User talk:Fran Rogers/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remembrance Day

Was the semi-protect on Remembrance Day pre-emtive, to avoid trouble as the day approaches? Just wondering, because it didn't look to be attracting much vandalism at the moment and I didn't see a discussion anywhere. Not saying this approach was necessarily bad, just curious. Skittle 05:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I protected it in response to a RFPP request, where a user had noted a large, increasing amount of vandalism in the days leading up to the holiday. The protection policy discourages purely pre-emptive protection; however, given the sizable amount of vandalism that was happening at the moment I agreed that semi-protection was probably necessary and approved the request. You can request unprotection, or request protection of another page, at WP:RFPP. :) --krimpet⟲ 11:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Roman's block

Well done! You might like to take a look at Roman in the flesh [1] because if that person is over 18 I must be 104. Giano 18:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The documention says the model is 23, and the photo was taken in 1993. I think by anyone's math, the model is over 18 now.
Why is someone whose userpage claims they have left Wikipedia issuing blocks? Where is the evidence that the page Ramon left his comment on belongs to a minor? On what planet is suggesting someone might upload a photo to their userpage "solicitation?" According to the documentation I've read, Arbcom is supposed to be a forum which resolves disputes which have not been able to be resolved by the community, and which have been taken to Arbcom for resolution. Arbcom seems to be issuing a lot of pre-emptive blocks these days, of editors no one else has suggested need to be blocked. Enrico Dirac 00:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The model can be 93 today, it si the age at the time the image was taken that is important. The girl herself gave her own age on her now deleted user page [2]. The block is sound, just and very necessary. Giano 00:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom wasn't involved at all; I made this block out of my own discretion for the good of the project. "Ellis Raimbault" claimed to be a 14-year-old "childlove" activist (and was found to abusing an open proxy to do so). Mr. Czyborra directly asked her to post pictures of herself. This is creepy enough asking any woman to post pictures, but trying to solicit a young teen to post pictures of herself is sickening and borderline illegal, and we cannot tolerate this kind of behavior at all on this project. --krimpet⟲ 00:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, obviously, we can't check things if people insist upon deleting them. I do, however, think you have "picture" confused with "sexually explicit picture," although I can understand how, in the current political climate, avoiding anything with "teen" and "picture" in the same sentence might seem to be prudent. Although you say Arbcom wasn't involved, there was a note left saying the block could only be appealed to Arbcom, as opposed to the usual requesting of an unblock by the blocking admin on the user's talk page. Since the photograph in question of Ramon is of an artistic nature, and involves simple nudity, age really isn't an issue, and I see nothing in the picture inconsistant with the model being 23. Just my observations. Enrico Dirac 00:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It was a very good block and I would have done the same. Thanks Krimpet. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that Ellis Raimbault did indeed state her age was under the age of consent. For the record, I do not believe that this person was actually a fourteen year old girl, as she evidently had knowledge of setting up anonymising proxies. But that is what she claimed, yes. And we must act on the assumption that that is fact, if it is what she stated. --Deskana (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, our AGF policies assume we believe such a statement even when open proxy use is a classic sign of sockpuppetry in this particular area of wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I checked the girl's log, and she stated that she was fourteen. She did not state that she was under the age of consent. Fourteen year old girls with a taste for the polemic are probably among the most adept at using proxies. Why else would every other proxy channel advertise itself with some kind of appeal to unblocking school filters?

