User talk:Dynaflow

OCD, I have it, I need help. thanks.

Unless you already have a heading going, please leave new messages at the bottom of the page. Click the "watch" tab at the top of the page and keep an eye on your watchlist; I will generally respond to messages left here, here. Some important and/or interesting, but distributed, conversations may be centralized here after the fact. I will do my best to retain timelines and textual fidelity, but if I screw it up, feel free to let me know. Thanks.

The Internet, where intelligence goes to die:

nazi censorship police states are wrong, please refrain from defacing legitmate concernskthnx! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.27.18.25 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 17 April 2007 PDT.

Your edits will continue to be reverted by me or other editors if they do not contribute constructively to the discussion. Conspiracy theories involving Karl Rove and the Virginia Tech shooting are not constructive. Thank you. --Dynaflow 01:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

this man is a nazi apologist-----^—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.27.18.25 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 17 April 2007 PDT.

[^this man doesn't know his asshole from his armpit HalfShadow 21:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)]

Man, I love Godwin's law. This tedious conversation is over already. --Dynaflow 01:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Dynaflow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  - Darwinek 09:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re. Dolores Park

Unprotected Had been protected for some time, the war is likely over now. Thanks for contacting me. Regards, Húsönd 13:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

SFPD

Trivia. I noticed you removed my DK's reference, but don't worry, there is enough trivia about the SFPD to last a wikiminute

Hank Chapot, wikipedian in Oakland

Your edit to 65.19.91.99

"When you eventually return, please note that "damn" is spelled D-A-M-N and not D-A-M-B, as in your recent vandal-edit to 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Have a nice vacation."
I understand your anger but please don't beat the people while they are blocked --St.daniel 17:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It was less of a beating and more of a jovial poking with a sharp stick. Beatings actually cause injury, while goadings can often be funny and even productive. There's no better way to encourage a healthy disdain for vandals amongst the other students at that school, who will find themselves pre-emptively blocked ("What the hell is wrong with Wikipedia?! Teacher!") for the rest of the school year, than pointing out the common inability of many vandalizers to spell even simple curse words.

Well ... of course there are "better" ways, but few so likely to evoke a didactic chuckle. To show I'm not a completely heartless comedian, I've added the shared-school-IP template to the talk and user pages for that IP address. --Dynaflow 20:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand the pleasure in it but to we can't really do that even though we really want to.

Sorry...--St.daniel 12:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

New toy

Hello, Me. I just thought you/I might find this fun. I/You will just store it here, because I/you am/are too lazy to create a separate page as a Wikipedia toybox and, besides, I/you really enjoy talking about myself/you in the third person. --Dynaflow 21:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate

Thanks

TY for the welcome -- Rivernever 12:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Color-box spacing

Thanks for the heads up. You might want to make that clear on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Color boxes because I still do not see where it says that. --Jerm 01:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Section headings on Talk:Virginia Tech massacre

Please stop changing the section headings on Talk:Virginia Tech massacre. Adding things in parentheses does not improve readability, and only makes things more confusing. It can also be seen as disruption. --Coredesat 02:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be better to either leave the headings alone and merge any duplicate postings into existing sections, or direct any editors posting duplicate sections to ongoing discussions (removing the duplicate ones). --Coredesat 03:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to merge the sections that are already there. For example, if someone posts a new section about historical context, merge it into the most recent section on that subject. Some of the sections might need archiving, given that they are more in line with a Wikinews article, and not a Wikipedia one. --Coredesat 03:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-displaying messages

I noticed you took out my English-language non-displaying message from the VT massacre clusterfuck/article. I've been having to clean up a lot of British English, and things keep getting reverted from "canceled" to "cancelled," etc. How would you suggest putting in a reminder of WP's dialect conventions? This article is attracting many, many inexperienced editors who 1) apparently aren't aware that grammar and diction change when you cross the Pond, and 2) are really into copy-editing. --Dynaflow 19:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to erase that--I was just trying to fix the references. Unfortunately, so many edits were happening at once that by the time my edit went through it must have overridden yours. I also understand your irritation with the article. People are continually messing up the references in it by deleting parts of the reference code. BEst, --Alabamaboy 19:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, now that the article is semi-protected, try fixing the language issues and inserting a notice about the dialect issues.--Alabamaboy 19:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty. It's back up, and I'll embark on an American English crusade once I get back from lunch. --Dynaflow 19:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, copy editing a document whose beginning will have changed by the time you get to the end of it seems to be a futile task. I'll wait a few days and start editing for style after the edit rate starts to drop off a bit. --Dynaflow 20:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wise move. --Alabamaboy 20:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

hi

I dont get it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.230.6.61 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 17 April 2007.

Do you not understand why I warned you for leaving the "I love this Tech! -Seung-hui Cho" message on the VT massacre discussion page, or why doing things like vandalizing the userpage memorial ribbon template with "gay shit" aren't considered all that funny? --Dynaflow 03:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

yes, it was 3RR, but....

I see no consensus on the talk page for the change you want, and I for one disagree with you. So please don't go forward as though there is a consensus yet. I've replied on the talk page. — coelacan — 05:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider your problem solved!

"ABC News renders his name in the Western order as Seung-hui Cho [5], while all other English-language outlets use Cho Seung-hui. [6] [7] [8]"

I inserted this to explain the naming issue to readers.

Face it - Everybody except ABC News uses Cho Seung-hui. WhisperToMe 06:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Hui" is not Cho's middle name. Hui is a part of his given name, Seung-hui. WhisperToMe 04:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Revamped Infobox for Colleges and Universities

[imported in part from lwalt's Talk page]:

I've had the day off and have been watching this all day, and I've seen just about everyone I've ever interacted with on a college article make some sort of edit or another to Virginia Tech or the massacre page. It's been just an orgy of vandalism and other assorted bullshit here too. Oh, take a look at UCSC's infobox that I revamped. Do you think it would be appropriate to redo AAU's infobox template in a similar manner, or is it too much? You can also take a look at VA Tech's infobox. I redid that one too, but less thoroughly. --Dynaflow 09:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Like what you've done for the university infobox. For the Academy of Art University, your version at least adds "art" to the article. Did you also do the artwork for the list of presidents? I saw the revamped infobox along with the parade of university presidents at two schools, and these additions really grab the reader's attention...at least from my view. lwalt 09:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I did the Chancellors timeline for UCSC (it's about half way down the page) by reverse-engineering and improving upon the hard-coding I found when I went to make some quick improvements to VT's page. It was a total pain in the ass to figure out how some of that coding worked; my experience with that type of Wikicode was nil as of this morning.

Oh, speaking of pains in the ass, I had a run-in with a "James Dylan" of my own earlier. Perhaps you can weigh in and mediate before the discussion drifts off into dickery and vindictive rage. The link is here. Total clusterfuck, all the way. --Dynaflow 09:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

your own 3RR

My internet connection dropped last night right after I replied to you, before I could look into your own reverts. Now that I can check, I find that even while you were warning another user for 3RR, you were violating it yourself and escalating the revert war. Your version reverted to, first revert, second revert, third revert, fourth revert (now violating 3RR), and fifth revert. Edit warring is disruptive, and 3RR applies even if you're "right". So I hope you don't take this personally, because I have to block you for 24 hours, and have just done so. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. — coelacan — 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[e-mailed] While I don't take the block personally, I don't think it was quite a "fair" block, even if it was legal.

I had been watching the VT-related pages all day for vandalism and had been reverting large numbers of malicious edits. Trolls seem to be attracted by tragedy, and I, along with several other editors, took it upon myself to keep what was happening at those pages civil and structured. I sent out many warnings to vandals myself. After several hours of doing that on what, by all means, was an extraordinarily chaotic day in that section of the Wikipedia universe, a user constantly changing back a good-faith, summarized edit -- without summarizing why he or she was changing it back and not responding to repeated requests for clarification in my subsequent reversions' edit summaries, on the Talk page, and on his or her own discussion page (which already had other vandalism warnings and allegations of sock puppetry), looks a lot like a vandalizing troll.

All my reversions were made in good faith, and I believed that they were in the clear in regards to the 3RR policy because the majority of the reversions seemed to be dealing with vandalism (please see here for a full accounting of what I was up to yesterday). Once I knew that I was dealing with a consensus issue and not (necessarily only) a vandal, I immediately stopped all further reversions, took the issue back to the talk page, and took it upon myself to hunt down every user in both the VT massacre talk page and its archives and Seung-hui Cho/Cho Seung-hui's own talk page and archives who had expressed an opinion on either side of the issue in contention to ask them to weigh in at the straw poll.

