User talk:Jéské Couriano/Archive 7

• NOTE: If you leave a message for me here, I will respond to it here.
• NOTE: If you need to ask me a question regarding certain users, be aware that I will look into the history.
• NOTE: I reserve the right to remove any posts by anons unrelated to building an encyclopedia. Personal attacks, vandalism, Internet memes, etc. will be reverted on sight.

Page protection - Thank you

I just wanted to say thank you for adding the protection to my userpage, I much prefer it to be in it's current semi-protected state. Thank you again! ZX81 ^talk 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Better it's semi'd than you get harassed. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. The Wiki protection page said a user page could be protected after it had been vandalised (which it has a few times now), but I wasn't sure how much vandalism was needed before I could request protection so I'm glad you did it before I got round to asking! ZX81 ^talk 21:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a hint: If your userpage starts being redirected, request protection immediately - that usually means that JarlaxleArtemis has posted an edit URL on 4chan and thus that there'll be 80 more coming your way. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How to find discussion on blocking?

Hi, I saw [this] block log and wanted to know how to find the discussion that led to the block. I did global searches for "Priyesh.786" and "User:Priyesh.786" in all namespaces and wasn't able to find anything. Thanks, Bongomatic 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The user was constantly posting material copyrighted by two Indian universities and was repeatedly recreating the articles that I and other administrators had deleted as copyvios; he came back as User:Mamboitaliana100 and continued, stopping only when I explained to him that we couldn't accept his submissions after he asked me to unprot one of the pages he tended to recreate. See User talk:Jéské Couriano/Archive 6#unprotect page "Kurukshetra University". -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 23:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know who it is (I did many of the speedy nominations and identified the sources). I just wanted to know whether there were discussions to block the user, or if such determinations can be unilateral and undocumented. Tx Bongomatic 13:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

For blatant and unrepentant copyright violations, the rule is block on sight, sooner rather than later on the off-chance the violator happens to be PT. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 13:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Your Opinion

Hi,

I wanted to know you opinion on starting a MFD on castrated ram's userpage. I am concerned it is a shrine. From other Wikis where they have also vandalised links to page including Uncyclopedia and Wikibooks along with numerous others. There's even a definition at urban dictionary about them. If the page stays do you think it may inspire copycats? Regards--DFS454 (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the userpage - I'm not familiar with that user, and he doesn't seem to exist. Also, the Urban Dictionary entry is for the literal sense (i.e. a castrated male sheep). -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 13:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I was being ambiguous I thought I saw you using the Moniker for them DFS454 (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The "wethers" don't have userpages other than IP pages. And in any case, I'm not the person you should be asking given that I have an axe to grind against Jarl. Find someone more neutral. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 14:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Drizzt Do'Urden

Hello. :) Since you have been involved in editing the article Drizzt Do'Urden, I wanted to let you know that we have nominated the article for "Good Article" status. You can view the review page, and if there is anything you can do to make the article better, please do so. :) BOZ (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Well, that was fun, eh? What glorious lives we admins lead. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I caught it after I read the AIV report that had gotten his right to make new accounts revoked; I was just boggled at the number of attack accounts made because someone forgot to check a box and the fact the blocking admin missed the sockfarm. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What's weird is, the "prevent account creation" box is checked by default. So Bongwarrior had to un-check it. I have no idea why. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a username softblock. SOP for those is to uncheck that box, so I can understand why he did it, but given the name, I would have hardblocked the name. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 06:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those blocks but when blocking grawp accounts please block with email and talkpage blocked as well or else he abuses those as well --Chris 06:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Had I known beyond a doubt they were Jarl socks I'd've done so, Chris. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 06:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs a dab of joy! ^_^

You might wanna take a wikibreak when you start doing things like this... So I'ma give you a Smile! :-D

Yamakiri ^T_C 01-25-2009 • 21:08:08 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

'Bout the only joy I'm getting nowadays is getting rid of Jarl socks and Ubering Heavies, Yama. Nevertheless, I appreciate the thought. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, well glad to hear you're up and defending the wiki >_^ Yamakiri ^T_C 01-26-2009 • 00:17:51