Also, she did not claim to be a "childlove activist". Even if you cut this phrase in half, only one half applies. Never was the term "activist" typed by Ellis Raimbault, and only once did she use the word "childlove", claiming to be well endowed with knowledge thereof. digitalemotion 11:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't block Ellis Raimbault, though I agree wholeheartedly with her blocking, especially considering the checkuser evidence provided. But please do not argue over the little details. Mr. Czyborra flirtatiously asked a user who claimed to be a 14-year-old girl to post pictures of herself. Given that he is active in "childlove" topics, had a nude picture of himself from when he was underage on his userpage, and that he was previously banned from the German Wikipedia, um, I connected the dots. And while the block was initially done at my own discretion, Deskana, acting on behalf of ArbCom, later announced that any appeals of this block must be made to ArbCom, effectively turning it into an ArbCom-enforced ban, making this discussion moot. It is well-established that Wikipedia is not a dating service, and it is emphatically not a place for pedophiles to court children. --krimpet⟲ 11:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Krimpet. Dude. You're letting your emotions infringe on your logical capacities. For some reason you feel as if you have the right to make authoritative judgements based on the fact that an artist posts a naked picture of himself (naked = sexy = baaaaad) and that he has edited pedophile articles (interest = advocacy = inclination). Sloppy, hysterical and totally unverifiable.
You drew up the dots and then connected them for sure. Your unsupported and unusually sexualising assumption that Czyborra was flirting and that he is a pedophile, is not only irrational and speculative, but downright defamatory of a man who has now been gagged from defending himself. digitalemotion 18:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Defamatory?

The edit summary you gave for Roman's block has been described by another user here as defamatory, I thought you should know. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The summary is not defamation at all... If a guy goes around asking underaged teens for images of themselves, especially given the topics in which the user is editing in; I would say Krimpet's summary is correct. Wikipedia takes these things seriously, and if the user wishes for an unblock he can email arbcom easily. --DarkFalls talk 10:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
At best such a request was ill advised and stupid at worst it was dangerous. Don't worry about it Krimpet, you did exactly the right thing. Giano 10:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: 142.176.46.3

I noticed that you were the administrator who blocked this IP---a well-deserved block, I might add. I have some information on this IP, other IPs in the same range, and the user who I believe uses said IP range to push his POV (he perceives rampant anti-Christian bias on Wikipedia, and strives to reverse it, leading to edit-warring and questionable page moves). If you are interested, I will share the information I have gathered from edit histories with you at your request. Keep up the good work. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No one expects a Pigman admin!

Wallowing in my RfA: This time it's personal...
My sincere thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 51 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. Doubtless it was an error to put one of the government-bred race of pigmen in any position of authority, but I hope your confidence in me proves justified. Even a man pure of heart and who says his prayers at night can become a were-boar when the moon is full and sweet. Fortunately, I'm neither a were-pig nor pure of heart so this doesn't appear to be an imminent danger to Wikipedia for the moment. Fortunate as well because were-pig hooves are hell on keyboards and none too dexterous with computer mice. If ever I should offend, act uncivil, misstep, overstep, annoy, violate policy, or attempt to topple the fascist leadership of Wikipedia, please let me know so I can improve my behaviour and/or my aim. I am not an animal; I am an admin. And, of course, if there is any way in which I can help you on Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to ask me. Despite my japes, I am indeed dedicated to protecting and serving Wikipedia to the best of my foppish and impudent abilities. I will strive to be an admirable admin, shiny and cool, reasonable and beatific. Pigmanwhat?/trail 05:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Post Scriptum: I believe my collaged graphic at left, which incorporates the WP globe and mop image, falls under the rubric of parody for my purposes here. Or is it satire? Regardless, it's a legitimate and legally protected First Amendment usage under US law. Complaints and allegations that this is an improper "fair use" image will be entertained on my talk page, probably with fruit juice, finger food and exotic coffees.

Zeitgeist (video)

Protection of KFC

Hi there fellow Rochesterian! Would you mind changing the protection level of KFC from full to semi? Full protection isn't normally used against vandalism and semi would work just as well in this case. I'd also suggest extending the protection to at least a month or two (considering the busy protection log). Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

CommonsHelper (CH²)

I love your CH² script. Do you think you would be able to move it over to en.wikibooks? I tried, but I couldn't get it to work :(. Thanks, Ρх₥α 19:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at porting it — check out b:User:Krimpet/CommonsHelper Helper and let me know if it works for you or not :) --krimpet⟲ 04:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete of page due to 'fairly strong consensus'.

No, it was a large minority group (last count 28 versus 15, or so). I protest against the decission of deleting the article Robert Young (longevity claims researcher).