I am involved in several other projects unrelated to the VT massacre and had intended to use my day off to make contributions to them (specifically in regards to my role in template design and revamping for Wikiproject Universities -- my cleanup of VT's Infobox was what sucked me into this morass in the first place) -- and if it would be okay with you, I would like to contribute to those other projects and informally agree with you not to participate in discussion or page-editing at Virginia Tech massacre and Cho Seung-hui until my block would have expired tomorrow morning. Otherwise, this would be a waste of a perfectly good rainy day with nothing better to do.

Let me know if this is an agreeable compromise for you. Thanks. --Dynaflow

I got your email. I have a couple of questions. Why did you place this comment in the article? I looked at the talk page at that moment and I see plenty of discussion and opinions from both sides but no consensus. Am I missing something? Also, which part of WP:3RR#Exceptions do you believe allowed for your reversions? It wouldn't be "simple and obvious vandalism" since the other user wasn't changing the name to "Cock Song Ho" or whatever. You can reply here, I will watch this page. — coelacan — 23:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? If you're asking for someone else to review your block, that's fine, but I am considering it right now which is why I just asked those questions, above. — coelacan — 23:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about putting up the big, purple template. I thought you might be asleep or out or something, and I must have been in the process of copy-editing it when you posted your above response. The first comment was one I made based on the naming conversation under the Talk-page topic heading regarding Cho's name which I had initially seen and participated in (I can't remember whether it was on the VT massacre page or Cho's page, but I can find it if you'd like me to). It was only after I realized people other than the person making apparently malicious edits were also in favor of the re-reversions I was re-reverting that I started to wade through the huge number of topic headings, many duplicated, and realized that the issue was not (and is apparently still not) settled. I tried to engage in dispute resolution with the editor I perceived to be making malicious edits, but got no response whatsoever other than more summaryless reversions on his or her part. Then I went to you for administrative help, as the guidelines say I should, and I got this.

I'm not saying that I didn't break the 3RR rule by the letter, but I did so with no mens rea -- I was acting as a Good Samaritan in good faith, believing that the (also currently blocked) constant reverter was simply trying to disrupt the editorial process on that page in the same way so many other vandals were, there and then. Once I knew I was making a mistake, I stopped and immediately took steps to fix the problem. I attempted to act constructively at all times, and in large part succeeded. Now all I ask is to be allowed to work on my other projects so that the day I was willing to dedicate to improving Wikipedia will not be completely wasted. --Dynaflow 00:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but most 3RR violations are made in good faith, and we block anyway. The rule cares not for the intent of the user, but for the effect upon others. (Peruse WP:AN3 sometime and you'll see what I mean). This was essentially a content dispute with an editor who was simply not as communicative as they should have been, but a content dispute nevertheless. Last question: do you agree that your own reversions contributed to disruption of the page? — coelacan — 00:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Not in terms of net effect. Of all my reversions on the three major VT-related pages since the chaos related to them started, I have restored blankings, reverted out ridiculously NPOV statements, reverted faulty copy-editing, and reverted seemingly every form of vandalism under the sun many, many times; more than I can remember. That two of those reversions took me unknowingly into 3RR territory -- yet at the same time led to the centralizing of the discussion on a contentious subject, bringing it closer to resolution -- should not justify throwing away time I was willing to donate to making Wikipedia better today. It is unnecessarily punitive because it punishes someone who attempted to adhere to the rules, it wastes my time and yours, and makes Wikipedia poorer by way of the contributions both you and I could be making right now were we not engaged in legal wrangling. Perhaps I could plead guilty in return for a pardon (with the caveat that I won't go near anything having to do with Virginia Tech until tomorrow) and we could get on with our respective Wikipedian contributions. If this is acceptable, I will agree. --Dynaflow 00:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I will unblock you, although this is controversial and I would not reverse the same block if another admin had made it and you were responding the same way. I understand that you think your efforts were those of a "good samaritan", but revert warring is disruptive to other users around you, and I'm hesitant to do this because you don't seem to understand this. I urge you to read Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, Wikipedia:Edit war, and especially Wikipedia:There is no deadline. You didn't need to have it your way immediately, you could have waited for other editors who agreed with you to do the same kind of reversions you were doing. Then the other editor would have ended up blocked and you would not. If no one else showed up to do the same kind of reversions, then you would hopefully take that as a sign that there isn't as much support for it as you think. Since I am unblocking you, please stay away from Virginia Tech articles until at least 15:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC) when your block would have worn off. As WP:3RR demands that "in the cases where multiple editors violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally", I will also unblock User:Che829. Please note that the kind of reversions you made are not viewed as reversions of "obvious vandalism", and the same or similar will result in 3RR blocks in the future, by almost any admin's reading of the situation. Thank you for your other contributions. You're still a good editor in my vies. — coelacan — 01:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. --Dynaflow 01:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Did that work? — coelacan — 01:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. --Dynaflow 01:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

UC Davis Template

[imported from Vince's Talk page] Hi, I see you've retrofitted my template design (originally for UCSC) for Davis. I'm quite flattered. However, there's one thing I have to warn you about. The UCs' official seals are copyrighted by the Regents, and it is only compliant with Wikipedia's fair use policies to use the seals in the main, "mother" articles fo each of the UCs. The image slot on my design initially held UCSC's "Fiat Slug" unofficial logo (which I love) -- until I got this same warning that I'm now passing on to you.

If you would like any help in making this template Davis-specific (e.g., changing the blue-and-gold coloring from Santa Cruz's official shades to Davis's, etc.), just drop me a line on my user page. --Dynaflow 11:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dynaflow- Thanks for the warning, I'll take an image of campus and use that instead. I really like your design for the UCSC template, I'm glad you're not upset I used it! I found later that there is a UC Davis template, but it's less attractive that the one I made based on yours, so I'm trying to contact the original's creator. Thanks again! --Vince ^|Talk| 19:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to the UCD template... I tried editing it but I kept making it look worse. Thanks a ton! --Vince ^|Talk| 01:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for doing the ititial legwork in porting the navbox to Davis. You spurred me to get off my ass and redo all the other UCs' navboxes other than Berkeley and UCLA's, which were the only ones that were in decent shape when I started on my UC navbox crusade. There is now an entire series: User:Dynaflow/Crap-I-Made. --Dynaflow 01:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No, go ahead and delete it. Actually should we just copy the new one to that page and keep both? A few other templates use the full university name instead of the UC abbreviation. Just a thought. --Vince ^|Talk| 17:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

UC Davis Fire Department

I'll drop by some time in the next week and grab a photo of the outside of the fire department. Will that work, or does the fire department template typically only allow logos? --Vince ^|Talk| 23:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just the custom for that type of infobox. If you could get a photo that frames the logo on the side of one of their trucks, or maybe ask them to let you photograph a patch or something, that would work too. --Dynaflow 23:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Till either a respectable America paper or one on par with the BBC..

...makes the same claim we shouldn't cat. him. Mayorcheese 02:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

AAU logo

Unfortunately, I don't know where on the AAU site to find a better .jpg clip of its stylized logo. The banner in the infobox for the AAU article was apparently clipped by another editor some time ago from the page header at the AAU site. I'm not aware of a corporate site maintained by AAU to get a better image clip for the logo. lwalt 06:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi, Dynaflow, and welcome to the San Francisco Bay Area task force! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles relevant to the Bay Area. Here are some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve Bay Area-related articles, so if people ask for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able. Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page. It is highly recommended that you watchlist it. The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, which you are welcome to participate. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We hope you enjoy working on this project. ~~~~

Peter G Werner 20:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho's e-mail and eBay info

I feel that, due to the media reports and the fact that Cho is dead, Cho's account details are no longer personal. WhisperToMe 22:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

But are they useful and germane to an encyclopedia. We're not conducting a police or news-media investigation; we're putting together an encyclopedia. --Dynaflow 22:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Of the three ID's, we must include the Hotmail and eBay ID since Cho purchased weapons using them. You may drop the school e-mail address. WhisperToMe 23:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What possible benefit does listing a dead mass murderer's e-mail address on Wikipedia give us? Is this in case some Wikipedian just needs to look up information that allows him or her to e-mail Seung-Hui Cho beyond the grave? C'mon, it's useless for the article; totally useless. --Dynaflow 02:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk: Technion

Sorry, I just noticed your comment on my talk page (I’m kind of new to Wikipedia). I’m always reluctant to do a page move by myself, but Virginia Tech’s legal name was Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and a fact was a fact. What convinced me in the end to go ahead and undo that guy’s move (even if it risked stepping on some editors’ toes) was your careful comments on Virginia Tech’s talk page.

