Jump to content

User talk:Shirik

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AntiAbuseBot (talk | contribs) at 04:26, 10 July 2010 (Reverted edits by 85.96.58.233 (talk) to last version by AntiAbuseBot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Note: If you're here to inquire about a protected page under the reason "inbound dist. attacks", please read this first. Thanks!

Social Populism

Ok, I'll give time and some peace to the editors. But it is plain vandalism to delete my critics on the talkpage. Come on. --IANVS (talk | cont) 18:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The person that removed your comments is a new user, and is still getting to grips with Wikipedia. I highly doubt there was any intent to vandalise. The user's been told not to remove comments from talk pages again, and is speaking to someone more experienced and learning the ropes, so some patience would be appreciated. Thank you. --Deskana (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Hi there SHIRIK, VASCO here,

Could you please reinstate Danny Miguel's page name to the one you suggested last time i asked you ("Daniel Alves Gomes"), or "Danny (Portuguese footballer)"? I already sent a message to the person who changed it back, explaining the circumstances in which the page move happened (you are an admin, and i was simply "being bold", aided by the full certainty that this title was (IS!) wrong.

Cheers, thanks a million in advance, nice week - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with BRD, please discuss the move before moving again, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jamiemichelle

As you may or may not know, from your previous encounter with me, I had a problem with this problem user. You can look through the SPI case if you like, which details a history of abuse of other editors by Jamiemichelle, who has repeatedly used his or her IP addresses or account to destroy several people working on the Omega Point (Tipler) article. The history of the contributions of both the IPs and the account, the revision history of the article's page, and the talk page of the article also shows that Jamiemichelle has repeatedly accused others of violating this WP policy and that WP policy, or else making "illiterate, incompetent or antifactual" edits to the article, especially with Headbomb and Jeffro77. All the while he/she has at the same time violated WP:Assume Good Faith#Accusing others of bad faith as well as WP:AAGF. Its right there, the whole shebang. He/she has also recently taken the habit of calling me an "ideologically motivated antitheist" with "an Atheism Bias" multiple times throughout the SPI case whilst defending himself/herself as well as during replies to the Wikiquette board, to which I've repeatedly warned on his/her talkpage... agh! I'll spare you at least some of the details.

I want to ask for your help. How do I restrict Jamiemichelle's editing on the articles and so forth, to prevent his/her repeated personal attacks, while at the same allow him/her to defend himself/herself on the SPI case? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As he/she appears to be less disruptive, I think I'll retract my comments. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of your range blocks...

See User talk:188.28.64.254. No idea if this is collateral damage, or the intended recipient trying to pull a fast one. Just thought I'd let you deal with it. --Jayron32 04:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out. I have to converse with some others before I can do much about it but will address it. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, thanks Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit request for Strip club article

Hello. The strip club article has just undergone peer review. I am interested in a FAC submission, but would like an objective set of eyes to do a sanity check before I put it forward. As you can see from the peer review, I do respond to feedback. Since I've slammed so much content into the article lately, it would be great to know if it makes sense to someone other than me. Thanks in advance if you have time to look over the article. -Wallanon (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a little busy lately but I'll get to it when I can. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I'm hoping it's just a few places where the bad typing tripped things up rather than wholesale bad form. - Wallanon (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:TreatyMan986

Hi. Would you mind indicating the name of the puppetmaster when issuing blocks like you did for User:TreatyMan986? Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 06:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always tag their user page, I just haven't gotten to it yet as I'm discussing this with checkusers, etc. The user in question is Channel 6. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks, sorry for rushing you. :)   — Jeff G. ツ 06:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filter strikes again

Hi Shirik! In February I have asked you for help with {{Japan football clubs map 2010}} template because of the "position: absolute" problem. You have pushed my changes through and on the next day I was able to add some clubs to the template but when I tried to edit it today, I've seen the filter block again.

Since this template (and many similar as {{J. League Div 1 map 2010}}, {{J. League Div 2 map 2010}} and so on) will be edited constantly in the future, could you please create an image-positioning template with a code like that:
<includeonly><div style="position: absolute; left: {{{l}}}px; top: {{t}}px">[[Image:{{{flag}}}|{{{size}}}px|link={{{tan}}}|alt={{#if:{{{t|}}}|{{{t}}|{{{tan}}}}}|{{#if:{{{t|}}}|{{{t}}}}}]]</div></includeonly>
When I will use this template on my maps, there will be no "position: absolute" in the edit so it will pass the filter. —WiJG? 11:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't do that; this seems like a very bad idea. This template could be very easily abused and would be difficult to track. Let me give it some thought on a safer alternative. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just have taken and reworked the code from much wider used {{Location map marker}}. There were no intentions to abuse anything. —WiJG? 07:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not say why I think it's vulnerable, it just is. Surely there's a way to fix it, I just need to come up with it. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geir Smith