I cannot imagine the Wikipedia Community standing behind a harassment campaign against Stan Primmer and his research foundation. As a Wikipedian I would strongly reject that. In my view, he is entitled freedom of speech.

I find some very disturbing underlying tendencies among some of the participants in the debate. Celvin11 04:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote; numbers are irrelevant (though even raw numbers were strongly in favor of deletion here). It is a discussion to determine consensus. Consensus clearly indicated that there was a lack of reliable sources upon which to base a verifiable article; even the few arguing for keep did not rebut this. Verifiability and no original research are core, non-negotiable policies here on Wikipedia. --krimpet⟲ 04:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as you were closing the discussion Stan Primmer ((founder of the Supercentenarian Research Foundation) actually posted a verification statement which was met with immature and bullying behaviour from Ms BrownHairedGirl and her gang.

Did nt you notice the agenda ?

Memberlist of Scientific Advisory Board of Primmer's research foundation is online here http://www.supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/SAB.htm

This surely isnt a great moment for Wikipedia. Celvin11 04:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Thich Nhat Hanh image

You've deleted the image for Thich Nhat Hanh, and I would like to reinstate that image. The image was indeed on WikiCommons, but inappropriately so and has since been deleted. This image is authorized for use on websites about Thich Nhat Hanh, the Order of Interbeing, and Plum Village, but is not authorized for other uses or alteration. It seems to me that this is a good example of fair use for an image and is used in the way the original author intends. I do have another image of Thich Nhat Hanh that I have specific permission to use, but I don't want to upload it until I know it won't be deleted for similar reasons. Thank you for your consideration. Nightngle 14:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and restored it for now - keep in mind, though, that if the license was inappropriate for Commons, it may likely be deleted here as well unless permission can be obtained :( --krimpet⟲ 16:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll look into obtaining permissions. Nightngle 20:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This looks suspicious

Your protection of NPA right after Viridae edited it looks suspicious. You do realize that Viridae is a contributor to wikipedia review, a website that has long permitted postings that seek to out the real life identities of our contibutors.--MONGO 00:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

ha. ViridaeTalk 00:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection is not an endorsement of the protected version. At the time I had the protection tab open, one of Crum375's reverts was actually the last revision; that Viridae edited again right before was a coincidence, though not surprising given all the sophomoric back-and-forth revert warring that was going on there. Please, take it to the talk page. --krimpet⟲ 06:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify - my final addition wasnt edit warring, but adding the disputed tag. ViridaeTalk 06:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 12:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Straw poll results2.jpg

Undelete this now, it is not the same map. I update it and I am not going to create an account on commons so I can update it since it changes so often. It should not be on commons because this is more of a statistic than an image. I also do not appreciate not being told that this was deleted or having my contribs taken away for all my hard work on the subject.--Southern Texas 22:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I appreciate it.--Southern Texas 05:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Do as you please, but...

These are not people you should be carrying water for. Tom Harrison Talk 01:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Obscuring and hiding away complaints like that only further gives trolls gives them the recognition they crave, by seemingly confirming their claims of conspiracy and secrecy. The Tor node's blocked - simply rebut the comment, or ignore it and let it sit. Transparency is a very effective weapon against disruption of every stripe, if only more people realized this. :/ --krimpet⟲ 01:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

File:Dainsyng.gif

Please don't restore disruptive posts of banned editors operating through Tor nodes, [3], as you did here.[4] Block and ban evasion are serious matters. If you don't understand how to identify a Tor node you can ask me or Dmcdevit for a quick lesson. Common practice is to block these nodes on sight for 5 years to prevent disruption. Thank you. - Jehochman Talk 02:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion to the administrators' noticeboard to get advice on how to handle.- Jehochman Talk 03:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
As you requested, I have changed the title to take the focus away from you, and instead to talk about the systemic problem. - Jehochman Talk 03:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have added your name to involved parties in the MONGO 2 arbitration case as shown here.--MONGO (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect use of Speedy

You deleted K7 Bulletin under speedy A7, but it is not "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content .", but a printed magazine, and it was necessary to use PROD or AFD. Not that it was notable, but it sends the wrong message to users if we admins aren't careful about things like this. DGG (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankspam

User:Neranei/adminthanks

Cezarika f.

