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 99.51.223.161 (talk) at 04:18, 8 September 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Jake Wartenberg/header

  • I will probably reply here.

Click here to leave me a message

The Signpost
26 September 2024

SockmonkeyGee

You asked me to report additional cases on the original sockpuppet's page. He's back. How? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've taken care of it. I'll have a checkuser done, too. — Jake Wartenberg 23:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:TW

Per what policy was this shortcut deleteable? It's making a bunch of red links in edit summaries now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just came by to ask the same thing. Amalthea 21:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just pile-on at this point. Thanks for restoring it. — Σxplicit 21:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I was using an autodelete script; I must have clicked a wrong link. I hope it didn't cause too much disruption. — Jake Wartenberg 21:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alright, thanks. Might want to tweak that script though, a deletion summary of "per speedy deletion policy" isn't particularly helpful for newbie editors. Cheers, Amalthea 21:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's just the default. I didn't realize I had actually done anything. — Jake Wartenberg 21:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh :) Amalthea 21:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least the main page isn't deletable any more or it will be because of the speedy deletion mandate! ;-) -- Mentifisto 22:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:76.120.151.113's weird re-categorising

Thanks for helping with the mass-reverts. I'm still baffled as to that user's activities: it's not quite disruptive enough for vandalism, but shows a single-minded bizarre determination. I dunno, someone really OCD? Thanks for the help! MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page

Hello Jake, may I remove the sock puppet accusation off of my talk page? Thank you. Diligence 5960 (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely. — Jake Wartenberg 01:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merged pics

Just wanted to say I love the Jimmy goes swimming comp, except the first image isn't obviously the one used for the merge. It think it would be clearer and more impacting if you cropped and flipped File:Atul Chitnis and Jimmy Wales.jpg, maybe even colour corrected it too. I know all that stuff is part of the manipulation but it needs to be more obvious than it is at present. Cheers, mikaultalk 03:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

Hey, Jake..

I've managed to get myself into what seems like the beginning of a dispute meditation scenario. I am not a mediator. I do not believe (from what I have seen through my own cursory investigations) that this dispute can be resolved via our mediation process. Although I am not biased myself toward any of the parties involved, I cannot help but feel that while User:Xenos2008 edits in good faith, their edits are biased to the point of violating NPOV, to say the least. Now, I don't really believe that these edits constitute vandalism, per se, but do believe that on the whole these edits are nonconstructive. I have no clue what ought to be done about this, so I pass the buck to you. Advice? Action? Ignore? Should, perhaps, based on my edits, I become a mediator?

Clueless,𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 talk 03:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Respected Sir/Madam,

Since you were involved in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Heliosphere/Archive so please help

I would like to point towards an injustice which happened in the past. 3 editors were blocked as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurbinder_singh1. I along with some unknown innocent editor User: Gurbinder_singh1 were blocked in this RFC, i.e. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurbinder_singh1 because no check-user investigation was done at that time. An administrator User: Nathan later documented that User: Gurbinder_singh1 was totally un-related to this case but it appears that no one has cared to unblock him and clear out his blocking history.

Actually, User: Morbid Fairy kept violating Wikipedia policies so he was later caught per ‘’’my’’’ evidences[1] and hence a range block was implemented against his IP addresses and his user IDs (except one) were blocked as well [2].

User: Gurbinder_singh1 was lucky that his user account was finally investigated, and he was found innocent through check-user during User:Morbid Fairy’s new sockpuppet investigation[3]BUT even though it was me only who did days and days of research to expose User: Morbid Fairy aka User: Heliosphere[4] but no one has (check-user) investigated so far if I am sock of any of these guys.

Since a truth has come out, so please do justice and unblock an innocent editor User: Gurbinder_singh1 and please clear my blocking record as well. It hurts me all the time that some injustice had happened with me and other innocent editor and my IP was tagged with a blocking historyfor life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.210.210 (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would request the respected admin to look into this request. Why the request of this editor is being ignored. He has presented strong proofs...--99.51.223.161 (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent blocking of User:IH8reggins

I only recently became an admin and you probably have lots more admin experience than I, but I happened to be looking at the edit which resulted in this block when it happened. I had just concluded that the edit didn't deserve a revert, and was wondering whether some of the other warnings on User_talk:IH8reggins were deserved when you blocked him indefinitely.

The reason given for the block is that the account is a vandalism-only account, but I've looked at the user's contributions and it looks to me as if two [1][2] of his eleven edits clearly deserve reversion/warning. this one should have made it clearer that the assertion re Francis was not WP's opinion, should have included a page-numbered supporting cite from the autobiography, and contained what looks like an inadvertant unclosed <ref>; this one should not have linked so prominently to that outside site (perhaps not at all); this one expressed a conclusion not supported by the preexisting cite. The remaining six look OK to me.