Also, I’m sorry to keep undoing your template substitution citing the main Virginia Tech massacre article; it’s just that the big blurb about SEE MAIN ARTICLE: VIRGINIA TECH MASSACRE somehow comes across as too sensational, set off like that, drawing unnecessary attention, too CNN-like. To me, a simple q.v., as you would see in printed encyclopedias, seemed more appropriate. Please don’t take it personally. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to write me a note. —Technion 03:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Re your response on my talk page, you’ve done a good job convincing me of your argument. I’ll definitely defer to your judgment. Feel free to be bold and restore your original template, or undo any edits I may have/may ever make. You’re the man. —Technion 03:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho's nationality

Dynaflow,

Why did you revert my deletion of the links on Cho's page (Korean American, American killers)? As is now well known, Cho was a South Korean, not an American (he only held permanent residence status). Logically, if you're not an American, you can't be Korean American, nor can you be an American killer.

Penser 05:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)penser

I reverted your edit for two reasons:

1. You seemed to be edit-warring with other editors over the issue (see WP:3RR). You seem to be the only one excising the categories in question, while several others are putting them back in. You should not be taking unilateral action on this.
2. I see now that you are trying to be consistent with the nationality business in this and other cases, but sometimes nationality is a fuzzy thing, and I think the other editors are correct to re-revert your reversions. For example, as a permanent US resident, Cho was a de jure US national (not citizen, but national) who would have to have registered with the Selective Service and would be eligible for conscription should the US find itself in heavy enough warfare to justify reinstating the draft. As a permanent resident, he could do just about anything a citizen could do but vote and get a high-level security clearance. He was, by all means, a "Korean American" by the deliberately-fuzzy definition Americans tend to go by, and since he killed a whole bunch of people in Virginia -- in America -- I don't see why the "American Criminals" category or whatever it was would even be disputed.

The persistent deletion of the categories also makes me somewhat suspicious of a possible political motivation that would breach WP:NPOV, but I'll try to assume good faith as well as I can. --Dynaflow 06:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether under some fuzzy definition of Korean American he could be included is at best highly controversial. Wikipedia's standard operating procedure is to look to credible outside sources for confirmation. As has been pointed out, Cho is not referred to as a "Korean American" in any major news reports, and the standard definition of a (FILL IN THE BLANK ETHNIC BACKGROUND) American is an American citizen of (FILL IN THE BLANK ETHNIC BACKGROUND) descent.

I would argue that continually adding categories that are not supported by mainstream news accounts or definitions is the sign of political motivation.Penser 06:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)penser

Question: This is a very international encyclopedia, so I'm wondering if we might be arguing past each other with differing local definitions of how to label nationality. Are you in the US? --Dynaflow 06:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am an (US) American, though I am currently living in Hong Kong, and have lived in Japan in the past (despite this I would never be classified as an American Japanese  ;-) ). I understand that Wikipedia is international, but even if you look at articles from Canada, the UK, Australia etc., they don't describe him as an American. The discussions about how much he was influenced by spending most of youth in the US versus being from South Korea and raised by South Korean parents is an interesting discussion (perhaps), but when it comes to labeling for nationality, hard facts that are easily verifiable should be preferred.Penser 07:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)penser

Clacket Lane

The band already has had a first album out - Destination. The second album; Man who fell from the moon is going to be released this Summer....IndieRobLB 06:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

See my entry on the band's Talk page. --Dynaflow 06:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm no connection to the band - the old talk page was deleted. I've just put this together myself. I spoke to another administrator on Wikipedia and the article had the "mark for deletion" tag removed. Clacket Lane has supported major UK bands and I think is notable because of this too.... IndieRobLB 06:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What, precisely, did the admin say? --Dynaflow 06:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is my first ever article for wikipedia - it probably shows too. I thought I had deleted it, and after speaking with the contact - they agreed that CLacket Lane were not "just another garage band" that Wikipedia seems to get filled with. The drummer has supported for the undertones. The band has a single out. They have also had an album commercially released and they are due a second album this year. I can't exactly remember what was said - but the article was not re-marked for deletion.IndieRobLB 06:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, that doesn't necessarily confer notability, as per WP:N, the main notability standard. Read through some AfD entries and you'll see what kind of standards are kept, in practice, for notability-based deletions. These are some of the ones I've been involved with today:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Karson (my vote, delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed (my vote, strong merge)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun-Kyung Cho (my vote, delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blondi (my -- semi-facetious -- vote, weak keep)

I would support putting the article through an AfD process, rather than speedydelete, if I could be convinced this band is notable at all. --Dynaflow 07:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sup.

A little late on the ball, no? Days after the change was made you followed up with backseat Wikipolicing of my, granted, sour joke. Do you routinely run about frantically making sure to threaten everybody who has ever had a revision revoked? Get a life.

Oh, and restricting of my editing abilities? Oh, goodness me, what would I do without my precious trivial acerbic jokes on Wikipedia? My house of cards is surely on the brink of collapse! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.94.208 (talk • contribs)

I sent you a warning last week (check the date) for vandalizing the article Virginia Tech massacre by adding it to the video game category First Person Shooters (a change which I reverted). Neither I nor anyone else has (yet) blocked your editing privileges since November, when you were blocked twice in succession, including once for what one administrator memorably summed up as "vandalism, stupidity." --Dynaflow 16:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I sincerely apologize for the overtly rude nature of my comment on your talk page then. I only received a notification of your warning a week after it had transpired and immediately assumed it to have been just posted. My mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.94.208 (talk • contribs)

An intelligent and well-reasoned note from the peanut gallery on "Teh Banz"

OH NOEZ!!! NOT TEH BANZ!!! DO YOU KNOW WHO MANY MINUTES IT TAKES FOR ME TO GET A NEW IP???? LESS THEN I NEED TO CUM ALL OVER YO MOMMA'S FAT FACE!! HAR HAR HAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.119.10.232 (talk • contribs)

UCSC good article nom

Hi again, Dynaflow! Thanks for all the awesome work you've done on the UCSC article. Before you came along, I was more or less the only one keeping it in decent shape.

In the GA entry, I removed the "long" note. The GA process goes by article length as outlined in WP:SIZE, in which only "readable prose" is counted, without references, lists or tables. Because the 34K total size is so close to 32K, I went ahead and tested the page's size. All I had to do was remove the references, and the "long page" warning didn't even show up.

BTW: In response to the message I didn't reply to last week... it looks like someone had removed the English usage note on Virginia Tech massacre by the time I got your message! I hadn't even though of the message being on other VT-related pages, and had no plans to make any changes. szyslak (t, c) 08:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I've been intending to put a new chunk of delicious informational goodness into the History section about the ups and downs of the school's reputation, specifically its transformations from the University of California's liberal-arts honors/magnet campus in the '60s and '70s, to oft-derided ass-end of the UC by the 1980s, to its current status as a niche specialized-research powerhouse. The problem has been that I'm going to need to spend a Saturday at McHenry Special Collections to put all the citations together in a way that makes it airtight against accusations of NPOVsmanship, and it may be a while before I get back down to Santa Cruz (I'm up doing "stuff" at the University of Oregon in Eugene temporarily, and a 600 mile drive to write a Wikipedia article seems a bit excessive). Do you think it would be best to wait on putting the new material in until after the GA review, or should I just say damn the torpedoes and drop it in? --Dynaflow 15:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a trip to McHenry would provide enough research opportunities for a feature-quality history section, plus a new History of the University of California, Santa Cruz article (c.f. History of the University of California, Riverside). I had plans to do the same thing back in September 2005, just before I moved out of Santa Cruz (I'd graduated that June). But the transit strike made it hard to get on and off campus, so I decided against it. I now live in Ventura, about 300 miles away, and I hope to visit SC within the next couple months or so. But even if I do, who knows if I'll have time to go to McHenry for Wikipedia work; I'll be visiting friends I haven't seen in years.

Either way, I don't think the article will fail GA if you don't do the work on the history section. If it were up for FA status, however, that would be a different story. Someone would have to do significant work on the history section before we reach that point. szyslak (t, c) 17:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Academy of Art University article

I noted with interest a comment about "doctorate" (as in Ph.D or Ed.D) that I saw in your edit summary for AAU. During my initial research some time ago, I did not find a doctorate degree that was awarded (earned) for Elisa Stephens, but did find that she has a law (Juris Doctor) degree. She was once the General Counsel of AAU before becoming head of the school.