Should've been an obvious block; The person's obviously trolling and he just got off a block it in the same subject area. Will (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism#When reporting at AIV is not appropriate, in particular the following bullet:
  • Do not report edit wars or other disruptive behavior that doesn't fit the description at Wikipedia:Vandalism. These can instead be reported to the adminstrators' noticeboard or its incidents subpage. AIV deals mainly with obviously malicious edits that require no discussion; complex cases should usually be referred to other boards.
Even if the user is obviously trolling, AIV is only for obvious vandals. Many admins who patrol AIV do not wish to get pulled into messy, potentially complicated content disputes. --krimpet⟲ 15:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Neither do I want pages of nationalistic drama on ANI over something that's obviously trolling. I just want something that's quick and effective. No wonder RickK left... Will (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting images that have been deleted on Commons

Regarding this image deletion, I checked on Commons and the picture seems to have been deleted there before your deletion. I'm also confused because there are lots of images that show as red links as I8 deletions in your deletion logs, but they do exist on Commons. I thought images on Commons showed up as blue links here. Has this changed, or am I missing something? Carcharoth (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi just a head's up, I undeleted the Image:University of St Andrews coat of arms.PNG image. Please make sure that a) the image is actualy free licensed and b) exist on Commons before deleting it under WP:CSD#I8. Cheers. --Sherool (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Robert Young (longevity claims researcher). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/c 20:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh I couldn't stop laughing

This edit made me laugh SOOOO hard. We should make a little Catholic-type prayer.

Heated argument on ANI today twice, but based on your comments, I guess you are sitting this one out. Travb (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

200.25.197.198

unblock-en-l recently got a request to lift the block on 200.25.197.198 (talk · contribs). This is indeed a proxy but not an open proxy. The squid proxy restricts connections to those people using the ISP (or at least, I am unable to connect via that proxy). If you have no other reason to believe this is an open proxy, could you please consider lifting the block? Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, this was one of several IPs being used by spambots across multiple websites and blogs. Most such cases have been open proxies, but this could have been a compromised computer on this network. I've unblocked the proxy. --krimpet⟲ 16:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hey girlfriend. Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support. All the best, ~Eliz81(C) 02:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Your help please...

You deleted wikipedia:Image:Orthographic projection over Jarvis Island.png because it had been ported to the commons.

Unfortunately, whoever ported it did not copy the original creation date.

I am porting it to the citizendium. And I should really use that original creation date. Can you look it up for me?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned this problem, in general, over on WP:AN/I
Also, could you look up the original upload date on wikipedia:Image:Map of cuxhaven hamburg lauenburg lubeck.png, if you don't mind. Geo Swan (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, wikipedia:Image:Neckar river watershed.png, please. Geo Swan (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added the original upload dates of the three images to their image descriptions on Commons. :) --krimpet⟲ 17:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm intrigued

And always happy to learn. You unblocked 56.0.84.25 as it was no longer an Open Proxy (through port 80 apparently?). So far my research suggests it still is one? It would be good to know where you confirmed the info, cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Any info on this - thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, this was one of a list of ~1500 proxies I compiled and blocked a few months back that were being used as a spambot network to spam several wikis and blogs, including en.wiki. While there has been thankfully little collateral damage, I have received several unblock requests from some of the IPs over time - in each case, it was a dynamic IP that had been reassigned to another user, thus no longer an open proxy. I eventually decided to give the benefit of the doubt to any unblock requests since it was almost always a dynamic address. I am unable to connect to it as an open proxy myself at this point - nmap shows all ports as filtered for me, with the exception of port 113 which is "closed" - however, if you are sure it is open you are free to re-block :) --krimpet⟲ 17:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
No just learning really (& thanks for the response). It still has quite a blacklist history I see but looking again quite a few of the lists I found relate to August this year. It confirms my feeling that blocked proxies for too long is a bad idea - the internet is changeable - regards --Herby talk thyme 17:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

