User talk:Josiah Rowe/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 my main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

This archive covers discussion from July and August of 2006.

Hello fellow Browncoat!

Wanted to see if we could entice you to join the new project we started at WikiProject Firefly - I saw some of your discussions on the Serenity talk page and thought you might be interested. We just started so need feedback on policies, etc.... plange 17:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T-Man Ban

I DEMAND his immediate ban. He just reverted my work in List of Batman: The Animated Series episodes in its entirety, with complete disregard for naming conventions, and a complete disregard of my edits for consistency of "Part One" and "Part I" (he of course being all over the map on this). DOES HE GET TO OWN THIS PAGE? If so, then Wikipedia is a pathetic excuse for a resourse. I HAVE HAD IT WITH THIS BOOR. He is a complete waste of everyone's time. Why do we put up with this??? And how long does he get to defame me with impunity on his talk page? I DEMAND that all mentions of my by him be deleted NOW!!!! -- Dyslexic agnostic 07:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah, I appeciate the kind words, and I will be staying away from the guy for a while. Unlike Steve Block, who just berates me despite knowing full well the hurdles of dealing with the wise (?) scarecrow, you demonstrate some real understanding. Thanks. -- Dyslexic agnostic 06:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Lead on, MacDuff!" I love that play... hope you have a good time with the production! -- Dyslexic agnostic 06:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right about not returning blow for blow here at wikipedia. It doesn't seem fair, but then, as the bard said, "Fair is foul and foul is fair"! Take care. -- Dyslexic agnostic 06:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Needham

You were the one who semi-protected this article before, so if you have the time I'd appreciate if you could take a look at it, and the discussion on the talk-page.

Thanks! --Rosicrucian 14:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Voice of All must have missed our request to keep the article semiprotected for a month. Does he have a script he uses to unprotect articles? If so this may be automated and not intentional.--Rosicrucian 16:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, delete and redirects, or redirect with fries on the side

In the end to the reader there is no difference between any variety of redirect.

Under normal circumstances, a redirect is a normal edit and doesn't require adminstrator intervention. And as you said the history is preserved. If non-trivial material is merged, then GFDL compliance is easiest that way.

But if the material is harmful yet the redirect is useful, "delete and redirect" is a common solution. The redirect being undone is also a normal edit, and this prevents it. Or if editors choose, for whatever reason, to recomend outright deletion and redirection in XfD we can do it then even if there aren't attacks or copyviolations in the history.

Of course, then we get into the question of what someone is likely to enter as a search string...

brenneman {L} 09:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*facepalm* "Golden Plunger In honor of Josiah's Adminship, 14 February 2006" Sorry, I didn't look at your user page first before placing the above explanation. Didn't mean to try to teach grandma to suck eggs. - brenneman {L} 09:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps this grandma could use a few egg-sucking lessons. :) The difference between "keep and redirect" and "delete and redirect" still seems fairly trivial in this particular case — the end result is a redirect that any user could, if they wished, turn back into an article (although such a transformation would be against apparent consensus, and wouldn't last long). Anyway, thanks for the clarification. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

152.130.7.193

Given that this user is using a Dept of Vet Affairs computer - you would think they would be a little more careful about threats. I was going to remind them of such but that page is locked. 64.12.116.14 20:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've put a note on the page to remind the vandal, if he or she comes back. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Это курам на смех

("enough to make a cat laugh") does, indeed, mean "This is very ridiculous". In German: "Da lachen ja die Hühner". I was very astonished, that this nice proverb is not used in the USA. So Mark Twain is right when he says "Americans and Englishmen are 100 % equal, except of the language". So you should maybe import some funny cats from England Shelog 13:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lentil (slur)