Because I could not reconcile why Stephens customarily used the title "Dr." before her name (virtually every reference to her name includes the title "Dr."), I looked up the practice at the ABA (American Bar Association) site to find an opinion on this use. According to an article that appeared in the Ethics section of the ABA Journal, lawyers can use the Dr. title, and that's why Elisa Stephens uses this title as the head of a college ("the ethics committee reversed course in light of the newly adopted ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility. Disciplinary Rule 2-102 permitted a J.D. or LL.M. (master of law) recipient to use doctor with his or her name, the committee concluded in ABA Informal Opinion 1152 (1970).") . Here's the reference to the article:

Maher, K. (2006, November). Lawyers are doctors, too. ABA Journal. Retrieved on April 27, 2007. lwalt 19:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to keep it consistent with other schools. It is de rigeur for a university president to hold a doctorate, and tacking the formal title onto the name of the head of a university in that school's infobox seems redundant and somewhat gauche. Almost none of the major universities' infoboxes list their chief executives' credentials, and I think the AAU article should follow suit on that. I'll leave it to your call, though. --Dynaflow 19:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The way you have the name now is fine by me. lwalt 19:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Exhaustive lists of surviving victims and their injuries are encyclopedic

Exhaustive lists of surviving victims and their injuries may also be straying into areas of questionable taste and utility. --Dynaflow 22:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Questionable taste? You mean Columbine_High_School_massacre? That article has lists of injuries. So, then, why can't V-Tech? By the way, the claims of original research are false; I have provided extensive press sources from various newspapers. WhisperToMe 01:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone else made the call on original research, not me. The Columbine list also strains the rubrics of good taste and encyclopedic merit. See the talk page for a more-complete response. I will have that page on my watchlist. --Dynaflow 01:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean this: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored

If the bullet hits were not relevant - if what I posted there was posted to an article about sunflowers and kittens, you would have every right to remove it. For instance, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer has "Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder."— Preceding unsigned comment added by WhisperToMe (talk • contribs)

Note that the disclaimer does not say "Wikipedians will try to trigger your post-traumatic stress disorder whenever possible." Anyway, that's not my objection (and note that it's not a "true" objection because I haven't suggested the article be taken to AfD). All I'm saying is that the "annotated list" is tasteless and useless, on top of being voyeuristic and exploitationist, and it doesn't merit the time and effort that's being poured into it. --Dynaflow 02:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I will continue this conversation on the Talk page where it started

University of California, Los Angeles

I apologize if I caused any consternation over my removal of the <br> break, which you reverted. In my Firefox browser, the article looks and operates exactly the same with our without it. I removed it because I believed it was unnecessary and that extraneous html codes can eventually lead to formatting problems. As a learning experience for me, would you please explain why the break really is needed. In particular, what happens when it is not there? Thanks. Truthanado 06:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My general rule of thumb is that, if someone is putting in HTML code, and the code isn't redirecting me to weird porn sites or making my computer explode, the person who put it in probably knows what he or she is doing and has benign intentions. In such cases, I just leave well enough alone unless what they've done is obviously stupid and/or breaks whatever aspect of the page they seem to have been trying to fix.

For some reason, the lower edge of the UCLA navbox and the upper edge of the UC navbox occur at the same place if there isn't a break in between them, at least in my browser (Opera -- the bestest browser in the whole, wide world, yessiree). The end result is that it looks like there's some sort of huge, Leviathan-like UC box dominating the bottom of the page, which is contrary to my aesthetic intentions. I'm not sure why this happens. It's probably due to some sort of clumsiness in my template coding (both navboxes are my creations), but a quick, HTML-based fix on the page where the boxes are transcluded is better than nothing, keeping the things from conjoining with each other while I figure out what's wrong with their inner workings. I just (re)made the UCLA box the day before yesterday, and so it still has some kinks that need to be worked out. --Dynaflow 08:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

UC Berkeley Template

Just wanted to say thanks for using my photograph on the Berkeley template, it does look pretty good there! Thanks also for your other work there, the temp. looks very good now, along with the other UC system template you also improved. Nice work! trisweb (Talk) 17:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

IPvandal

Isn't it typical for the person who spots and reverts the vandalism to issue the warning? The warning I left was for the first revert, and I assumed that your warning was for my second revert. At this point, I have him cued up in AIV waiting to his "Save Page". HokieRNB 18:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now I see, there was an edit conflict and you were actually leaving your warning while I was leaving mine, so yours has an earlier timestamp. My bad. HokieRNB 18:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Technically, my warning was for his or her edits to Saint Louis University, and I was going to squash the dumb bastard the moment s/he made another edit to the VT article. If you're on it, though, it's all good. Thanks for your diligence. --Dynaflow 18:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Big "C"

Sorry about that, I didn't realize i had overwritten another photo. Thanks for the heads up on the change. (gomfbears) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by gomfbears (talk • contribs).

Thanks for help with IPVandal 63.192.130.60

I see you've already added a warning to User_talk:63.192.130.60. Thanks for the info and for your help. Spventi 08:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm rich!

Thank you Dynaflow! Although I'm not sure my semi-obsession with that page is all that healthy, your reward is much appreciated. I wonder if it's redeemable for Emperor Norton Lager?

I think Norton dollars should be added here and would be a better reward than the California star here!

Cheers! Sfmammamia 21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: SummerThunder

A few days ago he did the same thing to me, this time with his sockpuppet Crazyruns. He even vandalized my AIV report against him, accusing me of being a SummerThunder sock. I see that in his latest incarnation he accused you of being a sockpuppet of me.

So, the story is, he thinks the Foundation is collaborating with the People's Republic of China to censor the Chinese Wikipedia. (That, of course, doesn't answer the question of why he's so interested in the UC Riverside page.)

Anyway, next time you run into him, just take it straight to AIV. The admins who watch AIV are familiar with his activities and will recognize him right away. If you try to engage with him he'll just pull the same thing again. Last time I ran into him I immediately filed an AIV report before even reverting his edits. I don't choose to be an admin at the moment, but if I were one I'd just block him without another word. szyslak 03:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oy. I had to go on IRC just to ask an administrator to block the guy. I love when no one's watching AIV. BTW: Your theory is plausible, except his own English skills are questionable. szyslak 10:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That's part of what made me zero in on this one guy. Heh, it's somewhat flattering that I seem to have been promoted to "puppetmaster" in his addled mind. It was rather stifling for the ol' ego to be merely your puppet in his template rampages. He even made me my own category this time. --Dynaflow 10:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Western Investor – speedy delete

[Imported, in part, from User talk:Bearcat and Talk:The Western Investor]

You tagged The Western Investor with speedy delete. In the article, it was asserted that the band met criterion #11 in notability on WP:MUSIC, that they were in frequent rotation on a national network, CBC Radio 3. Actually, the band's listing in the article The R3-30 (having a number-one song on the chart) was why I created the article in the first place. (I was in the process of contesting it when it was deleted.) Let me know if you have any advice. Much obliged, --Paul Erik 06:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, they have not satisfied the criteria for notability. They do not seem to be on Radio 3's rotation; if they are, you must cite this. They are played and highly regarded on a show on Radio 3 premised on the fact that the songs it plays are obscure and not on regular rotation, but this does not satisfy WP:NOTE. Even some corners of obscurity get a bit of limelight now and then.