An OTRS about FreeRice

I cannot read that OTRS because it requires some type of login that I'm not able to register for. Can you copy/paste what that OTRS says? If you can't, can you provide a summary? Thanks. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 07:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the correspondence contained within OTRS tickets is confidential information subject to our privacy policy. :/ Either way, the content removed from that article was original research unsupported by any reliable sources, and outside the scope of an encyclopedia article. --krimpet⟲ 17:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeh and also why have you blocked it for editing. There is now a function on freerice that remembers your vocab level, highest vocab level and how much rice you have donated in total. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.230.244 (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:PKInewlogo.png

I am requesting to have this image undeleted to add a free use rational to it and to relink to Kings Island. This is a non replaceable logo of the Park and there is no free alternatives available for it. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 12:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the image for you. :) --krimpet⟲ 17:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

on Image:Trainstationinflam.jpg

I have a uneasiness on your deletion of Image:Trainstationinflam.jpg. The worry is like this. I uploaded this photo from en.wikipedia to commons. So the photo in en.wikipedia is the original and the photo in coomons is a copy. The deletion may make GDFL violation. And it can be my responsibility. My uneasiness can be a imaginary fears (because I may misunderstand GDFL). How do you think my fear ? Penpen0216 (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's OK - the image was actually uploaded to en.wiki as {{pd-self}}, thus there are no copyright fears to worry about. :) I've corrected the license on Commons --krimpet⟲ 17:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 18:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

o hai thar

u r naughty kthxbai ~Eliz81(C) 22:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You're amazing!!

I've been completely and totally out-barnstarred. I'm shocked and stunned by the majesty and sheer enormity of .... well, barnstars :) Thank you so much for your rather overwhelming gift and your kind words.

I know you've had a dreadful time, lately, and some people had said some dreadful things about you, to the point where you were ready to pack it all in and leave. I just want to say that I think you're a superb admin. You're never afraid to speak up, to voice your feelings, to assume the best about your fellow-editors, to be kind to others whether it was deserved or not and - most of all - you are fair. You have been, and still are, a huge inspiration to me and I'm very honoured to be your friend. You're one of the best we have, IMO, and I am so proud of you, your attitude towards others, and for the immense and often thankless work you put into the project - Alison ❤ 16:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

undeleting image request

Would you consider undeleting [5] as it was used as a way of describing the difference between colour and black and white. You deleted the colour version of the image by mistake thinking that two images with the same name and different endings are always going to be different! See its counterpart at Image:Neighborhood_watch_bw.png :)

59.167.107.217 (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The image I deleted (for other admins' reference, [6]) is in fact a bit-for-bit copy of commons:Image:Neighborhood_watch_bw.jpg, 29,253 bytes. Image:Neighborhood_watch_bw.png is just a PNG-conversion version of the same black-and-white image. The color version you want is another image also on Commons: Image:Neighborhood watch color.jpg. :) --krimpet⟲ 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

deleting rtc.gif

A couple of weeks ago, you deleted rtc.gif. You didn't say why. I had assumed it was because someone had copied it to wikicommons, and the pages that been referencing it had been updated to point to that.

Well the folks over at wikicommons have deleted rtc.gif, with no meaningful discussion.

What, exactly, is going on?

--jdege 17:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The image was deleted from Commons as being a copyright violation of this page, with no permission or indication that it had been released under a compatible license. The same would have happened had the image been discovered here on the English Wikipedia; please see our copyright policies. --krimpet⟲ 17:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm the creator of the image. That's my website. I put the GFDL-self tag on the image. Why, exactly, do you believe that there is a copyright violation? --jdege 18:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, our apologies - we generally like to have confirmation via OTRS in these cases. I see you have already sorted this out on Commons though :) --krimpet⟲ 23:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Kwsn (Ni!) has passed you the WikiJoint! WikiJoints promote... uh... promote... help with... do... wiki... something... yeah... uh, what was I saying? WikiJoints help promote, uh, wiki stuff... and help with... {{subst:User:Krimpet/WikiJoint}}... huh?