Re: your full protection at Lentil (slur), I was thinking maybe it would be a good idea to leave it sprotected so we can uncover all of the established socks. Just a thought. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up to 16 so far BTW. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Can we get checkuser to find the ISP source of them all, or do we have to play whack-a-mole all night? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it looks like you don't need to, they are no longer active. Lets see what happens though.Mr. Starchy 03:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "they"? Fan-1967 03:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By sprotecting, at least we'll get the established ones - otherwise they'll go back underground. I'm newer at the admin game and don't have checkuser rights but it might be warranted in this case. The checkuser folks may disagree when they see how childish this puppeteer is being - I haven't been down that road. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For they, I mean the socks.Mr. Starchy 03:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be a case of singular they? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More like a first-person singular "they". Note that Mr. Starchy has never made an edit that did not involve lentils. Fan-1967 03:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the vandal. I actually voted keep, but see the reason.Mr. Starchy 03:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't insult our intelligence. Fan-1967 03:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That made no sense. ANyway I mostly contribute on deleted articles, such as tagging them. I have dits under older accounts (it was about a year ago I craeted this one) that you can see,A if I could remember them.Mr. Starchy 03:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Silly rabbit. We can all see your contribs list, and your first edit (under this account) is on July 6 2006. What exactly do you hope to achieve? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would make 17 - and I'm sure that doesn't scratch the surface. Checkuser doesn't sound like a bad idea... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to checkuser, i think the Jly 9 vandal had 4 ranges, all starting with 4.136. Those should be blocked again.Mr. Starchy 04:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can do the checkuser while I mark with {{sockpuppet}}. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not checkuser unless the vandal comes back.Mr. Starchy 04:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it sounds like the guy doesn't want us to do checkuser so maybe we should. I will go ahead and block them all now as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wonder if this obviously pre-established army of sockpuppets might be enough to sway them. Who knows how many others there may be. I think if we let them leak out, it would have taken all night like you said - and we'd have dozens by now. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can tag a bunch of socks, is it better to put them on the userpage or talkpage? DVD+ R/W 04:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both, I think. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there is a pre-established army. Look at the history of Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp on July 9 from about 15:44 to 16:59. Only two of those IDs have shown up tonight. The rest are probably still around. (You can tell the unblocked ones, cause the names are still redlinked). Fan-1967 04:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're almost certainly right, especially since one of the July 9 vandals used the name User:Southern lentils are retarded. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD part of this reminds me of that of Elitism from July 16th. Very similar use of socks, types of comments, and persistence in creating fork pages. That one turned out to be the NCV. By the way, who is working on the checkuser? DVD+ R/W 04:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm putting it together; right now I'm trying to decide how many of the July 9 vandals I should include. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you got it posted, well done. I guess we will see tommorrow how it turns out. DVD+ R/W 05:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind Mr. Starchy was not one of them.Mr. Starchy did not create the sockpuppets! 04:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the Willy on Wheels guy or a copycat - and he's been around forever, eh? I'm off to bed - but I'm interested to see how this turns out in the morning. My whole list is now in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mr. Starchy... Enjoy!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not WoW. I am Mr. Starchy, who did not create the sock svoters. WHY DO YOU THINK I WAS?Rolling Roadster 04:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about turning the user pages blue; I was tagging the pages so they'd all be in the category, but wasn't sure whether the tag belonged on the user page or the user talk page. Hope it didn't complicate things too much. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, not a problem. I think tagging either or both is fine. I just thought leaving the user pages red linked might be nice but it doesn't look like that's the standard that is usually followed. So really, you did it right and I did it wrong!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My guess is he's not Willy. However, clearly he's enough of an experienced wikipedian to know who Willy is, and play games with it. Fan-1967 23:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Account compromised

I am the real Mr. Starchy, who has been here under an other name for a while. But I am not a troll, and my account was compromised by a vandal. I haven't really heard it much under the meaning mentioned here, I though it was term for the Orthodox (based on consumption of lentil soup).Warryhutt 04:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Check user