Am I missing something here? If not, I think you should reconsider your indefinite block -- perhaps a shorter block with some counseling on his talk page would be more appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny your message should start like it did—I've only been an admin for eight days. You are definitely right; I should have spent more time on this one. The "tiny penis" edit sure didn't look constructive at a glance, and when AIV fills up this late at night it can be quite tempting to go too fast. In any case, I've lifted the block. Let's just keep an eye on things for now. — Jake Wartenberg 05:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked the user indef as part of an SPI case. — Jake Wartenberg 18:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montana State Capitol

It's a fake. Somebody pulled a fast one on the Library of Congress. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly a fake. It was a proposed design. It looks like a combination of the Minnesota and Arkansas state capitols - both of which were cities that the architect had lived in or visited at one time. There's a discussion about this at the Humanities reference desk. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found out via e-mail from the Library of Congress that this was an entry in a design competition, and obviously it was not accepted as the final design. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for keeping me advised. It's a bit disappointing to find out that the photo isn't what I thought it was when I spent all those hours on it, but I am glad that it still appears to have a good bit of EV. — Jake Wartenberg 20:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, it gave you plenty of PhotoShop practice. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge articles

Need an administrators help here. The articles Diwana, Balochistan and Diwāna (locality), Balochistan are about the same place. I think either these articles should be merged or one of them deleted (prefereably Diwāna (locality), Balochistan since it has almost no information). Marsa Lahminal (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected Diwāna (locality), Balochistan to Diwana, Balochistan. This is something you can do yourself in the future. — Jake Wartenberg 18:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Logos5557

Hi, have you deleted user:logos5557 accidentally? Because, it does not qualify for G11, and your first comment while removing sppedy delete tag (which was put by atheanera) was the same. Perhaps, you might have mixed it with User:Logos5557/Ra (channeled entity)? Logos5557 (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it. Note that it will likely be deleted when the MfD closes. — Jake Wartenberg 20:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry but I guess my user page has nothing to do with User:Logos5557/Ra (channeled entity). Or am I missing something?Logos5557 (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was the stuff in the collapsed box. — Jake Wartenberg 20:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. However, I guess users can place quotes from books, films, etc. in their userpages. Nevertheless, I can remove the stuff if it is breaching any policy/rule.Logos5557 (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your speedy delete of Kara Kennedy Allen

Hi, I understand you are the admin who did the speedy delete of Kara Kennedy Allen on the grounds that this article was previously deleted. I would argue that new information about this person has arisen since June. Further this article is a brand new article, not a repost of the article that was deleted in June. I would ask that you bring the article back so its deletion can be discussed by everyone. Thanks. --Crunch (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allrighty. I've put it back. Good luck. — Jake Wartenberg 00:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pull Me Under (individual nomination)

Just a reminder that per WP:RELIST, relisting AFD discussions more than once is strongly discouraged. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddler's Reach

Thanks, but not me -- User:Doncram wrote most of the article. I added a few minor details. There's a certain irony here -- I've created more than fifty lighthouse articles (most of them stubs) in the last couple of months -- and the one that gets nominated for DYK wasn't mine. If you'd like, take a look at VRB-25, which I did write. Cordially, Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first Article

Hey Jake,

So I've added some substantial content on my page. Enough to where I thought I should ask for guidance on how to proceed now. Is there any cleaning up that needs to be done? I want this to be up to Wiki standards, and for it to be informative, unbiased, and solid.

Thank you Jake for all your help 64.60.32.210 (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with BLPs!

The BLP Barnstar
Your hard work on BLPs in general, and at User:Lar/Liberal Semi specifically, is much appreciated. That page has now been sunsetted (and I hope never to need to bring it back) but the work you did there (whether by bringing articles forward, reviewing them, or protecting them... or even by questioning or criticizing the process!) was of great help to the project. See you in the trenches! ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — Jake Wartenberg 02:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Thanks for dealing with this guy. Just a question for you - I know WP is not censored, but this IP's last unblock request sure looks like an attack / -BLP to me... Shouldn't this be blanked? I just don't want to step on the reviewing admin's toes by removing it.  7  03:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I zapped it; anyone can find it in the page history if they want. There just isn't any reason to have that kind of stuff lying out in plain sight. — Jake Wartenberg 04:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - thanks.  7  04:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May need to block them from editing their own talk too... User talk:125.168.110.93‎ - still showing attacks at another editor.  7  04:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive70#user:Heliosphere_at_Sikh_extremism
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Heliosphere/Archive
  3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Heliosphere/Archive
  4. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive70#user:Heliosphere_at_Sikh_extremism
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jake_Wartenberg&oldid=312527915"