You don't have to bust every questionable user immediately, and I'm should tell you that applying multiple warnings after they've already quit just makes admins ignore your blocking requests. ··coelacan 09:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Doitiu, well, that was pretty bad. ··coelacan 09:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmnn, maybe I'm confusing him with some other user then. I wouldn't just add warnings for no reasons -- what's the point? Anyway, I think my vandal radar is well honed (did you see his most recent edit to my talk page?) but I'm grateful for the advice! --User:RandomHumanoid(talk) 09:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delightful stuff, that. The account isn't coming back. The IP will lose its autoblock after a while though. Hopefully they'll move on and you won't be the target. =/ ··coelacan 09:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oh_yEs_itS_caRly

Funny, they called it edit warring when *I* tried to restore the page to welcome the user back. Someday I'll have that mop... Anyway, after you restored the page she said nope :p [35] -N 12:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

could this be speedied?

Show Me Classic - doesn't state notability... What do you think? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just deleted it! ··coelacan 00:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Muah hah ha! Oh the power!! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! You should lay off the coffee, my friend. The prod was going to expire in two days. If not me, someone would have whacked it. The author made at least one other page that fell by wp:csd#a7. Might be a good newbie who's not familiar with the policies. Might be a spammer. Hard to say. I'll wait for the inevitable "damn you coelacan" and try to explain again, if the multiple tags on their talk page haven't done the trick yet. ··coelacan 00:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eban Fisher page you deleted

Looks like the Eban Fisher page I created has been deleted again. I do not understand why. The material I posted there was given to me by Eban Fisher and cleared with your (c) dept.

Can yu let me know why you deleted it and restore it please?

see:

You have permission to post materials, both text and images, pertaining to my work. It is free for publication under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL).

>> Forward to Wikipedia: Joseph Nechvatal is a well-regarded artist and art historian/theorist, especially in the field of experimental digital media arts. I am quite honored that he would endeavour to launch the Wikipedia site covering my works. He would be an excellent contributor to any encyclopedia on mine or any new media artist's work. I willingly release my images and text quotations for publication under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL).

Best, Ebon Fisher Af. Assoc. Professor Art, Music & Technology Stevens Institute of Technology Castle Point on Hudson, Hoboken, NJ

This was sent to: From: Permissions <permissions@wikimedia.org> 

Re: [Ticket#2007052710004469] Ebon Fisher wiki page


Thank you

Rydernechvatal


Formal Axiology NPOV:

Coelacan,

I have attempted to neutralize references to Hartman - and point out disadvantages of his system as well. I was only using his system as a concrete example of what can happen when formal logic is applied to the study of ethics. A concrete example is helpful because the subject-matter is abstract. Also, just as a discussion of euclidean geometry is appropriate when discussing the general topic of geometry, an overview of Hartman's system is needed when discussing formal axiology. Coelacan, if this corrects the problem in your view, please remove the POV. Thanks Harvey007 18:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

My favorite anon is back on the Lee Oswald page. Is there anything I can do to have a final resolution of this situation outside of having the page semi-protected permanently? Please advise. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coelacan, you will want to see the allegations he has made against you on the Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald page. — Walloon 05:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted, but here it is if you missed it. If you've already seen it, please delete the link to it from my message. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

Just asking, but what is meant by the geographical coordinates on your user page? —Kurykh 04:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer that. It's the middle of the ocean, because Coelacanth is an old fish once thought to be extinct. - Jeeny Talk 05:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, ok. But coelacanths are not found in the middle of the South Pacific. But I'm just being anal about it... —Kurykh 05:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I can relate! I think Coelacan likes to be mysterious, and probably wishes to be in the South Pacific. :) - Jeeny Talk 06:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coelacan Is The Subject Of Discussion

Dear Coelacan

I have made you the topic of discussion on this forum.

URL EXPUNGED FROM PIGEONRANK

Look for the same letter elsewhere online. — 12.150.11.25 10:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote in that forum on June 25, 2007,

After reviewing the assassination articles all written by only five authors I found that their flaw was not misinformation picked up online but deliberate disinformation. Some of their new theories are imaginably macabre. Ruth Paine was learning Russian for the cause of “world peace.” Thirteen witnesses saw Oswald shoot Tippit. Tippit’s first name was not even “Jefferson Davis” but simply “Jd.” General Walker witnessed Oswald shooting him. Everything Lee Bowers witnessed took place on the other side of the grassy knoll fence. Oswald caused a ruckus in theatre with other patrons which caused the employees to call the police.

Nowhere in the Wikipedia articles on the John F. Kennedy assassination or on J.D. Tippit or on Lee Harvey Oswald or on Kennedy assassination theories does it say "Thirteen witnesses saw Oswald shoot Tippit." Nor does any article claim that Edwin Walker "witnessed Oswald shooting him." The articles accurately say that Walker was home at the time, and that he was hit by bullet fragments in his forearm. As for the Lee Bowers testimony, you can read here a transcript of his 1966 filmed interview with pro-conspiracy author Mark Lane in which Bowers specifically states that no one was behind the fence on the grassy knoll when the shots were fired. Keep in mind that this is not from the Warren Commission, this is a statement taken by one of the leading assassination conspiracy theorists. Not surprisingly, Lane did not use that portion of the Bowers interview in his documentary film Rush to Judgment. And none of the articles referenced above contain any claim that "Oswald caused a ruckus in theatre with other patrons which caused the employees to call the police."
You also wrote in that forum,

Tippit is referred to several times in the Warren Report as “Jefferson Davis Tippit.”

Nowhere in the Warren Report is J.D. Tippit referred to as "Jefferson Davis Tippit." — Walloon 19:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do NOT believe Coelacan made those racial comments. Where is the proof that he threatened you in this way? - Jeeny Talk 20:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the "letter" linked above is the same as this: URL EXPUNGED FROM PIGEONRANK but it's kind of pointless to ask conspiracy theorists and/or holocaust denialists for "proof", particularly proof of their mistreatment. The basic raison d'etre is "I am persecuted by the great and powerful for my dangerous brilliance, therefore I am". Gzuckier 17:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude

You have a problem with me or somthing?--Hornetman16 06:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, dude misread my userpage!--Hornetman16 07:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hucko AfD, take 2

Hello,

I nominated Mark Hucko for deletion again. Previous AfD was closed as "no consensus". In the meantime the sources for the article have not become any better and it is still unverifiable.

Your opinion will be appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Hucko (2nd nomination).

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni 12:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coelacan/Archive_5&oldid=1142456227"