It's(sp?) ok, you fixed it and I hit edit conflicts while trying to fix it. Went back to check. Next time, you should put the name of the account that you are primarily identifying the socks against in the inputbox. You would enter the account name into the edit box, leaving what's already there in front, and the inputbox craziness takes care of most of the initial formatting for you. Don't worry though, as people make the mistake of removing the /Case/ or entering multiple accounts into the box occasionally anyways. Kevin_b_er 06:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like all of our friends have been identified as socks of the North Carolina Vandal, whose socks number in the millions. SeeCategory:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of the North Carolina vandal. -- Fan-1967 06:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josiah: thanks for the message. Yes, that's our "friend", the kid in North Carolina, who has literally been vandalising every day (with maybe a handful of exceptions, for example when all his ranges have been blocked) for more than a year. Regarding blocks of individual puppets: I usually block them, because he uses aged accounts for page-move vandalism--it's next door to impossible to get them all though, since he has made thousands. Let's hope Mackensen's range-block (with the delicious summary "hive of sum and villainy") sticks. Happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh--and regarding tagging the accounts, I have mixed feelings about that. He's clearly motivated by a desire to be notorious, and having a huge category devoted to his sockpuppets is like having a huge trophy cabinet, and I think encourages him: I have used the "indefblockeduser" tag for several hundred of his socks for that reason. Yet I can understand the desire to put the "NCV" tag on so that new editors, admins, and RC patrollers can get an idea of what his typical behavior is. Antandrus (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked all the accounts that were listed at RCU, and the ones that were used on Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp. I ended up tagging some of the accounts with {{NCV}} and some with {{indefblockeduser}}; more with NCV, just because it was fewer keystrokes. (I figured it was good to have some of this batch in the "trophy cabinet" to show patterns in naming, like the "lentil" business. I think it's handy for less experienced admins like me to be able to see more of the history.) Thanks for the info, though, and I hope that Mackensen's range block takes care of the kid, for a while at least. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for reverting my userpage. DVD+ R/W 21:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

thanks for helping me block User:JT111 --JianLi 00:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Looks like there's a fair amount of cleanup to be done in his wake, as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, for one, there is the matter of deleting Amy Zidian yet again. It has already been deleted and reposted four times. Is there a way to block it from being reposted again? JianLi 00:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of it (took a bit of research to learn how to do it, but now I know for next time!) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Range blocks

This is in the info on range blocks. It looks complex but basically 200.122.30.0/24 would block the 200.122.30.0 range. 23 would blocked 30 and 31. 22 would block 30, 31, 32 and 33, etc. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RV

Hi, Could you please rv science fiction for me? User has started vandalising it again. Have reported to AIV. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Batman and my talk page

Please don't clutter my user talk page with defenses of AMiB and Markeer which blame me, on MY user page, for their decisions and hostile attitude. ALL I've done this whole day is try to get them to listen. ALL they have done is ignore me, insult me, and make it clear to me that you and they and the entire WP:Comic project is nothing but a sack filled with jerks.ThuranX 21:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to suggest that I'm also sarcastic and maybe they are too isn't any better.ThuranX 21:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your help with the vandal! I think 31 hours is a little too lenient... JianLi 03:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Pages

What should one do for obvious vanity articles created by the subject of the article. For example, Paul Witney's sole contributor is actualy user:paulwitney. And I suspect a similar situation for Aaron Peluso. There is no guideline in WP:CSD that says we can speedy them if they assert some importance, and WP:AUTO discourages making the page, but offers no guidelines for other editors on what to do about the page. JianLi 03:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypertime McMultiverse Sockpuppets

These all seem to be sockpuppets of Hypertime McMultiverse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as each has made the same picture-vandalizing edit (diff) that he made.

