Jump to content

User talk:Jake Wartenberg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 199.126.9.163 (talk) at 22:12, 10 June 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  • If you are upset that I reverted your edit, and you want a reply consisting of more than "What are you talking about?", please link to the article in question.
  • If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. If you are new I may also place {{Talkback}} on your talk page to alert you of my response.

Click here to leave me a message

The Signpost
6 November 2024

Milli Tharana Translation

The word Allah translates as God; where the English version of Milli Tharana reads "Allah" it has not been translated, you need to translate it to "God." Allah and God are not two seperate things, the only difference is that one is an English word and one is not. This translation is used in the (direct) quote from the Afghan constitution on the page in question, which you didn't both to read I take it? included here; "The national anthem of Afghanistan shall be in Pashto with the mention of "God is Greatest" as well as the names of the ethnicities of Afghanistan." Presently, the English translation does not say God is Greatest. Revert it from Allah to God.

Fw: Signature size

You may be saying that my signature disrupts because of my comments in the WP:FIC (probably, I guess), so I realize that some computers does not have my typeface in their database, and they substitute the missing font for another that is very big at that size, so i decide to made a totally new one, i won´t take more than a month. By the way, here is a screenshot of how it´s supposed to look, and my typeface is: <font family="French Script MT">. - Damërung (talk) (c) 21:57, Monday 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the new one is fine. Thanks! — Jake Wartenberg 21:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as promised

Juliancolton has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

–Juliancolton | Talk 17:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to SPI archive

I wasn't expecting a response. I just wanted to document it for reference the next time. And I assure you, there will be a next time, and a next, and a next, until they figure out a way to stymie that guy altogether. He's been at this since October of 2006 with no signs of letting up. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally update archives, but if I ever feel the need to do so again, I'll prefix it with a comment like "FYI for possible future reference only." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks for your work. — Jake Wartenberg 22:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tedder is constructing a handy-dandy reference page for the next time(s) this comes to ANI, so that the vandal can be explained and dealt with more quickly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might put that up at WP:LTA when it's done. — Jake Wartenberg 22:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let Tedder know. Good idea. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MascotGuy Quick CU request

I believe that I was following the instructions... "Blocking of underlying IPs for a longer term than afforded by autoblock." That is what I am asking for, so I added it under the Quick CU section. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline here. I agree that this probably meets the quick CU request criteria, but as these new sockpuppets are currently undocumented, and the IP is unlisted, we would prefer a case to be filed in future. It just keeps everything in one place. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little lost here by what you mean by "undocumented". See WP:LTA/MG, AbuseFilter #159, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MascotGuy. I can't list the underlying IP as well, that is what the CU is for, right? But if you want me to dump everything into the old SPI case, that's fine. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, I wasn't aware of the long term abuse report. In that case what you did was fine. Sorry if this process seems overly bureaucratic, but a big problem SPI has is undocumented sockpuppetry. Stuff that gets done without a case or an abuse report often goes missing, creating problems further down the line (for example, if they request an unblock, and an admin has just blocked with the summary "abusing multiple accounts", it takes some time to confirm how that was determined and whether it was accurate. However, with the LTA report, it shouldn't be an issue. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I came across as a bit grumpy. I've been dealing with MascotGuy for so long that I've gotten a little impatient when it comes to him. Usually either I or PMDrive1061 (we have become the defacto keepers of the MG LTA page) block the accounts with MascotGuy in the reason. The SPI instructions is a little on the dense side, but I can understand the need to organize thing. Trying to stuff database-like material into a Wiki isn't very easy to do. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I shall try to be a bit more tactful in my edit summaries. — Jake Wartenberg 04:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TomPhan/Archive

Thanks for following up. While I realize that a checkuser is involved, I think there is more than ample evidence outside of what a CU will accomplish that could link the other accounts. Furthermore, there seems to be no info on the IP addresses. Could you either unarchive it and/or annotate your thoughts on the IPs and remaining account? — BQZip01 — talk 06:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really unarchive things, and besides, that would generate a lot of clutter with all the stuff that has already been taken care of. But feel free to open a new case! — Jake Wartenberg 11:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is God Dead?

