User talk:Reaper Eternal: Difference between revisions
OccultZone (talk | contribs) →SPI: new section |
OccultZone (talk | contribs) →SPI: re |
||
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
I am not getting why you deleted [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Esquivalience]]. Would you like to explain? [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 18:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC) |
I am not getting why you deleted [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Esquivalience]]. Would you like to explain? [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 18:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
:I deleted it because the users are obviously different, and there is no reason to keep frivolous SPIs around. [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal#top|talk]]) 18:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::There are more than enough similarities for saying they are not different but same person. Thus I am still not getting what made you think that they are any different, or different enough that SPI should be deleted. One account is hardly 6 months old, while other one is only 1.5 month. None of your deletion reasons seems to be valid either way. Going by the contribution history, similar AfDs, interests, userpages, all that seems too much for such a new accounts. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 18:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::And I could find just as many tenuous "similarities" between you and them if I wanted to. Does that make you their sockpuppet too? [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal#top|talk]]) 18:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::That had to be mentioned on SPI, if there are any, not here after unilaterally deleting a [[WP:DUCK]] case for no ''actual'' reason. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 18:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:59, 23 May 2015
![]() | Feel free to reverse my administrative actions; however, please let me know why you did it, especially if I made a mistake! |
Archive #1 (Oct 2010 to Nov 29, 2010) Archive #13 (Feb 1, 2012 to Mar 14, 2012) |
The Signpost: 22 April 2015
- In the media: UK political editing; hoaxes; net neutrality
- Featured content: Vanguard on guard
- Traffic report: A harvest of couch potatoes
- Gallery: The bitter end
Hi Brian...
...although I have a strange feeling that isn't your real name :) PretendAuthority (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Could you cast your eye over an article for me?
There's an article recently been created at Kendra sunderland. As I notice you deleted what I assume was a similar article at Kendra Sunderland for BLP reasons, would you mind casting your eye over it for similarity? Dolescum (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 April 2015
- Featured content: Another day, another dollar
- Traffic report: Bruce, Nessie, and genocide
- Recent research: Military history, cricket, and Australia targeted in Wikipedia articles' popularity vs. quality; how copyright damages economy
- Technology report: VisualEditor and MediaWiki updates
WikiCup 2015 May newsletter
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/C2014_Q2.jpg/220px-C2014_Q2.jpg)
![India](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/41/Flag_of_India.svg/23px-Flag_of_India.svg.png)
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.
Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.
The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks
Some fans are pretty hell-bent about getting their musicians into the Wikipedia, eh? Tarc (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've found that the more "hardcore" and less notable the musician is, the more likely it is that sock puppetry or canvassing will occur. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Aren't you that guy...
That ended up breaking an edit filter? DN-boards1 (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Aren't you that guy...who is currently evading a block? :P (Not that I care if you are, if you've matured.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ummm....What makes you think that...? --DN-boards1 (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 May 2015
- News and notes: "Inspire" grant-making campaign concludes, grantees announced
- Featured content: The amorous android and the horsebreeder; WikiCup round two concludes
- Special report: FDC candidates respond to key issues
- Traffic report: The grim ship reality
Dru yoga socks
Hello Reaper Eternal. All quiet, now that you blocked the socks and NawlinWiki protected the article. I'm not certain however that we got all the socks. The master may still be out there and one possible sock made a much similar edit on Dutch Wikipedia. Would you consider it advisable to request an SPI, or should I leave the matter until (and when) further disruptive editing occurs? Regards, Sander1453 (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 May 2015
- Foundation elections: Board candidates share their views with the Signpost
- Traffic report: Round Two
- In the media: Grant Shapps story continues
- Featured content: Four first-time featured article writers lead the way
The Signpost: 20 May 2015
- From the editor: Your voice is needed: strategic voting in the WMF election
- Traffic report: Inner Core
- News and notes: A dark side of comedy: the Wikipedia volunteers cleaning up behind John Oliver's fowl jokes
- Featured content: Puppets, fungi, and waterfalls
- In the media: Jimmy Wales accepts Dan David Prize
- WikiProject report: Cell-ebrating Molecular Biology
- Arbitration report: Editor conduct the subject of multiple cases
semi protect
Re User:Peter Damian - thanks for doing this but I don't think it is needed any more, no more vandalism now I am fully back, and it is a bit scary - looks very similar to the 'blocked' message :) Peter Damian (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've unprotected your userpage. Feel free to let me or WP:RFPP know if the IP trolls return and you want it re-protected. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
SPI
I am not getting why you deleted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Esquivalience. Would you like to explain? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I deleted it because the users are obviously different, and there is no reason to keep frivolous SPIs around. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- There are more than enough similarities for saying they are not different but same person. Thus I am still not getting what made you think that they are any different, or different enough that SPI should be deleted. One account is hardly 6 months old, while other one is only 1.5 month. None of your deletion reasons seems to be valid either way. Going by the contribution history, similar AfDs, interests, userpages, all that seems too much for such a new accounts. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- And I could find just as many tenuous "similarities" between you and them if I wanted to. Does that make you their sockpuppet too? Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- That had to be mentioned on SPI, if there are any, not here after unilaterally deleting a WP:DUCK case for no actual reason. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- And I could find just as many tenuous "similarities" between you and them if I wanted to. Does that make you their sockpuppet too? Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- There are more than enough similarities for saying they are not different but same person. Thus I am still not getting what made you think that they are any different, or different enough that SPI should be deleted. One account is hardly 6 months old, while other one is only 1.5 month. None of your deletion reasons seems to be valid either way. Going by the contribution history, similar AfDs, interests, userpages, all that seems too much for such a new accounts. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)