User talk:Fran Rogers

User:Krimpet/header

I prefer to keep all correspondence in the same place; if you leave me a message here, I will respond here. If I post a message on your talk page, please reply there rather than here. Thank you!

User:Compwhizii

I think it might be time to reevaluate whether this user should have access to rollback. I'm seeing a lot of complaints on their talk page about invalid reverts. Pairadox (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I warned him that his rollback permissions could be removed yesterday, but it looks like he didn't actually have them yet - he had been recklessly reverting using the tool Huggle, yet an admin nevertheless decided to give him rollback today without even reviewing his talk page first... -_- Looking through his contribs even from the past hour it seems he's still reverting constructive IP edits mixed in with vandalism reverts; unfortunately something needs to be done, I'll remove his rollback and disable his access to Huggle for 48 hours. :/ krimpet✽ 23:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, Krimpet. I'm genuinely sorry about this infraction, this is the first out of all the people that I've changed rights for, where a problem has occured since the addition of the rollback flag. I personally had reassurance from a few editors on IRC over about 1 month period, where he was known to come up in conversation in a positive light and therefore to make Compwhizii a good candidate for receiving rollback, I'd also seen him around en.wp quite a few times where he had reverted correctly with the undo botton, albeit back to square one now. I assume that it has been removed now? If there is anything more I can do in this situation feel free to ask. Regards, Rudget. 11:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry and ashamed for all the trouble I have caused. Thus, I have decided to temporarily take a leave on wikipedia. Truly, Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 17:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish to complain about this user also for reverting my edits to the Conjugate Gradient article in real time as I was writing them. I left details on his talk page. Incidentally he claims on one of his pages to be a 13 year old who isn't capable of writing content. Why is this joker reverting content by myself (and others)? Another joker backed him up and I am the proud owner of several warnings to being banned. Please advise me how a serious user and contributor to Wikipedia (from more than one IP address) can work in this environment. Thanks.

RFA thanks

.: RFA thanks :.

Thanks for supporting me! My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers! Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 17:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Edit warring" at Muhammad

What exactly are you calling "edit warring" on this article? -- tariqabjotu 07:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Edit warring is an unproductive behavior characterized by repeated, combative reversion of others' edits." A cursory glance at the history shows that a ton of back-and-forth reverting was going on, despite that semi-protection was already in place. krimpet✽ 13:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's too formulaic an answer, and I could just as easily cite Wikipedia:Disruption (which would really be far more appropriate). I can't tell for sure if you have been following the situation at the article, but it's quite clear that much of this "back-and-forth reverting" stems from drive-by users removing images against consensus and ongoing discussions on the talk page of the article. (I'm also not sure if you're aware of the petition.) Many of these disruptive editors -- Micromubi (talk · contribs), Alimustafakhan (talk · contribs), and Someguy12356 (talk · contribs), among others -- have been blocked, and rightfully so. Granted, there was a brief period of reverting that could certainly be called edit warring (around 10:00, February 10 (UTC)), but that alone is hardly worth protection. There are people who want to make productive, good-faith edits to the article, and we shouldn't allow disruptive users whose actions are mischaracterized as "edit-warring" to prevent them from doing so. -- tariqabjotu 16:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland/Samiharris RFC

My point was that RFCs are supposed to be about the dispute, and I see nothing about it in the RFC. Nor do I see a RFC being certified by people actually being in dispute with the user. What I do see is people interpreting 'being in dispute' as being the mere act of alleging improper behavior which the accused disagrees with. This is, I feel, what the intention of requiring certification was exactly to avoid: problems being brought up by third parties not actually involved in the situation.

I don't see SirFozzie and Durova as legitimately involved in any dispute with Mantanmoreland or Samiharris - or if they are, it's not even discussed in the RFC. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats some world class wikilawyering right there. Viridae^Talk 05:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What else is two and some years on the arbcom supposed to teach one? Seriously, though, I hear knives being sharpened for the settling of old scores in all of this, and that's not something I particularly like to hear. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Hi there. A new user posted this comment, mentioning your name. I already left a message on his talk page, directing him to WP:AGF, but since it regards you directly, I thought you might want to know. Regards, Tiamut^talk 15:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you consider this user a sock?

Hi there - can you tell me why you consider or are certain that 129.7.146.249 (talk · contribs) is a sock? He is asking to be unblocked and I am tending to agree with that request - but if you could provide your evidence that will help me make a clear decision. Thank you.--VS ^talk 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He's been trolling and disrupting with various dynamic IPs, all geolocated to Houston, TX, for the last few days both here and on IRC where he was harassing people. He's not a "sockpuppet" per se, rather just yet another reincarnation of the same exact user. krimpet✽ 23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Appreciate your response and will post an encapsulation of it to his unblock request. Best wishes--VS ^talk 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This one seems to have something at least in common with ...often someone gets away with using WP:IAR. -The Vandal (192.235.8.2 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)) This IP address, is registered to Diablo Valley College and is shared by multiple users. (But is that near Houston?) FYI Newbyguesses - Talk 05:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Black on white crime