And his IP address:

Is there any way to block all users who log in from this IP? Blocking each user name is like cutting heads off of a hydra. JianLi 03:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity

I made a quick change earlier to draw attention to the timeline. The film and the TV series are on completely different continuities. I understand the comic book supposedly comes between the TV Show and the Film, but if that were the case how does the film start at the same place as the TV Series, although with slightly different story lines? The first episode on the DVD series, which wasn't aired, covers a very similar story line as the film. It's out of continuity. Based on the graphic novel which supposedly links the two, it should be afterward. That's simply not possible according to the movie. How can River and Simon Tam appear unknown to the crew after they'd spent an entire season together? I don't have the time to fight you on this, so look into it if you must and correct your error, or stay stubborn and don't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.101.27.52 (talk • contribs) 00:11, August 7, 2006 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:65.101.27.52. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

  • Thanks, the situation is (mostly) resolved now. However
    • Srcbreaktime1 block log is only blocked for 24 hours. This is shorter than the others.
    • More importantly, the user seems to be able to change IP addresses easily. See this for an example of the same picture vandalism under a different IP address. Is it possible to somehow block this user even when he is using a different IP address? If not, our IP blocks feel ineffectual to me, as the user can merely change IP's and vandalize again.

JianLi 17:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • another possible IP of his. JianLi 17:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good references for your article

Those are excellent of course. Well done! Mattisse(talk) 23:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oz project....

just wanted to say hi there, i recently decided to join the Oz project and thought you might want to also, seeing as how you seem to be at knowledgalbe about the books in question (i wonder who wrote much of the orginal entry for Wicked....) sorry bout my spelling, not caring nemore, long day.... XD i'm planning on doing some expanding in the Wicked and Son of a Witch articles, along with improving navigation. I'm wondering if you could possibly expand upon Liir, taking more direct references from the two books themselves, perhaps using inline quotes or even blocks of text. There may also be other media references to him out there besides Maguire's works, possibly more info on interviews and such, just giving you some ideas, the article is a very good start but it seems too short to quantify it's own article (if anything most of it is a character-focused synopsis of the second book). Not until the end do you mention Liir was able to fly on the broom like Elphaba, nor is there anywhere mentioned Liir's ability to "read the past," an important aspect of his persona. Writing long character summaries is hard, especially on recent characters, b/c it's hard to describe characteristics and personality traits without it sounding like OR due to a lack of referenced character analyses. anyway, let me know what you think (preferably on my talk page, Liir's, or even Wicked's). Zappernapper 23:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image fair use

Thanks for the heads-up. I've added the rationale, I think that should take care of it. Radagast 12:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many apologies

I just wanted to apologize for creating extra work for you on The Keeper of Traken page. As an editor who is more of a wikignome than anything else I was not up to date on the changes going on. If I make any other errors like this in the Dr Who project that you, and others, do such a good job with please feel free to let me know and I will stop at once. Cheers!MarnetteD | Talk 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Eighth Doctor Publicity.jpg

Well idealy evidence that it is from that source would be good (since the is the involvement of Universal Studios and the Fox Broadcasting Network to consider) but I can live without that for the time being. Other than that I would argue that the fair use critia given is acceptable under wikipedia sandards.Geni 01:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Cite news template

Hi - yes I'm around now. I need enough time to insert the trial markup & test if it works or not (reverting if required of course) :-) David Ruben Talk 00:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK seems to work - see User:Davidruben/sandbox for test examples. I've also updated the description of the template's use. Th eformat parameter is not currenlty conditional on their having been a defined url parameter. Not good if only meant to indicate the format of an outside link, but probably required for the issue about 'fee required' or other access issues to be included in a systematic fashion. Let me know if any glaring markup errors, thanks :-) David Ruben Talk 01:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality in ancient Greece

Josiah, thanks for exercising your admin powers, and for suggesting inclusion of the opinions of a "small but vocal minority"--you have an excellent knack for suggesting a reasonable compromise.