Wait for a while. If they indeed have what it takes, they will get bigger one day. Until then, you'll be jumping the gun. Even though the admin who deleted the article saw your hangon tag [1], he also agreed that they have yet to satisfy the criteria for inclusion.--Dynaflow 06:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I had thought that reaching number one on The R3-30 chart demonstrated that they were in high rotation on CBC Radio 3, but I may not be understanding what that chart is all about. Thanks for the feedback. --Paul Erik 06:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Western Investor most certainly are in regular rotation on CBC Radio 3. I think I have almost every word to "If You Wanna Go" memorized by now, and I've never heard the song anywhere but Radio 3. Reaching number one on the R3-30 chart, by definition, does fulfill the WP:MUSIC criteria. The R3-30 is not premised on the "fact" that its songs are not on regular rotation — you may be confusing the show as a whole with the "Chartbreaker" feature. By definition, a song has to be in regular rotation to actually attain a chart ranking; that the show makes some space for listeners to promote songs outside of the network's standing playlist does not mean that all songs on the show are off-rotation. Bearcat 07:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in Canada, nor do I listen to Canadian radio, so my judgement of what exactly a show like that might play is based on the US commercial radio and BBC streams I listen to. If you can prove your point with citations, you might well save the article. Be warned, though, that, in Wikipedia's eyes, if you can't cite it, it doesn't exist, and the burden of proof is on the article's authors. As for this "chart," is it an actual sales chart, a la Billboard, or is it the way they term their compiled playlist statistics for that particular program? --Dynaflow 07:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How exactly would you propose that one cite "has been in rotation on CBC Radio 3" apart from actual listener experience and/or the chart show? I'm an administrator, and the citation already present is entirely sufficient. Bearcat 07:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

One "citation" is the band's MySpace page. The other is a link to a CBC page which says, right up front, that they are unsigned, and consists of a blurb the band's members apparently wrote themselves, a track list, and contact information. I am taking this thread to the article's discussion page. We'll sort it out there. --Dynaflow 07:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to reread the article a bit more closely. Namely, you might be interested to note that the footnote which directly follows the sentence about the R3-30 chart is a direct link to the R3-30 chart that has The Western Investor at the top of it, which is entirely sufficient sourcing for the claim that they've topped said chart. WP:MUSIC is not open to subjective interpretations; if a band tops a chart on a national radio network, they're notable enough for us. You don't get to apply subjective criteria to dismiss the notability of said network or said chart. Also, incidentally, you appear to be unclear on the following distinction: CBC Radio 3 is a 24/7 radio network; The R3-30 is a show on said network which presents a countdown chart of songs played on that network. SOme of your prior comments in this thread appear not to fully understand that distinction. Bearcat 07:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've found that. I assumed, because of the way they were doing their frames, that that link was taking me to the same place as the CBC link under "External links." After reading that and the WP article on the R3-30, I'm still not convinced this one, primary source will stand. What is the criteria of this chart? "The R3-30 is a weekly record chart show on CBC Radio 3, which counts down the week's top indie rock singles as determined by airplay [Where? This one station? In Canada? On small, South Pacific islands whose names start with the letter M?], listener feedback [Abstract, "unscientific" criteria that isn't available for examination anyway], and other criteria [What other criteria?]." You yourself assert that it's hard to find anything beyond this one citation (a blog post, no less) aside from your own observations (which would constitute WP:OR). "A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (WP:NOTE) Where are those sources? --Dynaflow 07:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A weekly chart program on a national radio network is notable, and a band which ranks on said chart is notable, regardless of whether the method by which the chart is compiled satisfies your personal peccadillos or not. Appearance on said record chart, further, does not need to be sourced to anything beyond an actual publication of said chart by CBC Radio 3, which is exactly what the link in question is. The fact that R3 uses a blog format on its website does not make its website an unreliable source. A national radio network chart is a national radio network chart, and no amount of "but the criteria for compiling the chart don't seem to be scientific enough for meeeeeeeeeeeee!" makes it not a national radio network chart. WP:MUSIC applies as written, not "as filtered through Dynaflow's own personal choice of subtext". Bearcat 07:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, let's just take this to AfD and see what happens. The two of us probably aren't going to find a happy medium between "delete" and "keep," so the wider community should probably be consulted at this point. --Dynaflow 08:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no basis for AFD. The topic meets the inclusion criteria spelled out at WP:MUSIC. Bearcat 08:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Suggest a speedykeep at the AfD and see if everybody goes for it. --Dynaflow 08:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, it's your ball: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Western Investor. --Dynaflow 08:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, again. I realize we're having a bit of a disagreement, but I've tried to keep the discussion as civil as possible. You seem to have taken some element of this personally and displayed behavior I would not have expected out of an administrator. You have left talk-page comments in what seems from my side of the screen to be a condescending tone. You have gotten involved in a content dispute to the point where you have resisted the idea of following procedure (though, to your credit, you have not misused your sysop priviliges beyond bringing out the "admin card" as a rhetorical point very eary in the debate at my talk page).

I wasn't going to say anything until I saw this edit summary, which just blows my mind. You say that not only messages from an editor in good standing, but also of a fellow administrator, are "unwelcome" on your page. All I want is to keep this whole thing civil and by-the-book, and I don't understand why that makes you so angry. If there's something else going on beyond Wikipedia that's causing anger to spill over into Wikipedia, then you have my sympathies. However, I would ask that you try to act in the professional manner your community-granted post makes us expect from you. --Dynaflow 09:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not resisting procedure (?!) or being condescending or angry. And if you're going to start suggesting that my tone is more condescending than I think, then keep in mind that you're the one whose last comment on my talk page opened with "it's your ball". Bearcat 09:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I said that in an effort to not make my leaving the link sound personal or otherwise emotionally-involved. Maybe the phrase has different connotations in Canada, but, in the south-of-the-border way I used it, it was to equate sending you the link to the nothing-personal attitude of one team, even though pitted against the other, still sportsmanly handing off the soccer football to the other team when required to by the rules. I don't want to get into a no-holds-barred fight over an article I have no personal investment in; I just want to subject something I thought should have been speedydeleted to the community litmus test and see if it passes or (as I expect it will and you expect it won't) fails. That's all; nothing personal. --Dynaflow 09:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What you mean by a phrase and how it lands on the listener can be two different things. "It's your ball" does register as sarcasm or condescension whether you mean it that way or not. You seem to be going for the classic communication trick here: if I misunderstand your tone, it's my fault for not listening correctly, but if you misunderstand mine, it's my fault for not speaking correctly, so either way I end up with all the blame for any miscommunication that results. Healthy dialogue simply doesn't work that way. Bearcat 17:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mark Ravina

Hello. I've noticed that you've placed a warning template on my new article on historian Mark Ravina stating that the article reads like a resume. Thank you for your attentive efforts to enforce standards and quality upon new articles, and for your efforts overall.

Given that the article is already written in prose paragraph form, not bulletpoints like a real resume would be, and given that I am not aware of any other biographical sources on Prof Ravina, I am wondering what you suggest should be done. Thank you. LordAmeth 15:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It looked a lot more like a CV to me last night than it does today, but I still think it doesn't assert the importance of its subject as forcefully as it should. The article notes Ravina's role in film consulting and in studying Japanese history, but it doesn't come out and say why he is/was improtant in those roles.

Mention of the titles of academic books even the above-average reader will likely not have read (I think I remember Land and Lordship in Early Modern Japan being one of the optional reads in the last East Asian history course I took, but I went plowing through Eiko Ikegami's social-networks-based stuff instead) will mean nothing to said reader. It must be asserted what place this academic's work has in his field -- his context -- and it should probably be asserted before some nefarious deletionist comes around and puts a prod tag on the article. --Dynaflow 07:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Will do. Cheers. LordAmeth 07:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done what I can to add some explanation of the significance of the work. I'm afraid of pushing the limits of what is not original research, my own personal analysis of the significance of Ravina's work, but I'm hoping that what we've got now will stand. Thanks for your help, and if you have further suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them. LordAmeth 07:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Response

That's exactly it. You've once again proved my point. Not only did you completely leave your neutral thought process (that's supposed to be all but required in a Wikipedia editor) at the door when you left a message on my talk page, but you replied with absolute arrogance. Arrogance is not what people look for when they are trying to find information for a critical school paper. Especially that little magic mushroom comment, which was all but mature. One more thing, you failed to see my point when responding to my point about the 'Bible'. I'm not looking for a religous pilgrimage; I'm Wiccan. The pollution of the Bible by biased sources is the reason I am Wiccan. Among other things in the practice that click with me, but thats beside the point. Their are places where an opinion is ok and places where it is not. This should be one of those places where it is not ok, because alot of people depend on editors such as yourself for information.You fail to see a bigger picture. You disappoint more then just me with your actions. You disappoint countless students. Even if you have no part in editing material that would be research information, your arrogant attitude doesn't help to set straight the ones that do have a part in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaraiel (talk • contribs)

I have not been following those VT-related pages as thoroughly as I was a few weeks ago, when I had the things watchlisted in order to help with the rampant vandalism they faced in the aftermath of the shootings. Looking back through that Talk page now, I can see that your proposal was not treated gently. It was subjected to severe criticism and roundly condemned as a bad idea. It's often hard to take criticism, especially when care hasn't been taken to dull its edges. However, I cannot see why this would shake your faith in Wikipdia. It, in fact, strengthens mine.