Hi, you asked at WP:GAN for a second opinion on your GA review of Is God Dead?. Please see my comments in the review record. PL290 (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't go on watching your talk page for a reply but please use mine should you need to discuss. PL290 (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bahá'í gardens by David Shankbone has a new edit and needs your vote. You have voted before, so vote for the new edit (edit 2) if you like it. Thanks, AndrewrpTally-ho! 21:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arpowers sockpuppetry case

Dear Jake, Thanks for your note about why the case was delisted. I forgot to specify code F. Both users Arpowers and RH (while not logged in and using revealed IP 75.25.174.48) have edited same articles Entrepreneurial Management Center and Keratoconus. This indicates high likelihood users Arpowers and RH are same person. Approach the Bench (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the Thorny Yellowwood DYK submission

Just wanted to explain that User:Poyt448 is very new to Wikipedia, he only started in May. Nonetheless he has been making some very good contributions, but does not yet know all there is to know about a few things, like citations, so if it is possible to help him out, or at least to encourage him a bit that would be great. This is his first DYK submission. Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the note. If a message I left came off as bitey I really appreciate it when people let me know, and I realize this may have happened. I dropped him a note thanking him for the submission and linking to documentation. I will check back and clean things up if he makes mistakes with the markup, which can be a nightmare at first. — Jake Wartenberg 12:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, what you left him wasn't really bitey, it's just that he's so new and enthusiastic and ambitious, and has done so much good work already, that I want to protect him against getting really discouraged and giving up, which has almost happened once before. Thanks for being kind. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

review

Just leaving a comment about images not going to review the whole thing. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed sockpuppet investigation - why?

I am, to put it mildly, bewildered why the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Uarrin investigation was closed and archived without anyone looking at the edits. The explanation was "Clerk note: AFD closed a few days ago. Closing." which, while true, misses the overall problem of there being a whole slew of accounts out there seemingly being used in tandem to make edits on a variety of articles in what is likely either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet situation to give a false sense of consensus. The AFD in question was only the event that triggered noticing of the suspicious activity, not the sole extent of the behavior under dispute. If you think it's not worth looking into yourself, perhaps you could reopen it to let someone else do it. I spent hours locating these accounts and providing explanations and diffs, and it's distubring to see that all be for naught just because an AFD is now closed. DreamGuy (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh dear. I misread another clerk's comment; I'm really sorry. The case has been re-opened, and I expect someone will deal with it soon. — Jake Wartenberg 20:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it was Bambifan alright.

Jeez, the kid never learns. Check out the talk page on that account you did the CU on. Thanks for that, by the way. Earlier today, I blocked an anon IP at a hotel in South Carolina, so I'm going on the assumption that he's on vacation...meaning he's clearly brought along a laptop and is going to wreak havoc from hotel IPs. Oy vey. Thanks again for the help. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, you are right about that. Might be good to point things like that out on the case page in the future; we usually just look at the contribs. Thought it would be good to make a habit of giving talk pages the once-over. Anyway, a CU checked and blocked the underlying ranges. Cheers! — Jake Wartenberg 01:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, bro. Found another sleeper and brother, it's an oldie. I've blocked pretty much all the "pets" against him, but he's a clever little monkey, this one. I'm going to do a formal CU for User:Deb2222 and see what develops. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Old Trafford (2003) DYK

Hi mate, Could you look at my DYK nomination for Battle of Old Trafford (2003). Cheers. 03md 15:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NagasakibombEdit.jpg

Just so you know, there's a proposed replacement. wadester16 20:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Anna Goldfeder

Updated DYK query On June 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anna Goldfeder, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 15:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tajik

Why you declined? What does "Seems too obvious for CU" mean?--Self Image (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It just means that I thought there was enough evidence to block the accounts without needing checkuser evidence. As you can see, though, I did reverse my decision a few minutes later. — Jake Wartenberg 14:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--Self Image (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Sorry I mis-interpreted the sockpuppet investigation instructions, which I might say are not entirely clear. Anyway, I think that I have sorted it now. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jake_Wartenberg&oldid=295666677"