You might want to put a header or something on the CFD to let people know a deletion review has already been opened on this one. I've never closed a CFD before and don't know how it's done. --Veritas (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence The Barnstar of Diligence Ribbon

The Barnstar of Diligence I hereby award you this barnstar in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service particularly in dealing with the removal of pointy categories. -- Cat chi? 04:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

76.30.98.149

Hi there. While 76.30.98.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is pretty clearly both a troll and the same user as No Oven For Me (talk · contribs), 1948remembered (talk · contribs), etc, I'm not sure that we should indefinitely block the IP (since it might be reassigned at some point). What do you think about shortening the block to 1 month or so? MastCell ^Talk 04:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Done - the lack of an expiry was just a mistake on my part. :) krimpet✽ 05:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Isn't is amazing how users who are quick to assume the worst motivations in others are so willing to jump to the defense of obvious socks when they share a POV? Should it be this hard to block an obvious disruptive sockpuppet? Or am I just becoming jaded? :) MastCell ^Talk 05:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Stay calm guys is my advice - the white hats always win in the end that way. Cheers!--VS ^talk 05:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish my experience of Wikipedia allowed me to unreservedly believe that. Still, this one worked out OK thanks to a helpful checkuser. MastCell ^Talk 05:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Phanerozoic Biodiversity.png

You deleted this image without ensuring that either the description or the attribution had been preserved on Commons. Please fix it. Dragons flight (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Doczilla's RfA

.: Oh, no! There goes To-ky-o! Admin Doczilla! :.

File:Godzilla(01)reverse.jpg

Thanks for !voting! Thank you for !voting in my RfA which resulted in the collapse of civilization with 92 (94?) support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral. Blame jc37 and Hiding for nominating me, everyone who had questions or comments, everyone who !voted, everyone who tallied the numbers correctly, and WJBScribe who closed without shouting, "No mop for you!" Seriously, your response has overwhelmed me. I am deeply grateful.

100px

     "The bad news is time flies. The good news is you're the pilot." - Michael Althsuler

February 2008

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Animum/monobook.css may be offensive or unwelcome. If you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. You had me worried! >:-I —Animum (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember the other day when I asked you to refresh your cache? :s krimpet✽ 17:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

John Russ Finley

Hi, I saw your post on my discussion page and figured you would be the person to contact about this. Should I file some sort of complaint about this person stealing my identity ? or maybe ask that maybe somewhere something get posted or deleted or something ? I did post a MSG on my discussion page denying that I was the same as John Russ Finley. Not real clear what the person's purpose was...I know I was taking a break, and am still none too sure that I'm all that happy, though I am still willing to try to maintain the articles I have already posted. Any assistance or input appreciated. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OTRS

Hi! I saw that you worked on OTRS Ticket#: 2008020110012458". I have worked on wiki on and off for three years and have never seen an OTRS before, I found the wiki page on OTRS, and its links, but found most of it procedural (like who can work on them) and not substantive. Is an OTRS a request from a person to remove their own wiki page? I thought the subject of a page could not have final say over whether a page exists for that person. Any guideline pages or a quick paragraph explanation would be appreciated.--Jayrav (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OTRS is basically the team that answers the Wikimedia Foundation's e-mail, including many sensitive queries from living persons we have biographies on. In this case, the person writing in was a professor who expressed some important and reasonable concerns about her privacy, and while handling the ticket I decided it would be best to remove the article. Actions taken by OTRS volunteers are not "official" per se, and you're welcome to ask for review if you'd like - which is also why we cite the ticket number, as you can provide it to any other OTRS volunteer for confirmation and review, or to ArbCom or ComCom to which we are accountable. :) Please treat it with care, though, as situations involving BLPs can become rather sensitive. krimpet✽ 21:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. I have no specific interest in this person or topic and it only showed up on my watchlist through the removal of the links on other pages. I am just interested in the wiki editing process for future reference. I did look at the version of the page in cache and saw that half the article was a bio from a a university web page and the other half was a story with a clear referenced footnote from an interview.SO what was the problem? I do not need details of the case or the OTRS request, I am not interested in review. I just want to know how an article with two short halves both from sources can still be a problem, especially when the person has many links within wiki.--Jayrav (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with user 69.76.52.74

hihi

I don't know where to go for help...tried the IRC channel and there seemed to be some heated bot related argument going on and I couldn't get anyone's attention :)

Anyway... If you check out the edit summaries on this guy: [[1]] you can start to see the problem...then if you go a little deeper: [[2]] Anyway, is there a warning or something I can put on his talk page? I know its an IP, but it seems pretty stable...perhaps a couple of people, one vandalizing strange articles and this guy who seems to be pretty steady on the dino stuff? Anyway...help? THANKS! (Oh, have you seen the latest on Tedius Z's page? he's "undecided" about getting unblocked:) Legotech (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)