Here is why: The process, though seemingly harsh -- particularly to those who make the mistake of personally identifying with the ideas they put forward -- worked. It took a bad idea (and it was a bad idea) and stood firm in the face of it, in the face of its persistent promotion vigorous lobbying for its adoption. The idea was dissected in what turned into a de facto post-mortem so that, should anyone propose that idea again, it could be dealt with even more quickly and efficiently than it was this time (your proposal, in fact, was not the first along these lines to die a death by discussion). That Wikipedia maintained its integrity and didn't approve of the proposal you put forward is to its credit. --Dynaflow 04:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The end result Dyna (I'm going to have to nickname you) is as follows: 1) I enjoy list, get used to it. 2) I appreciate your response, I've actually grown to like you just a little bit. Blunt honesty mixed with honest professionalism. I can appreciate that. 3) I am going to stick this out just a little while longer, though I believe more I will chose what I edit more carefully this time. For instance, my fortes are technology and asian culture. You get the point ;)

Have a great night, and get some sleep bro. Amaraiel 05:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good night to you too. Don't hesitate to contact me if you ever run into problems again in any of Wikipedia's (I admit) often-confusing and -strange nooks and crannies, and you feel you might need help navigating through them. --Dynaflow 05:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

UCLA logo

I think fair use rationales are a waste of time. I realize that including them is policy, but in practice most images don't have them and those that do often have silly ones. The whole concept is flawed, in my opinion, so I'm not going to bother. If the image police want to delete good images simply because a rationale is missing, then fine—though you'd think someone who believed in rationales that deeply would be willing to fill it in themselves. Punctured Bicycle 10:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just try not to be sad when some bot comes along and zaps all your work because you didn't want to paste in one block of text along with the logo template. Wikipedia tends to take WP:F pretty seriously, as I found out fairly early on from fellow editors who were horrified that I was putting logos back into template space. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law 'round here, but, believe me, pasting in those fair use rationales will save you and a lot of other people a whole lot of work down the line. --Dynaflow 20:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use

I found a picture of a Zen Vision: M MP3 Player which I resized to fit a userbox. Is it possible for that to be legitimately uploaded? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amaraiel (talk • contribs) 13:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

It depends on where you found it and who took it. Most stuff that you find on the Internet will be considered, by default, as copyrighted, unless the creator has specifically stated otherwise (see WP:F). Wikipedia also tries to avoid using potentially non-free (i.e., copyrighted) content if it can be replaced with free content. A logo, say, such as Image:Ucsc fiatslug.gif, is not replacable with free content, and thus it has to sport a lot of fair-use related verbiage in its image page and have where in Wikipedia it is considered fair use strictly defined. It also can't be used in "template space" because you can't define where a template can and can't be used in the same way. A picture of an MP3 player, on the other hand, is something you could easily take yourself and upload under a creative-commons license (the image upload page makes that easy to do), which would make it free content (example: Image:UCSC McHenry Library.jpg). Also, see the thread above this one for a very practical reason correct fair-use procedure is important.

If you want any help creating the UBX itself, let me know. I've created several, and I have code set up that you can copy out and modify to your liking. --Dynaflow 20:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Johnston Community College

Thank you for your edits. I am a member of another college in ERBEC, and as you can see, this is a real community college. It started out as an ad, rather than spam. I'm trying to help clean it up. Then, we'll find cites. Bearian 20:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Best of luck to you. --Dynaflow 20:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

SummerThunder

Oh, what's he gonna do? Fuck with my pixels? Easy enough to click revert, and back it goes. He's spending more time rewriting my undos then I am clicking two or three simple links to fix them. He can fuck with me all he wants, I'm a well-meaning person, and certainly not a sockpuppet. I have nothing to worry about from a template. Don't worry about it bro. I may actually enjoy this. --Amaraiel 01:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I admit, I've always liked those whack-a-mole games, so I understand the sentiment. This guy is essentially like a marginally-annoying version of the ghost from The Grudge. He died a violent (and deserved) online death at the hands of his fellow Wikipedians, and so now he's resigned himself to spending the rest of eternity being a nuisance to those who, intentionally or unintentionally, bumble into what he considers his territory. I'm going to request semi-protection for your userpage, because he will be back, again and again. It's obvious he hasn't been taking his medication lately. --Dynaflow 01:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly
--Amaraiel 01:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

SummerThunder (IssueOCD) has been indefinitly blocked. I'm personally waiting for him to pull another sockpuppet within the next few hours. Seems like his M.O. He pulls out a sock puppet then gets pissed off and comes back a few hours later as another sock puppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaraiel (talk • contribs)

The thing to remember is that you're essentially dealing with someone who is a small child at heart, displaying maladaptive attention-seeking behavior. He craves recognition (this discussion is the kind of gold he's mining for), and the best way to deal with him is to quickly, quietly report him to WP:AIV and then efficiently clean up his mess so that, mere minutes later, it is as if he had never existed here. That said, I will declare this discussion over and wish SummerThunder, who I know is reading this, a good evening, and I hope he can get his personal problems, whatever they are, under control so that he can move on. --Dynaflow 02:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Amaraiel 02:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Two things: 1) Thank you for requesting protection. I appreciate it.
2)

Nonchalance is the greatest weapon against arrogance
- Confucious the Second (Nickname for an RL friend)

Shes right. I may be inexperienced, but i sure as hell am not going anywhere because someone can't find a way out of their grandmothers basement ;) Gone down that road once, don't plan on doing it ever again --Amaraiel 02:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I've actually been looking at that since this morning. Thanks. Funny thing man, after our first encounter I thought this was going to be a very akward and slightly tension filled relation. *laughs* Oh how assumptions play with the mind, huh? --Amaraiel 03:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, give it time. I'm sure I'll propel you into a towering rage eventually. But anyway, I'm glad you decided to stay aboard. Welcome to the madhouse. --Dynaflow 03:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

By 'ruthless' you, of course, mean 'stupid', right?

Nyucknyucknyuck... HalfShadow 03:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's say, tenaciously stupid. I noticed Defcon went up to 2. Hackers, rogue admins, armies of sockpuppets, and the usual crap from shared IPs. It's been an exciting weekend. --Dynaflow 03:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's nothing. It was actually at 1 for a bit this morning. Is it just me or are admin accounts getting hacked a bit too easily? HalfShadow 03:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Neo-AndyZ's first words will stay with me forever: "My password is password!" --Dynaflow 03:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You're shitting me. Nobody could be that stupid. This is an admin account. You know what sort of damage can be done with one of those. HalfShadow 03:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That was the edit summary when he blanked the main page. [2] --Dynaflow 03:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh man. Assuming that's actually legit, he almost deserved it, then. HalfShadow 03:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Straight from the horse's mouth: User talk:AndyZ#Password changed. I've been watching this unfold on WP:ANI, and it looks like someone's making a concerted effort to compromise sysop accounts with weak, easily-crackable passwords. I think the count was four or five the last time I checked. Durp. --Dynaflow 03:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who put the defcon up to 2. For several reasons actually. After reading Dynaflow's reaction to some of SummerThunders antics and how quickly he went after me, I felt it nessecary to warn the greater public. Even though the greater piece of them was in no danger. But alas, no harm no foul. (PostNote: Went to put it back to three and someone has already done it for me. *laughs*) --Amaraiel 03:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You may want to leave that to admins and others with a wider view of the playingfield in the future. SummerThunder is annoying, but easily contained, and his short visits don't merit much of a rise in the Defcon. SummerThunder, in fact, was one of the less-bothersome pests on WP today (see the link to ANI, above, and you'll get a feel for what's really been going on). Again, we don't want to bait the dumb bastard or give him any other rewards (raising the Defcon is a major coup). Just report and revert; that's the medicine he has to take. --Dynaflow 03:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're my successor as SummerThunder punching bag? Ouch. You have my sympathy. Don't worry, he'll get bored in a few months. Hang tight until then, OK? --tjstrf talk 07:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

He can jab and punch all he wants. I don't care --Amaraiel 13:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, tjstrf. I don't remember if we've actually "met" on here before, but yes, I do seem to be the Chosen One of the moment. He seems to have shifted attention from Szyslak to me in the past week or so. I expect him to find someone more interesting by and by. --Dynaflow 18:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll watchlist whatever. Userpage semi-protection also works well, as I see you've discovered. What is he vandalizing now anyway? He apparently stopped caring about China, I'd have seen him if he were still doing that. A pity too, his conspiracy ravings were mildly amusing at times. --tjstrf talk 08:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, hope you have fun with him then. I always found it particularly funny that the key point of his theory that all the zh.wiki admins are communist spies is that they can get around the government firewall, when the firewall, for all the money wasted on it, was unable to stop me from getting to sites when I was 13 and in Beijing due to the lack of blocks on English language proxy sites. Hopefully they've improved since then. --tjstrf talk 09:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Humor keeps me alive.