However, our problem editor is not citing Thornton accurately (I have his book, and have been checking the quotes). As far as I can tell he's getting his material from right-wing websites, especially the Greco report. I'm going to take out the Thornton citation, but I don't have anything better to replace it with right now--I don't want to link to the homophobic and racist websites that are pushing the line of argument Cretanpride is advocating. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the issue Cretanpride, I've just had the responses I requested from checkuser, and, as was quite obvious, User:Ellinas is a sock of Cretanpride Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cretanpride. I have than blocked Cretanpride for 48h for block evasion and disruption. BTW, great work with those edits. It seems Cretanpride should be thanked after all, since it prompted you to make a better article ;-) Ciao,--Aldux 14:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about Ellinas, Cretanpride was very careful in trying to distinguish his sock from himself; and all that Balkan-editing has made me nearly paranoic regarding socks (in the region they seem to abund ;-)). As for the block, yes, he probably would have a deserved a longer block, maybe even a week; my fault, I should have consulted you before, not inform you after. While I've been probly too lenient, I'd prefer not to change it, at least, not till he tries to evade the block, but if you find an admin to lengthen it, no problem. I sure wouldn't feel any pity for an editor who has systematically acted in bad faith. With an editor like that, it's really hard to assume good faith, and trust that he is not manipulating or falsifying the sources.--Aldux 22:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it seems a good course of action.--Aldux 22:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Josiah, thanks again for your measured response to our disruptive editor. I hope the AN/I results in a helpful outcome.
Incidentally, I don't think you have anything to apologize for--if you were fooled by Ellinas, it's because you expect and hope for the best in new WP members. That's a good thing, I think, and so is urging people to be civil. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting rid of my only ally in this discussion. He was such a threat that he had to be taken out without giving him a chance to come back. Given the different IP addresses and the different style of writing you should have been able to tell he was a different user. By the way, he competed in speech and debate on a national level and is a philosophy major, he could have easily crushed any of the editors of that article in any debate. But now, I see that most people don't have the patience to deal with unfair editors like haiduc, aldux, or caveotlector. May I remind you, that just the fact that there has been books written supporting my argument, means that this topic is debated.

One last thing; how is it that Focault is a better scholar than Georgiadis? Focault's research has been criticized by many including Bruce Thornton. His assertion that heterosexuality is a modern day invention is impossible. He was ideologically driven. At least Georgiadis has published other works on Ancient Greece and has a doctorate. What is the excuse now? His book is self published. ANYTHING TO KEEP HIM AWAY. I understand. I doubt anyone even read the entire bio page.

I will occasionally go and edit on the article, but I have lost my patience. Cretanpride 23:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You seem to be the most fairest user, so I feel writing to you is the most effective way I can contribute. Here is what I have to say.
Regarding the link, every time I clicked on the bio page, the link worked. It also worked for user Akhileus. I will check, and if not I'll post another. Moreover, what my argument has been the entire time was that homosexuality was not commonplace. I didn't say it was nonexistent. Homosexuality has always existed and always will exist, but I am saying it was a minority. Even, hypothetically, if it was accepted and it was an aristocratic practice, saying that the entire population adhered to it is just wrong. It's like saying Athens was a democracy, therefore everyone could vote, when in actuality only 10 percent or so could vote. Do you get my analogy? Also, there are other writers around the world who have argued my point. Robert Flaceliere, and Bruce Thornton. Thornton does go on to say that it was limited to the artistocracy, something I have heard before. Flaceliere goes further and argues that it was limited to the aristocracy over a limited period of time. Flaceliere also writes that pederasty in most Greek city states was illegal. The very least you should admit is that it is not PROVEN that the Ancient Greeks all adopted pederasty.
Regarding Georgiadis, he has written other books on Ancient Greece, albeit in Greek. I actually do not like it when he is derided when noone really knows much about him. He speaks ancient Greek and Latin, and actually looked at the primary sources in the original languages to write his book. After graduating he lost his parents, but through sheer hard work and determination accomplished everything he has. He owns one of the largest publishing companies in Greece, is an author to several books, runs three companies, and owns the scholarly journal Elliniki Agogi. Although the journal tends to deal mainly with economic issues such as the effects of the Olympic Games, Rio-Andirio Bridge, and improvements in infrastructure. Saying Georgiadis is rascist and politically biased is unfair if you don't know much about him. In his magazine and on his tv show he has not said anything that can be called rascist. If he ever criticizes someone it is over economic issues. His involvement in the political party is minimal, something you can see if you read the link.
I am actually exhausted debating this issue. A google search in Greek of the words αρχαίος Ελλάδας ομοφυλόφιλος, which means "Ancient Greece homosexuality" turns up nothing but arguments against it.If a scholar is Greek then are his/her opinions worthless? Noone even wants to admit that the contents of the article are not proven. A more proper word for Alexander and Hephastion would be "possible" not generally regarded. Most scholars don't even want to answer when asked whether Alexander was bisexual. I believe Paul Cartledge responded by saying that it was possible given the culture. "Possible" is a better word, although Caveotlector disagrees. I'm sending you this so you can add some sanity to the article. Thanks.Cretanpride 02:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah, in general I try to avoid making comments on editor's prose styles, but don't you think Cretanpride's post-block contributions resemble Ellinas' contributions? Any doubt that I had that the two users were the same person is gone now (not that I had much doubt anyway).

