User talk:SGGH/Archive 2010/April

WP:ANI

Hello again, SGGH. I understand your point but I don't believe the IP user in the ANI topic is RichardDaft, unless he has somehow acquired the ability to spell and use grammar when he is an IP. Daft has a very distinctive style and always follows the same line of dialogue. As he is using dynamic IP addresses, it would be futile, I think to try and block one that he has left. I don't know if you've seen the post by User:Atama on my page but I'm going to try and follow his advice going forward and just seek to protect articles and talk pages.

Rosebank2 is Daft, without a doubt, and I've posted him at SSP using the process as designed instead of just leaving a message.

Thanks for your support. Keep up the good work, too. All the best. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Snow storm in Eastern Asia

Hi SGGH, I notice you autoblocked User:Snow storm in Eastern Asia today. I have been pondering whether to alert WP:ANB to this user.

Snow storm in Eastern Asia has made several fatuous, irelevant or non-encyclopedic edits to articles on my watchlist. I notice, too, that s/he has also made POV, non-verifiable and non-referenced edits. Further, s/he has had several articles flagged for speedy deletion.

At first, I assumed good faith and inexperience – I do not like to bite and we were all new once. So I offered some gentle and civil advice to him/her on their talk page. However, the advice was deleted and the problem edits have persisted. Today I left some firmly-worded advice about WP policy, citation, NPOV, and style on his/her talk page.

I am not sure whether this is yet a matter for sysop intervention but I thought it might be advisable to make you aware of past problems in the light of your action today. Best wishes Andy F (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again SGGH. Thanks for your helpful note on my talk page re the above. I'll keep an eye on the situation. Best wishes Andy F (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:Oneinthemillions

Hi. I didn't get a chance to focus on this - I'm pretty swamped in RL. If you feel you could pursue this before I return, please do so. Thanks for everything so far, Dahn (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Check your messages.

Vermes666 Hi friend! I created the page "Llvme". You deleted this page because a problem of copyright with the domain "www.llvme.com". I wanted to tell you that this domain and its copyright are mine. If there is a solution, let me know, please. Thanx! —Preceding undated comment added 21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC).

Red Gown ^{squeak at me!} _(quietly) 10:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Lol...

[1]. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft

Here we go again. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:Your intentions

In hindsight, ignoring 3RR was stupid. I will try to follow these rules in the future. However, I did communicate with them on one of their talk pages. I looked at the article talk page as well, and I believe there was no consensus or a negative consensus to their idea; it looked to me like only two or three members were supporting the idea. Also, the idea itself is ludicrous to me; the world does not judge politics by what Europe considers left and right wing. In addition, I looked at the Centre-left page, which I believe agreed with my assumption. I also believe. was also going by N:POV; I believe the Democratic party is currently leaning Far left, but I moderated it to what the rest of the world considers them as; centre-left. I hope this helps with understanding what I did. :)

TN05 21:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure; when I get the time, I will do that. :) TN05 22:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please take a look

[2] In provides three links that are refering to me, for example here [3]. It is a clear violation of the broadly constructed interaction ban because the user added it to her user page after the ban was in effect. Thanks. I will check on your response here at your talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll reply here then. I'm just this minute about to head off to get on a plane, however I'll message another orchestrator of the interaction ban to get their view, and see what action is to be taken after I've landed. SGGH ^ping! 08:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Sandstein has a new message about it. Apologies for not being able to jump in myself at this minute. SGGH ^ping! 08:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tom Sidwell

On April 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tom Sidwell, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban violation

Hello SGGH

Yesterday the user violated the interaction ban with me by posting to AN/I : "The other party has made at least three spurious complaints about my behaviour to the admins, which did not represent any real violations of the ban and did not result in any blocks.".To confirm the false accusation three differences of my editing were provided below.

Not only the ban itself was violated by the post (we are strictly prohibited to post to AN/I), but my edits were introduced with untruthful and misleading statement exactly like it were many times before the ban. Not a single time I repeated any report. Not a single time my report was "spurious".

1. [4] was not complain at all. I asked, if the user's new user name that was used at least once at the editing of main space should be added to interaction ban description. The second part of my message was the question about my own topic ban, and had absolutely nothing to do with the user.

1. [5] This complaint resulted in the user removing contest from the user talk page:here (btw with yet another violation of interaction ban "so you all can stop the drama now"). It was suggested to be removed earlier by Sandstein , but the user never removed it.

I could present few instances of the ban violation by the user that were never reported.

I have never violated my interaction ban, and I am getting increasingly tired of the user violating it over, and over, and over again, and bringing me up to AN/I in such misleading and untruthful way. This have already resulted in that statement that has no any merits as it was explained earlier.

The only thing I would like to do now is to concentrate on the positive contributions outside my topic ban, but constant violation of the interaction ban by the user makes my work here very stressful.

I did not ask for that ban, I did not write the rules, but I believe, if the community made the user and me the subjects of the ban, it has to be implemented the very way as topic ban is.

Please notice it is at least fourth violation of the interaction ban by the user, and it is the worst.

Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

They are gone for 24 hours. I would advise that you don't follow her around locating instances of her violating her ban, otherwise we might start noticing any instances of you doing the same. Let the admins pick up the slack, and you enjoy your editing. --SGGH ^ping! 11:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Whaw! SGGH: you do realize that you just blocked a person for 24 hrs...who has not been editing for two days? And that User:Gilisa, User:Breein1007, User:No More Mr Nice Guy ...+Mbz1 have all been running around for days, asking for the same block from admins..:

Beeblebrox

Sandstein

Tim_Song

...who all declined? We tried to get the "stress/conflict-level" reduced here; do you think your action helped? I don´t know if there is such a word as "admin-shopping"? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well those admins should have acted IMO. Wiki-holiday or not, the interaction ban's wording is pretty unambiguous. Ask another admin to review it if you like, I don't have issue with that. --SGGH ^ping! 12:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No; I´m not going looking all over wp for some admin to review your action; I´m not spending my time here admin-shopping; I prefer to write articles. However, just let me note that:

a): the interaction ban's wording has been "stretched" by more than one party,

b): a certain party have more, eh, "friends" to do the "interaction" for them. Lets just say some nationalities/opinions are more well-represented on wp than others,

c): So, I´m sorry, but I find your block extremely unhelpful. Now that the "dramah" was just dying down, I fear this could just restart the whole thing. I hope it dosn´t, but... Big sigh. Huldra (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your claims about the ban's wording being stretched or about how you're trying to bring the stress/conflict-level down ring pretty hollow considering this [6]. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? For one thing, I don´t recognize myself in your description, Secondly; I´m not sure how happy SGGH is with us discussing this matter on his/her talk-page. Having said that: I have clearly stated that I think the interaction ban is needed. Mucho! We all need to move on. And the way I understood it (silly me); was that an interaction ban should force people to move on...it wasn´t meant to give people a cause, or inspiration, for spending day after day, collecting diff after diff, posting on admin after admin, ..for a block, (which finally, finally succeeded. Congratulations!) But if people expect any admiration for this behavior from me...they will be waiting for a long time....Cheers, Huldra (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Question: Isn't this a violation of the interaction ban? Please also note the use of "it" to refer to User:Verxog. Tiamut^talk 17:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Answer: I am afraid I've never had the interaction ban with the mentioned user.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS

Hi SGGH. I've no objection to a discussion about site reliability and I don't mind where it takes place. As you've pointed out, RS said it should take place on CRIC but I agree with you that RS is surely the venue designed for such a purpose. I will have to contribute in order to show that I am recognised by both CricketArchive and the ACS as a subject expert but, unlike our friend who thinks he can say anything and then say the complete opposite next time, I will comply with the rules if they are clearly stated.

Having said that, I think the reliability of the site has already been confirmed on CRIC. It's the match references that count. My opinions are my opinions and I have made that clear in my preface. All the best. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this process is potentially redundant. All that has happened so far is that someone suggested, after being prompted by me, that I should talk about my interaction with specialist cricket publications. Then the ACS troll arrived and I had an argument with him and everything else went very quiet.

One marvellous result, however, is that the troll admitted that it was he, using another IP, who called AA "mental" and then proceeded to claim that his behaviour on that occasion was "temperate". I reported this with his latest SPI and the admin there has blocked his entire IP range for one month. And about time too.

But I am concerned about that RS process. I would like to partake and establish exactly where this site stands vis-à-vis my site but I really don't think the process works, as I'm sure you will agree after the problems you had when you were sent from pillar to post.

Best wishes. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy SGGH's Day!

User:SGGH has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as SGGH's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear SGGH! Peace, Rlevse 00:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this message because an RFC has been initiated at Talk:John J. Pershing#RFC about a matter on which you may have commented in the past. Thank you, –xeno^talk 15:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SGGH. You have new messages at Elvey's talk page.
Message added 19:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Also, ER asked for your help on his talk page. Elvey (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, is this a correct place to respond to you SGGH? You asked me on my talk page "Have you filed a WP:RFC on the matter? I can provide you with some links if you wish." No, thanks, I looked at these pages. It is too complicated for me. And I am considering to give up Wikipedia if this case is not resolved in an civilized and decent way. I see that the slur continues, unrestrained, on my talk page (Simanos and GK1973), you may have a look at this. And even on this very page. This is probably no place for me, I am afraid. Thanks again.Draganparis (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Insults continue. Please visit my talk page. Here is what GK writes there:

I really hope you understand that this this not a believable excuse for anyone over 3 years old... GK (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the rest, yes.... of course I regard this dealing with you a surrealistic paranoia and I will continue describing as "blah blah" when confronted with incoherent rants like the ones you have amply provided me with. If you really consider these comments disrupting, slandering, uncivil or otherwise offensive you are free to report me... And yes, you have filled up pages with lies (not POVS, not arguments I do not agree with, but blunt lies) and I also can prove it, although I have not reported you for them. But these excuses of yours cannot be otherwise described, I think "surrealistically paranoid" is a very matching term... GK (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Dear Sir, I would greatly appreciate if you would answer my e-mail sent directly to you. I know that this is tiresome but please have understanding for my serious concerns. It seams that Mr “GK 1973” and “Simanos” pretend not to be aware that I disclosed my personality almost 2 months ago and that this has been verified by Wikipedia administrator. This protects me against defamation. Both users have been explicitly defaming me permanently since. Of course I had some harsh words for them, although not containing direct insults. This as well as their anonymity makes the difference. I do not say that I will make a legal case immediately but I think that they should be aware of the matters of facts. The European jurisdiction is quite explicit, I am afraid; even the US jurisdiction has recently been quite clearly pronounced. I expect Wikipedia to respect its own rules regarding defamation and ban the two editors indefinitely. Thank you very much indeed. Draganparis (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)