I won't say sane, because then I'd be lying. George W. Bush talk page edit summary HalfShadow 21:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be like-minded editors: University of California, Los Angeles edit summary. If Wikipedia wasn't this consistently ridiculous and funny, I'd find it about as entertaining as my last math class. =) --Dynaflow 22:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I spend most of my time here cleaning up after kids, I try to have fun with it sometimes. The trick is managing to do it before 50 other people get the edit in before me. HalfShadow 22:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I do my vandalism-hunting the old-fashioned way, so I often get beaten to the punch by you RCP folks, VP- and TW-armed people, and, of course, MartinBot. You've gotta be either quick on the draw, or else sharp enough to catch "the little things." Hey, wait a minute ... you're Canadian, but you spell "humour" as "humor." Is our rampant cultural imperialism from down south making further inroads against Commonwealth English? --Dynaflow 22:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh. The spelling is pretty much 'either/or' here; it's not specific. Some people use the European, some use American, some pronounce Z 'zee', others say 'zed'. Neither is correct, because they both are. And I don't use any gear, I'm just really damn fast. I can beat bots to the punch on good days. HalfShadow 23:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

On the link to Hasan Taqizadeh's article

Dear User:Dynaflow, thanks for your note and the link. All seems very complicated and I am glad that I am not in a position to have to resolve this or similar disputes. Perhaps the dispute at issue should be left to rest for some time so as to allow people to climb down a bit from their present absolute positions. As for the link deleted from the article on Hasan Taqizadeh, I am afraid that this link may have become victim of some communal dispute: from the discussions (the link to which you kindly provided) I gather that the web-site whose link has now been deleted, may have said that the Islamic regime in Iran may have been destroying Zoroastrian monuments, etc. (I can neither confirm nor deny this claim, as my link to this web-site had solely the classic article by Taqizadeh concerning the old Iranian calendar in mind). As for copy-right issues, may I suggest that Wikipedia seek advice from a legal expert who knows the copy-right law in Iran? I have understood that in Iran copy-right on a photograph has a lifetime of 30 years, irrespective of whether any person related to this photograph is alive or not (see the copy-right statement of the following photograph: [3]). At present Iranian web-sites are all awash with identical photographs. Consequently, all the arguments to and fro between these people regarding copy-rights seem to me to be about something of very little substance, if at all. --BF 23:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above remarks, it seems to me that there is a political edge to the on-going dispute: in the past two days I have noticed that User:Aksi great has been removing photographs of people who at present are not in favour in Iran: Ahmad Kasravi (assassinated by a religious fanatic), Sadeq Hedayat (whose books are banned in Iran) and now it seems that s/he is acting as the public prosecutor of User:ParthianShot. This cannot be correct. User:ParthianShot may have a point, as (for the reasons mentioned above) this whole idea of copy-right violations seems bogus. Ahmad Kasravi died (was assassinated) in 1946, Sadeq Hedayat died in 1951. Taking into account the above-mentioned 30-years life-time of copy-rights on photographs in Iran, the photogtaphs of these Iranians are public property right now. In fact, Hedayat died intestate --- you can find copies of his books on countless web-sites the world over (free to download). How comes that suddenly everybody is picking on User:ParthianShot? I believe that Wikipedia has the moral responsibility to let the issue be arbitrated, if at all, by someone who has no connection to Iran --- it worries me greatly that the site whose link has now been removed from Taqizadeh's biography may have been critical of the Iranian regime (I emphasize, that I can neither confirm nor deny this); things seem to point to a very specific direction. I am inclined to believe that some people may be trying to get User:ParthianShot excluded from Wikipedia for some ulterior reasons. Actually, the huge document comipled against User:ParthianShot is too professional to be credible; it has all the hallmarks of the work of a professional investigator. Please kindly remove this message after having read it, as I do not wish to be the next target. --BF 00:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has all types, including academics, investigators, clerks, plumbers, and even, until he was blocked, Stephen Colbert (of "elephants" fame - see Wikipedia in culture#Landmark). Professionalism and thoroughness are encouraged and often required, especially at the higher levels. Aksi (whom I believe is from India), as an administrator, is required to keep Wikipedia's interests foremost. His concern seems to have been that Parthian shot's questionable methods of dealing with copyright and sourcing were creating a liability not only to Wikipedia, but to the Wikimedia project as a whole (this all seems to have started with Parthian shot's uploads to Commons and then migrated later to English Wikipedia, where Aksi discovered it).

The conversation regarding the sourcing problems of Parthian shot's uploads occured on WP:ANI, in full view of the 1,000-odd English Wikipedia administrators and who-knows-how-many other established users who frequent that board. Parthian shot's initial blocking seems to have come from revert-warring, which is common when disputes get heated (if you look up through my Talk page, you'll find a thread from when I got WP:3RR'ed once). There were allegations that he was trying to evade the block using sockpuppets, but I don't know what the eventual determination was. His indefinite banning only occurred when he insinuated legal threats against another user, which is a cardinal sin on Wikipedia and results in almost-automatic banning (see WP:NLT).

You seem like a civil contributor, and as long as you aren't exposing Wikipedia to liability, you probably have nothing to fear from Aksi. In fact, I would send him a message and ask him if there's an alternate source for the citation you're looking for. He seems familiar with that corner of academic study. If you are concerned about a possible political motivation in the pattern of his deletions, remember that, if he is rooting out all the content that came from a questionable source, the deletions will inadvertantly give a mirror image of whatever institutional biases that source may have had. There is really nothing to fear here, and if someone did have a mind to behave badly towards you by way of politics, you will always find more than enough firm believers in WP's core tenet of keeping a neutral point of view to come to your defense. Best of luck to you. [EDIT:] As a user with a large apparent interest in Iran, you might want to watchlist these two boards: Wikipedia:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran. You should be able to find much that is of use there, as well as possible collaborators on future articles. --Dynaflow 02:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Dynaflow, thank you very much for your very detailed response. Yes, I should like to emphasize that I firmly believe that Wikipedia must maintain a purity that tanscends all our private preferences, political, national, religious, etc; an unconditional fairness must be the foremost concern of everyone who roams on these pages. I believe also that the Wikipedia project is truly one of the best fruits of our thousands of years of civilization and consequently should be protected from our personal ambitions which almost always lead to destruction of things that are potentially good. As for User:ParthianShot, I still firmly believe that his case should be dealt with by someone who does not potentially raises his suspicion that he may be discriminated against (the word "Aksi" is Persian, originally Arabic, and surreally in the present context, referes to photographs; "Aks" means "Photograph" and "Aksi" refers to someone who makes pictures, a photographer, a maker of portraits); one should not forget that being in an environment where personal freedoms are not as extensive as people in other places are used to, he may be too sensitive and consequently too emotional in his reactions to issues which to him amount to a further restriction of his already restricted freedoms (I am inclined to see his legal threat in this light rather than in any other); further, if indeed he is a Zoroastrian, he lives the life of a minority and therefore is already constrained in his personal life --- I had a school friend who once secretly confided to me (in the corner of the school yard) that he was a Zoroastrian; after almost half a century I still remember those frightened eyes of this child who perhaps feared the worst by disclosing his religious affiliation to someone else; somehow this User:ParthianShot reminds me of that moment of utter innocence when a soul desperately needs expressing. My essential message is: treat him softly. With kind regards, --BF 13:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to my above message, there is already a link to the article by Taqizadeh on the old Persian calendars --- originally there were two, one of which has now been removed. For completeness, my original objection to removal was prompted by the fact that whoever had done that s/he had removed both links. After this, I reverted the change, but in doing so left out the one link which has been considered to be in violation of some copy-right laws, etc. To summarise, I am really not looking for a new link; of course if Aksi knows of a gook link s/he can add it to the already existing link. Kind regards, --BF 14:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

re:summerthunder

I've added all of the pages to Wikipedia:Protected titles. If you have anything else come up, let me know. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 23:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly sure why this happened, so I've reinstated the above post. - auburnpilot talk 23:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rash Editors....