You've probably already checked, but Elliniki Agogi doesn't show up on Google Scholar or any academic index I've consulted. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding socks, if Cretanpride agains starts using socks (and I have founded reasons to believe he is already) what measures should be taken? Should we consider giving him a week block, or take other measures? I would like to hear your opinion, Josiah.--Aldux 10:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bring this up again, but you may want to checkuser User:Apro for being a possible sock as well. As you'll notice checking his contributions, the account was just created today and has exclusively edited the Alexander the Great page with Cretanpride-like edits. Just thought you'd want the heads up. CaveatLectorTalk 04:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does look like Cretanpride has been learning a lot about Wikipedia; unfortunately, he seems to be using this knowledge to create more sophisticated sockpuppets. In some ways, this is a relief, as sockpuppetry is a clear violation of policy, whereas tendentious content disputes aren't. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Josiah, I concur with CaveatLector that User:Apro is Cretanpride's sock; also, User:66.53.237.254, who blanked part of your talk page earlier, is from the IP range used by Cretanpride's ISP (Clearwater LLC). I'd like a sock-reporting bot at this point; the process for reporting a suspected sock involves 4 or 5 edits. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a new request would be best at this point, since the old request came up with a result. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions are confusing, but I think that's just because the MegasAllexandros case hasn't been archived yet. So I would do as you said: put the MegasAllexandros case in the <noinclude>, and start a new request. Just to be clear on who's doing what, unless you would prefer that I do it, I'll leave filing the new request to you. But, before you do so, I am also reporting User:Apro as a suspected sockpuppet through WP:SUSPSOCK, so maybe we should just let that take its course, since Checkuser won't return until after Labor Day. (On the other hand, if you think WP:SUSPSOCK isn't appropriate for User:Apro, let me know and I'll pull the report.) --Akhilleus (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet ban (Jhazared)

I saw that you've temporarily blocked this sockpuppet before and wanted to inform you that this user has made some recent vandalism edits on the 4chan article. Quoting warning: Any further abuse of Wikipedia will lead to further, potentially longer, blocks. Slushq 22:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Zidian on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Amy Zidian. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Lid 04:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Cookie

Administrative cookie
For your outstanding efforts in eliminating the backlog at WP:AIV, I, Ryūlóng, award you a cookie.--Ryūlóng 04:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

That's odd. Somehow, I came across one of that user's edits, though I believe it was on recent changes. As you can see, most of the older edits are vandalism, but I guess due to the time that wouldn't warrant much of a block. I don't know how I happened to come across that since it's so old. Michael 05:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could be the case. I've seen a few of those tonight. Michael 05:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You, sir

Are no fun at all. 82.42.246.156 19:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you edited my Office "citation needed" part, taht wasn't a joke actually. I cleared it with another mod, Btball (incedentally the person who made the previous edit,) and they seemed to think it was a good idea. Quote: I'm fine with the request for a citation, if you put that back in the article I wont' revert it. Check their talk page.

Thanks 82.42.246.156 19:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Josiah_Rowe/Archive_5&oldid=1144116670"