:D Kwsn (Ni!) 00:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

wikijoint, that's cute! I saw you stand up to "important" people, and was impressed. That is all! sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 07:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Official thanks, slightly delayed due to post-RfA crash (who knew?)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Help

I really need help. I've tried asking on WP:AN/I, and I guess I'm being ignored. Talk:Universal Life Church is out of control. GJ (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, still needing help. Thank you. GJ (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion request - Image:Tvnationvol1.jpg

Hi, Krimpet. Could I ask you to undelete Image:Tvnationvol1.jpg so that I can add a fair-use rationale to it? Thanks! Powers T 12:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Done :) --krimpet✽ 19:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Puppet picture

That's not the rationale I'm talking about. Why is there a need for a cartoon on a policy page? It adds nothing to anyone's understanding of the policy. Wryspy (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal

Thank you for writing such an articulate appeal on behalf of low income Wikipedians. :) DurovaCharge! 05:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :) Coming across the OTRS ticket, I was quite surprised to see that this ISP was hard blocked, and wanted to find the best way to allow them to contribute again. I'm glad to see the community greatly agrees here! --krimpet✽ 19:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Zlate piesky

Someone uploaded image of Zlate piesky to commons and wrote I am the author of the image. But I am not, I am the uploader only (the author gave me a permission. Unfortunately all sources (link to the author) were lost when you deleted the image from wikpiedia (12:13, 15 November 2007 Krimpet (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Zlatepiesky.jpg" (CSD I8)). Can be that information retrieved so that the information about the author can be corrected? Minor issue but the credit belongs to the author of the image. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 09:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies - I have updated the licensing information over on Commons to reflect this. --krimpet✽ 19:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Defender 911

This user, whom you blocked in August, is requesting an unblock, and saying that he's learned his lesson. I just thought you'd like to know. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Carolyn Doran

Good call, even though I do not think she will pass the notability litmus test, keeping the talk page going will help to diffuse the inevitable drama. Risker (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - I'm not sure she's too notable either, though the BLP issue is a bit of a red herring as her criminal history over the long term is well sourced by the likes of the Washington Post (I checked LexisNexis, and was a bit disturbed by the results :/). I'm hoping we can take this slow and handle it with a minimum of drama; we've got quite a while before the deadline. --krimpet✽ 06:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have been looking at some of the same sources; this one has a really different feel than many other "recent events". Risker (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Completely agree. What was that stupid deleting admin thinking? He's such a jerk... :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User Penser

Please look into a violation of 3R by Penser who has reverted Alexander Graham Bell three times in a 24-hour period to his version. The issue of nationality was a "hot" topic on the talk page and a resolution in describing the scientist's nationality was decided upon. The lead paragraph is carefully written to indicate a main birthright as "Scottish" although an American citizenship was obtained. The amount of time spent in Canada is also discussed wherein all three nations have claimed Bell as their native son. FWIW, the user in question has also made some intemperate "attack" statements although I had earlier attempted to explain the issues on his talk page. Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

Erm, it's a common misconception, but 3RR actually applies to more than three reverts in a 24-hour period; in fact, you yourself appear to have broken 3RR there by making 4 reverts in a 24-hour period :/ I strongly suggest furthering discussion with this user on the appropriate talk pages instead. --krimpet✽ 19:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a deadline?