Hey man,
If I ever turn out to be one of those users that just labels something vandalism just to say they did, slap me or something will you? I know I'm supposed to be patient and open-minded but this guy just went to my user page, deleted something off of it I had been working on and labeled it vandalism. Vandalism by me! RAWR. If It were vandalism, I would appreciate it. If it were a vandal I wouldn't care, But this guy just seems like one of those people thats just way too quick to jump all over something. --Amaraiel 00:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it, and I think I know what happened. He seems to have been using Twinkle, a semi-automated anit-vandalism tool, which, I think, doesn't allow much leeway in how it prints out its edit summaries (you can tell by the "TW" at the end of his link summary). If you look through his contribs, most of his edit summaries will read that way. He was probably deleting it because he interpreted what you were writing as an attempt to bait vandals, which is not considered kosher on WP (see Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals). It's kind of like the "do not feed the trolls" rule on forums and BBSes: if you put out food, they will come. --Dynaflow 01:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I learn something new every hour don't I. I'll remember that about baiting the vandals. Thanks

--Amaraiel 01:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Found a shared IP address being used for vandalism from a school in New Hampshire. --Amaraiel 01:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC) --Amaraiel 01:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. You may want to chat with HalfShadow, a Recent Changes Patroller, who might be able to help you hone your vandal-thwacking skillsz. Another good thing for the neophyte vandal-hunter to read is Wikipedia:The Motivation of a Vandal. --Dynaflow 03:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to quote you on that George Bush comment. I'm sorry, that was just flat out hysterical. LOL. --Amaraiel 04:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Harvard talk and red text

Hi! About talk pages: yup, indeed. About the red: actually, it wasn't my signature I wanted red; it was my name in edit histories / on my watchlist. It made it easier to quickly find myself in them. But I've had a few years now to get used to being blue/purple like everybody else; and so now I don't ever really hanker back for those early days of redness. Cheers, Doops | talk 03:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I suppose I should take a cue from you and reduce the cruftiness of my signature, but -- on a whim -- I've increased it instead. Oh well. Function over form. ... Or something vaguely of that nature. --Dynaflow babble 05:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Userbox/UCLA

Yes! I love userboxes! Thanks Dynaflow! But, I should have known where to look for that user box. -- Penubag  07:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

One of your userboxes says you're still in high school, though. Did you just get accepted or something? If so, congrats, and say hi to the RSS kids (or the ΡΣΣ scholars, as they style themselves) if you see them --Dynaflow babble 07:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, I'm not going there yet, but in the near future I plan to go to UCLA. Thanks anyways. =-)I'll hopefully remember to say Hi to them. XD -- Penubag  08:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sha-la-la-la-lee

Thanks for your messages, help is greatly appreciated (yes, I am new). Sha-la-la-la-lee is not nonsense, it was a major hit record for the Small Faces (British group) and got to no. 3 in the UK charts in the 1960's. Why is this nonsense, can a song title not be added when it is added to that songwriters details? Many thanks in advance. Sue Wallace 23:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not nonsense in and of itself, but it is nonsense as an encyclopedia article (see WP:NOT). You also run into major fair-use problems when you post full sets of lyrics (see WP:LYRICS). Let me know if I can be of any further help. --Dynaflow babble 00:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was just being thorough by adding the lyrics (oh dear), please tell me what I should do, I would like the name to remain, what if I just dont link it then? Many thanks Sue Wallace 00:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

ps I just sent you another message about Ruskin Arms but I think there was a fault!

Hi, me again, you said that The Ruskin Arms should be deleted you dont mean entirely from the article do you? do you just mean the link?, The Ruskin Arms is a very important venue in London and very well known to Heavy Metal fans. It is a place where Iron Maiden, Status Quo and the Small Faces played, it is like an equivalent to the Cavern Club in Liverpool where the Beatles played Sue Wallace 00:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a hangon tag on the speedydelete template. The main problem is not with the venue, but how the article about it is written. Meet me at the article's talk page: Talk:The Ruskin Arms. --Dynaflow babble 00:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lingapalem et al.

Hi there; fair comment, I will attempt to contact the editor. Article remains pro tem.--Anthony.bradbury 10:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

CSD#G4

WP:CSD#G4 doesn't apply to things that were speedily deleted, anyway there's no need for more than one speedy deletion template on an article, it won't get it deleted any faster. John Reaves (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You could post something like {{db|reposted [[WP:CSD#A7|A7]] article}} which gives the CSD criterion and a notice to the admin that it's been deleted before. John Reaves (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Steady 0CD

Yes, you are probably right. I was in a hurry to get back and revert your userpage, which in the event did before I got back there. But in reality, six months is long enough for a sock-puppet, because the puppeteer can create them as fast as we can block them and blocked ones as a rule appear not to get re-activated. But if it shows up in November we just block it again, and it's easier then because we will recognise the name.--Anthony.bradbury 22:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, point taken. Done.--Anthony.bradbury 22:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Status

Given that you have not been here very long; at least, not under this username, you have amassed a quite reasonable total of edits, including a good contribution record in WP:NAMESPACE. You also clearly have a good grasp of WP:POLICY. Are you planning on running for admin in the future? If so, I would be happy to nominate you. Let me know, if you wish, as soon as you feel you are ready.--Anthony.bradbury 22:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As I hinted, I thought that you had probably been here longer than it appeared. If you were to go for RfA, we should stipulate this, as it will stifle the length-of-experience orientated editors. Let me know, by e-mail if you wish to avoid the appearance of canvassing (although our conversation here is direct, and initiated by me)--Anthony.bradbury 23:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't answer your question. At the moment there are about 1100 admins in wikipedia, and about 800 are classed as active. Some are classed as semi-active (I have not sought out the figure) So long as you have a pattern of regular editing, then I do not see that a monthly fluctuation in editing activity would be a problem so long as you posted an explanation for it on your RfA if the fluctuation was extreme. But you have produced well over 3000 edits in the last three months, which is a significantly higher than average output. I say again, let me know.--Anthony.bradbury 23:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's OK, you're not on trial under oath. Take a look at WP:RfA. If you would like to go for it, let me know and I will set it up. Following the on-page instructions is blindingly easy.--Anthony.bradbury 23:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

0CD

I was trying to but someone beat me to it, then I started going in and trying to revert everything he has done. Thanks for the heads up though. Inter16 02:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: UCSC article

That's great news on the successful good article nom. Thanks for all your work on this and the other UC articles. How about a round of Sierra Nevadas (which is a Chico beer but is nonetheless very popular at UCSC). I also have a bottle of champagne for whenever the article reaches featured status. szyslak 04:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahoy

Cheers, I see you've started on the CSU series. A little encouragement:
[Template Barnstar (aw shucks) moved to userpage. Thanks for the encouragement. --Dynaflow babble 05:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)]

May 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to 0CD therapist. As a member of the Wikipedia community, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information of living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article must include proper sources. Thank you. Coren 05:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted warning given on good faith namespace error. Oops.  :-) Coren 23:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I'm not an abuse reports type of guy, so I apologize if I am of little help. You might want to try reporting these socks to WP:ANI for further action and opinion by other, more experienced admins. You might be pointed to WP:ABUSE, but that page is undergoing a severe backlog. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I submit it later. I have a feeling he's wardriving, though. I'll have to look at the other IPs he's used. --Dynaflow babble 06:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Do as you please, as long as it benefits the encyclopedia. Watch out for allegations of stalking and privacy violations though. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I take it you haven't read the dossier on this abuse case. He's hit Wikipedia seven times today alone. See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder. --Dynaflow babble 06:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I take it that you didn't note the importance of the word "allegations." My words were chosen carefully. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not terribly worried. He signed in as an anon IP user, quacked like a duck ([4] vs. [5]), and his IP info is open to inspection, as for any anon editor. His old IPs and sockpuppets are archived in their own (growing) category, also open for inspection. This is a clear-cut case of long-term abuse, and, in any case, the stalking actually seems to be going to other way: [6]. I am only that latest Wikipedian to look into this. --Dynaflow babble 06:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Your RfA awaits at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dynaflow. You probably know, but if not the instructions are at WP:RfA. Take your time answering the questions before you transclude the page onto the project page. Good luck.--Anthony.bradbury 10:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I find that your e-mail is not enabled. May I suggest that you enable it noew, as it unlikely that your RfA will succeed otherwise. Look in preferences.--Anthony.bradbury 21:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Dynaflow babble 22:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Congratulations! I knew you would! --Amaraiel 21:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)