User talk:Curps

Please reconsider your move to unprotect this page. After you approved this request, Barrier, mate went on a move spree and then nominated a page for deletion in a bad faith manner; likely his account was hijacked by a page-move vandal. He has since been indefinitely blocked and I'm not sure if unprotection is prudent based on the requestor. Nate • (chatter) 07:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reversed it; thank you for the info. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 08:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also tweaked the block to negate possible email access; there's a good chance this is an ED Joe job against Grawp or a genuinely compromised account (or both), and in either case should not have access to the emailuser function. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 08:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action on this. Nate • (chatter) 09:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Null persp; I apologize for not being faster. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 09:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Sorry - just have to do it. This is just nuts ... - Alison ^❤ 09:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Undone. I'm headed that way in ~ 14 minutes; I'll prot it myself then. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 09:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ufff - it's wrecking my watchlist (and head) :/ - Alison ^❤ 09:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm camping the page right now. I don't need a prot until I need to go to bed. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 09:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hey Jeske, would you be able to restore User:Grsz11/Review archive. Thanks in advance. Grsz¹¹ 02:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

All 23 edits? (I just want to ask before I restore all of them) -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 02:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I just need to copy some stuff and then i'll db it again. Grsz¹¹ 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Done When you're done, ping me and I'll kill it again. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Not a problem. Happens to me all the time. :) seresin ( ¡? )  04:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Should we call that a 'cock block'?

Or should I be embarrassed for that and ashamed of myself? HalfShadow 04:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Get our mind outta the gutter ;P I've fixed it already and blocked the right account; I'd gotten distracted before I hit "block". -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 04:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. Thanks for the prompt response! Brianyoumans (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm going to go put the block notice on the correct page now... (rakes self) -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 04:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't do this again

Unacceptable. If you must block an account in violation of AGF, use a less offensive summary. Consider this a warning. Cool Hand Luke 19:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice that that section is c&p'd from the section above verbatim. I've already been scolded and blasted for it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 19:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw, but it didn't seem to sink in then. Cool Hand Luke 20:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, CHL, I've just hidden the block comment so that admins/oversighters only can see it ... in deference to the editor. Per oversight-l email, I'm doing it here as policy is currently somewhat gray re. revision visibility and I feel bad for the blocked editor. Commenting here for visibility and accountability - Alison ^❤ 20:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

On wikibreak

Hey all. Jéské is currently on two weeks' wikibreak, so if you've admin stuff, feel free to ask me or another admin for assistance. He deserves the rest - Alison ^❤ 05:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Heu g r?

I assume you missed the fact, that the talk page you deleted was actually Talk:Austria–Hungary moved by a vandal. --Pjacobi (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I had thought I'd gotten the correct page. My apologies (I notice it's been fixed since; I was on break when you posted the above). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 08:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Schmeutrality

I am somewhat annoyed that you decided to delete this article under an incorrect criterion, after I had declined it just minutes before and tagged for prod. I request you revise this mistake. Regards SoWhy 08:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I had not noticed your decline when I speedied it. I see no assertations of notability in that article; I will not object if you reinstate and reprod, be aware. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 08:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You should really check the page history before deleting things...and, I know you are an admin and longer than I am, but please read A7. It does only allow deletion for real persons, organisations and web content. Not logical concepts, even if they derive from a webcomic. Regards SoWhy 08:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I just came back from a Wikibreak, SoWhy; my apologies for the rust. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 08:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Article fully restored, along with PROD. As I'm not aware which edits are from the current incarnation and which edits are not, I restored all of them. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 08:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and no problem, no harm done. That's why I came here after all, instead of just undoing your actions. Have a nice day SoWhy 08:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Good timing; it's 0:20 over here :P -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 08:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

South Pasadena Middle School now

You protected the high school article - now the kiddies have moved on to South Pasadena Middle School. Thanks!  :)  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  03:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tell me when they move on to the elementary school. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 03:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As a side note I've indef'd the main account behind it. He still denies it, but his contributions are very damning. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 03:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Legend of Spyro page protection

As well as Spyro (series) The Legend of Spyro: A New Beginning The Legend of Spyro: The Eternal Night and The Legend of Spyro: Dawn of the Dragon.

Thank you for the full protection on all above articles. However no progress has been made. The opposing party left one reply to my original message and hasn't bothered to continue talking about this. Thus I went to the Requests for Protection and requested for an unprotection and was told to contact you about it.

So could you please protect the coresponding pages and watch them incase the opposing party tries to make the edits he refused to discuss. Thank you.