Seems like there is. Would have been nice if I'd known we were in a hurry, then I'd have endorsed closure rather quicker. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, there isn't any fixed deadline; hence there's no reason to wait five days to close a DRV when the community's consensus is already clear. --krimpet✽ 19:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, you'd expect the flashmob who turn up the start to be engaged, wouldn't you? That's how DRV goes for anything controversial. I saw lots of people shouting WP:ILIKEIT, but DRV is not normally a rerun of XfD. Given the points raised at CfD, I found Jc37's close to be rather Solomonic, better than just pretending there's no problem I think, and within the normal range of CfD closes. No information lost, can have comments added, easier to keep an eye on: what's not to like? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Reading the DRV, I don't see "WP:ILIKEIT" arguments being tossed around; I see an overwhelming response that the closure was against consensus. DRV is not AfD round two; it is a review of the deletion decision itself. --krimpet✽ 19:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
When I read the CfD I didn't think that {{listify}}ing the category was against consensus: it was a compromise which met the arguments in favour of keeping the information while in part addressing the concerns of those who wanted it deleted. But this could go on indefinitely. I'm not pleased, and now you know I'm not pleased. That's my desired outcome achieved in full. Lucky me. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I also feel that a closure after just two hours was premature in this case. I don't think community consensus can be so clear as to justify a WP:SNOW closure when most of the arguments at the CFD (both 'keep' and 'delete') focused on the the principle of voluntary admin recall rather than the utility of the category. It was the latter issue that was under discussion, and most of the comments failed to address it. I'm not saying that a full-length DRV would not have resulted in a consensus to overturn, but the claim of "strong consensus" seems to be unsubstantiated. However, given the circumstances, I can't really fault you for how you acted (after all, the DRV was unanimous at the time) and I won't request another review; I just wanted to convey my thoughts on the matter. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 21:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The St. Louis signer is back

Hello, Krimpet. I was wanting to let you know that the soft-block you placed on the St. Louis signer IP vandal (12.74.128.0/19) expired on the 14th. Unfortunately, the block appears not to have gotten the point across, as the editor is back as 12.74.157.106 and is up to its old tricks again. Would you be willing to place another block, or would you prefer I make another ANI post instead? Thanks for your time. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for one month. :) --krimpet✽ 17:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much! :) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert AMbot?

I noticed that you reverted a bunch of recent edits by AMbot in order to restore the list in CAT:AOR (administrators open to recall). Could you please explain why you did this? I'm a little concerned because I noticed one of the administrators (Bearian) reverted back to the AMbot version. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I had closed the DRV on the category's deletion as "overturn," so I reversed AMbot's orphaning of the category, to restore things back to the way they were prior to the CfD. --krimpet✽ 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You SNOWed a CfD after two hours? I'm still debating whether or not I agreed with jc37's close, but I have no question that speedy overturning the DR was over the line. I've considered an RfC, but it appears the CfD's closing admin is reviewing the options, so I'll wait on it for a bit. Speedy closing such a controversial issue added far more to the problem than it fixed. Justin chat 05:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not see the DRV ending in any other way but "overturn." There was a unanimous response from a pretty diverse bunch, including participants who both supported and opposed deletion, that the decision to remove the category and replace it with a project page did not reflect consensus here. --krimpet✽ 06:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It probably would have ended in an overturn. But why add to the drama? The CfD had input from 50+ people, the DRV had input from 16, and 4-5 of those are arguing for the usefulness of the category, not the improper close. When you have a CfD with input from 50 editors, it's clear there's a great deal of controversy. We could have had a questionable CfD close with a proper DRV, but now we have a questionable CfD close with a questionable DRV. WP:SNOW should be used very carefully, and this is one of the worst situations to pull it out. Justin chat 07:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
If you even agree yourself that you think it would have ended in overturn, why are you arguing this? :/ Process for process's sake is unnecessary here on Wikipedia. This isn't a particularly "controversial" issue - the controversy was over the existence of voluntary recall itself, and even the overturned CfD close kept that system in place in some form. --krimpet✽ 07:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
There's a substantial difference between WP:SNOW and "probably". We have a lot of DVR's that are "probably" going to end one way or the other, but that's not a good reason to close it early. I think having 16 overturns on a normal CfD would have been an easy candidate for early closure. But that's less than 1/3rd of the editors involved in the CfD. Had there been 9 editors and 3 voted overturn, would you have SNOWed it? The controversy extends beyond just the cat... the closure was certainly a controversy, and I don't think the early closure on the DVR helped. Justin chat 09:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