I was of two minds about the SPI, but is there no way to add a Puppet Master tag? What will probably happen, again, is that Geir Smith's user and talk pages will be deleted after a month. Maybe it doesn't matter, but I suspect he'll be back. Maybe a category? I'm not sure how this works. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done All accounts are now tagged. I thought they were already, sorry. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian peoples

Hi Shirik. Sorry to bother you again, but your help is needed. With this edit, User:Scythian77 is accusing me of "vandalism", "trolling", and "using more than one account" (see his comment here). Interestingly, he is also claiming that he has "not removed anything", while in fact he has removed a whole bunch of the article and a few wikilinks. All I did was restoring the section that was deleted without any explanation, as well as adding 2 more wikilinks to the article. For that, he is accusing me of "vandalism" and "trolling". Thank you for your help. Tajik (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, please. You removed two pictures that I re-added, after an editor with a single edit removed them last month. You then accuse me of removing sourced content, which is nonsense. I only reverted your edits, to get back to my own. This admin "Shrik" didn't even bother to look through the edit history to see what took place. Now, you tell me. Removing two pictures without explanation is somehow not vandalism? You Tajik have been proven to operate sock puppets on Wikiepdia for years, and are an agenda driven editor. I welcome a "case." The Scythian 18:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's called edit warring, and is a blockable offense. If you wanted it back, you didn't have to revert, period. Again, I strongly advise that you do not use personal attacks, especially on my talk page. There won't be another warning. If you think there are sockpuppets involved, then start a case, otherwise stop with the baseless accusations. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Settima

Thanks, can't believe I forgot to revoke talkpage right off....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. This is why I keep my friendly bots around watching pages and alerting me when something's wrong :) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

Ok, you just gave me a warning for vandalising a page that doesn't exist yet: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-07-05/In the news. So the question is: what are you on about? Or maybe just: what are you on (and are you sharing?) Lampman (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, Lampman, the deleted page consists of one edit from your account timed at 03:36 UTC 7 July 2010, with an obscene reference to Katy Perry; it has since been deleted as vandalism. Does this jog your memory? BencherliteTalk 16:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, Wikirape. Lampman (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stale sock puppets

Hi Shirik, you recently declined as stale an SPI case I had opened, and I was wondering if you could explain to me what that meant. The master account, Dajudem, is indef blocked; Tundrabuggy, who was already blocked as a sock puppet of Dajudem, is also indef blocked. Of course those accounts would not have edited in months, as they are both indef blocked, but I wasn't looking for any sort of confirmation that those two are the same editor, as that's already been proven. The third account, Stellarkid, is very much an active editor. If Stellarkid is proven to be a sock puppet of the banned editor, then how is the case stale? ← George talk 16:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George. Checkuser data is discarded from the server after 3 months. Any editor that has not edited within 3 months will have no data on file to check. As a result, there is no way a checkuser could be able to confirm that those accounts are related. We will have to go on behavioral evidence alone. Hope that helps, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes total sense - thanks for explaining. Do you happen to know if Dajudem/Tundrabuggy's checkuser data might have been stored somewhere? When Tundrabuggy was discovered to be Dajudem, Future Perfect at Sunrise had suggested storing their IP data, but I'm not sure if that was done. Thanks again. ← George talk 00:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of that actually. If that's the case, it may be available in logs. I will contact a seasoned CU to see if he can't track it down. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks. And thanks also for trying to help keep that SPI case civil. Cheers. ← George talk 00:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shirik -- I've been chatting with George about us collaborating on a checkuser proposal, so my question relates to that. Are you positive its three months? I've seen three different number used now: one year, four months, and three months. (And of course your answer on logs will be of interest, for the same purpose). I would just like to have the proposal conform to the facts. Also, let me know if you have interest in the very early outlines of the proposal, as no doubt your input would be helpful. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm sure it's 3 months for any yet uncollected data -- however any data that has already been collected is retained in the logs, so that will be of interest. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another question for you Shirik - I have off-Wiki evidence that links Dajudem/Tundrabuggy with specific cities in Arizona and Maine. I cannot share that evidence here without violating WP:OUTING, but it might help prove or disprove whether or not Stellarkid is related to Dajudem/Tundrabuggy (if Stellarkid's IP address is from those cities). What is the best way to go about that? Should I just post the cities the banned editors are associated with, without giving specific addresses, and without providing how I came up with that information? Should I privately contact an administrator to relay the private information I've gathered? What do you suggest? ← George talk 23:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to email me or contact the checkuser list directly at checkuser-l@lists.wikimedia.org, but please don't post it on-wiki. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll try to organize my notes and pass them along this weekend. Cheers. ← George talk 00:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prepare to get Barnstarized!

The Black hole Award for Vandalism
For your recent assistance in sucking all of the vandalism to your talk page, I award you this black hole! Q T C 04:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shirik&oldid=372691975"