I'll unprotect all of them. I fixed your link above, hopefully you did not mind. If he shows up again, don't edit-war with him if you can avoid it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 23:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the link, stuff like that happens to me more often then i'd like it to. If he tries to make the controvertial edits then i'll contact you. Thanks for being a good Admin. We need more like you.Wise dude321 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You can feel free to revert him, just don't edit-war while doing it. He's technically being disruptive by refusing consensus. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Convert

Why d'ya convert 'mon and 'pets? I like them. --98.162.148.46 (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a challenge. Those two really don't have much on them, even if you look. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 02:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

anesthesia

I believe mmackinnon and I are at an impasse. He is particularly interested in including an AANA talking point that happens to be misleading; I am particularly interested in leaving that out. Since he doesn't want a neutral position (but insists on the misleading talking point), mere facts aren't going to convince him. I'd like to ask you to change the section to leave out "CRNAs do not require Anesthesiologist supervision in any state and only require surgeon/dentist/podiatrists to sign the chart for medicare billing in all but 16 states."

I'd obviously prefer my version, but would settle for something like "the precise scope of nurse anesthetist practice varies state by state".

Separately, Finavon and Depstein have contributions that ought to enter the page; these are not politically controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffington (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I cannot edit on behalf of any party on a page I myself protected. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, what is the next step? Surely it must be something other than "wait until August and then fix things"...Riffington (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ask for unprotection if discussion is not happening. But do not make editprotected requests to request disputed edits. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it was mmackinnon who requested the editprotect, not me. I am not really sure how the moderation system works.Riffington (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's how it goes. When someone requests a full-protection due to a dispute on an article, the article will remain locked down until all parties establish a consensus, or until one of the major sides starts refusing to discuss. While it is protected, people may use {{editprotected}} on the article's talk page to request edits be made to the article, but these edits cannot be to, or directly tied with, the subject matter in dispute or else the administrator servicing the request will reject it. The admin who protected the article is not permitted to involve himself in the dispute. If you think protection's served its purpose or is failing, you can request an unprotection at WP:Requests for page protection and an admin will see to it, probably after requesting you take it up with me first. Note that if discussion related to the dispute is still taking place on the talk page of an article, I will be disinclined to unprotect it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Rant

I have a right to free speech, regardless as what kind of attack against all wikipedians you take that, young overzealous admin. It is censorship.

And calling Wikipedians Nazis or concentration-camp guards is appropriate? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 09:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If they behave, like the savage young people in the Germany of 1933, once given authority over others, yes - then this kind of metaphor is appropriate. I see a behavioral pattern of swift execurion by the new authority. Even if the action is called in question, there is no due process or discussion, but a steady increase of pressure by ever new sanctions. This is the mark of fascist behavior. Censorship and lack of due process and execution by school boys with a death head sign on their helmet. This all. I will allow myself this criticism, because I know history. A new generation of pimple faced monkeys, just escaped from an MTV flick doesn't. I have seen the ruins of Germany as a child, and I know about the generation who found new authority over others. It were our parents. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong answer. Personal attacks are expressly forbidden, a fact which you keep ignoring in your "anti-censorship" crusade. The fact of the matter here is, the Wikipedia community has every right to restrict speech, as every other private website does, and calling editors Nazis is part of the speech that is so restricted on Wikipedia. Not only that, but your repeated shouts of "censorship" only harm your case as that word tends to aggravate administrators who usually want to see a legitimate case of censorship happening on articles, not talk pages. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 09:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of getting involved in someone else's issue, I just wanted to say that going on a rant like that - true or not - only makes the execution swifter. :-P Natural Cut (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked previously: If the police kicks in the door, based on a false alarm, and you say wtf? and they see it is false alarm and then instead say, but you said wtf? and handcuff you. And if you protest then, they beat your face in and say you resisted arrest, and book you. Are THEY then nazis? Instead of thinking, you pick the word nazi, claim to have been personally attacked and increase the sanctions. I am not interested in the case in itself. If WP allows itself to turn into a pyramid scheme of censorship, I am out. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No, they are corrupt cops, not Nazis. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 10:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked that question before, and was accused of calling the admin nazi then. So I told him not to be so overzealous, or else he will turn into the Freisler of Wikiland, or turn Wikiland into Freislerland. And of course his vandal hunters will then be Kapos of Wikiland. You guys have a tendency to take every frivolity at face value. You are in a sense one-dimensional and sincere, you don't understand irony and self-irony. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That isn't frivolity, sir, and if you think so than you have less social skills than I do. It is impossible to see that as anything other than a personal attack. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 10:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How could I personally attack somebody, whom I don't even know. I can only allow myself to resort to analogies, which I find appropriate. Lacking completely the knowledge of personal traits of you, it is just the action of yours I am criticizing by that, and that is legitimate. My social skills are indeed not my strongest side, and I have never been hired or paid for them. I have been hired or paid for other things. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)