I do think that a consensus exists for the preservation of the history here, but that issue will be resolved at AN/I or in a DRV of the DRV or some such fun process; I write now only to note that, having deleted the history, you neglected to restore the page as a redirect. Cheers, Joe 06:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I intentionally omitted restoring the redirect to return the article (or lack thereof) to the way it was before. Doc deleted the redirect a while back due to privacy concerns, which was overridden by JoshuaZ's repeated restoration of the history. --krimpet✽ 07:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed it (or perhaps something of which I'm not aware has transpired in the interim), but DRV overturned—emphatically, in fact—Doc's deletion of the redirect. Even as we continue to discuss whether the redirect should have under it the history, no one, to my knowledge, disputes that the redirect to Public Information Research is indeed to exist. Joe 08:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Crap, I forgot all about that DRV, you're right :/ I've restored the redirect per the consensus there. --krimpet✽ 08:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem (apologies, by the way, if "perhaps you missed it" sounded rude; only once or twice per day am I reasonably concise, and usually at the worst time; it happens here, I should fear, that my locution, which meant to be entirely sincere, might have conveyed another sentiment). Thanks, in any case, for having addressed the issue, although, were I not myself an occasional late-night editor, I would observe that at 4 a.m. you should be sleeping, not undeleting :). Cheers, Joe 09:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Page history now on DRV. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 18#Daniel Brandt. -- Ned Scott 12:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case on Defender 911

I've filed a request for arbitration regarding Defender 911 here. Since you were the blocking admin, I listed you as a party ... feel free to comment. Blueboy96 23:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

TOR node unblock

Thanks for the fix. The machine in question is a TOR node that I run on CSH. If you haven't been up to CSH, go check it out; it's full of smart people who are (mostly) friendly and inviting. Unfortunately, that's as welcoming as I can be because I graduated last year and am no longer in the Rochester area. --dinomite (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. The whole discussion was definitely a dramatic debate! I especially appreciate that you took the time to write such a thoughtful comment. :) Please rest assured that I paid close attention to everything that everyone said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, --Elonka 10:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

CommonsHelperHelper

The script you developed for use with CommonsHelper isn't working at the moment. Could you take a look at it and see what's up? (: Octane [improve me] 05.12.07 0752 (UTC)

Thank you for the smile

This[7] is absolutely the best unblock-decline message I have ever read on Wikipedia. Thanks for making my night! Risker (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Reeks of brilliance. the_undertow talk 09:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I had grander plans for that one, but couldn't remember how to spell "meshuggenah"(?) unfortunately :( --krimpet✽ 09:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I really only would have accepted username changes such as Jew_undertow, under_Jew, and I_<3_undertow. You did the right thing. the_undertow talk 09:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

138.39.7.3

I take no issue with your unblocking this account, if you're willing to keep an eye on it. I do, however, take issue with your characterizing this as a "content dispute". The Arbitration Committee has ruled quite clearly, and many times, that arbitrary changes of era notations (and many similar types of notations) are against policy, and, in fact, grounds for sanction. See Jguk, Jguk 2, Sortan on this specific issue. See also Kehrli, SEWilco 2, and I'm sure others. This is not a "content dispute", this is a matter of enforcing multiple ArbCom resolutions on this topic. Jayjg (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Dear Fran Rogers, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).

Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.

Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — E talk 12:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

OTRS removal of FreeRice script info

We can't read the OTRS ticket, so why did you remove it? You probably won't give out the answer, but until I am made aware of the reason, who/what is to say you aren't making it up? Can we see indisputable proof that your claim/reason isn't merely a fabrication made to satisfy a personal demand/desire?

Because you see, any random Joe Contributor can say, "Revert per OTRS:32839423" (randomly typed ticket number.) Anyone can use a false OTRS claim to their advantage in order to get or remove what they want, and we'll never know whether it was true. That's why these claims need to be irrefutably backed up. --75.18.13.150 (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have any issues with any actions of mine or any other OTRS volunteer, you're free to ask for review - information is available at WP:OTRS, and we are fully accountable to the Communications Committee (who runs OTRS) and ArbCom. In particular, false or fabricated OTRS actions would never hold water, since any of the dozens of OTRS volunteers can review and confirm the ticket's contents. --krimpet✽ 14:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that ID!

I figured there was a good chance it was, but it wasn't necessary to do the work to identify for sure ;) Thanks! Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fran_Rogers/Archive_6&oldid=1090514214"