If you're here to respond to a comment I posted on your talk page, feel free to reply on your talk page so the question and answer are together. I tend to watch talk pages I've posted comments to for a few weeks after my initial post. If you leave me a message, I'll respond here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else. --Risker (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.
Useful things for me to remember or I will never find them again, plus archive links
Column-generating template families
The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting.
† Can template handle the basic wiki markup{| | || |- |}used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table>, <tr>...</tr>, etc.)—need to be used instead.
Giacomo wrote [7] "I have explained (privately) to an Arbitrator, Risker, the problems and impossibilities of Wikipedia trying to rule on this, and trust that she will relay this to the Arbcom and checkusers. I think you would all be best advised to simmer down before you are all blocked for edit warring. If Wikipedia was forced to take a standpoint (and you all seem hell bent of forcing it to do so) it would have no option, but to take the stance that the Libro d'Oro is definitive because that is the only accredited source. " .
I have request a clarification about this assertion: "but to take the stance that the Libro d'Oro is definitive because that is the only accredited source"
I, however, after 40 years of study about and on heraldry and genealogy, I've never read this news or some similar infos.
Now I asked to you a clarification. In the discussion seems to have you give this undocumented information.
Could you confirm me if it is a your information and where it was taken?
I'm still waiting a documentated reply to this assertion posted above:on 12:20, 12 May 2011.
Anyway I think that who gave this information has confused two repertoires:
I repeat: in Italy there are two repertories titled "Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana" , one is official register of the Italian State, the other is only a private publication.
All people can now see the difference between these two repertoires:
In order to see the cover of the official register of the Italian State named "Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana"AND the comparison with the same name book, that really is only a private initiative, you can see this link: [8] and the discussion on 21.10. 2010 ore 11:36 (photos of the covers of two Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà: in brown is the official register, in blue the private book).
I think that here you have confusing the Official Books of the Italian State called the "Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana (Golden Book of Italian Nobility) always manuscript and today in the National Central Archive in Rome [9]
with a private publication that have simply the same name.
The "Libro d'oro della Nobiltà Italiana" published in Rome from 1910 to today by the Collegio Araldico has nothing to do with the official register entitled with the same name "Libro d'oro della Nobiltà Italiana" that is also today a official directory compiled by the Consulta Araldica, from 1896 to 1946, that was an official office of the Kingdom of Italy.
In Italy there is a private publication with the same name that plagiarizes the name of the official register manuscript, on today and for almost a century, and has been already convicted at least once for this reason by a official italian decree [10]
Now I ask if you must specify the sources of this information (bibliographic and/or documentary) about this bizarre news about the Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana that, as you wrote, was individuated (by you?) as the only accredited directory about the italian nobility.
Thank you very much. I'm waiting yours precise answer.
I am so sorry to but in here, but it's all very well you people claiming to have titles, but how can one possible be expected to know, if the "Libro d'Oro" (or whatever Debrett's is called in those foreign parts) is published in some unintelligible language - is there an English version? One of my favourite husbands was a Marchese; a fine figure of a man in most respects, but I did sometimes feel he overestimated the length on his pedigree.Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lady Catherine, you're right.
I can understand the difficulty of anyone who reads only English.
But it is obvious that the books about the nobility of a Country is compiled in the language of that country.
The nobility recognized by the Kingdom of Italy, because a lot of noble families still already exists in the pre-unification Old Italian States (before 1860 year), or created by the Savoy, amounts to a total of about 12,000 families, in addition to these there are those wasn't recognized by the Savoy (another 10,000 families) , most now extinct. In the U.K. there are only about 2000 titled families (Earls, Dukes, ....) but in Italy there are today about 7000 titled families recognized by the old Kingdom of Italy (1860-1946) with a title nobility (Counts or Earls, Barons, Dukes, ....) . The others are only decorated with the title of noble or patrician of .....
However, effectively, there are some little books that had published some lists, from time to time, about the main Italian titled families, with some biographical information, among them I know: "The Royalty, Peerage and aristocracy of the World" (also titled "Annuaire de la noblesse de France); see "http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2319202
Obviously, in this book isn't put a lot of families of small and medium nobility, which are in the majority in the Italy, as I wrote: however, the ducal families, princely families and families decorated the nobility of the Holy Roman Empire there are for the most part on this book.
Please, be careful though!
This book, which I mentioned is not complete! There is only a book that is almost complete about the italian nobility: this is the "Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana" and only in the XXXI edition (2010 year, 8400 pages, 4 volumes, 23 kg or 51 lbs as you prefer) !!!
I hope that who wrote here about these arguments is an expert.
But if I read what was wrote here I have my doubts ....
Well, I just don't see what all the fuss is about; it's not as though they are proper British peers, like my own dear father. Most of these Italian ones are descended from bank robbers, poisoners, highwaymen and manufacturers of intoxicating liquor - the sort of people a more enlightened society would have sent to populate Australia or some such place. I can't think why anyone would ever want to claim descent from such people let alone buy books about them. Cradle of Civilisation? The place is more a den of iniquity. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your response qualifies you for who you are, my gentle Lady.
As repeated in his times, day by day, Cato the Elder "Carthago delenda est ", after I said goodbye to this great lady above, much more modestly I insist on asking here: I'm always waiting for a response from Risker. --A curious reader (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you wil have to wait a long tme for Mrs Risker to respond, extraordinary woman - Canadian you know; funny race - no sense of urgency or timing, probably stuck in a snow hole somewhere. I remember when my late husband was Governor General of Cananda and I was mistress of that dreadfull house with the overinflated pediment one would ask the natives for drinks at 6, and they would turn up at 6.30 having already eaten and then decline the drinks saying they were dry - no wonder they were dry, if they don't drink - jolly unhealthy if you ask me. I can't say I care for foreigners greatly. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Rideau Hall is a dreadful house. And I am indeed a remarkable woman - so much so that I have more pressing things to do on my Friday evening and Saturday morning than trying to sort out claims to Italian nobility. If I start digging here, the results may not be pretty; I will not hesitate to block sockpuppet accounts (regardless of who operates them), put articles up for deletion, and remove claims (positive or negative) about people that are not clearly and obviously supported by sources. I'll start working on it in a few hours, I still have some time-sensitive matters to attend to first. Risker (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well I have time sensitve maters too, if my beloved nephew sees Rideau Hall's daft info box stating "Architectural style Regency, Norman Revival, Florentine Renaissance Revival" he will have appoplexy and we all know what happens then - what pray is "Norman" about what appears to be a 1910s geriatric home somewhere on the North Orbital and is there some other form of Renaissance Revival other than Florentine? - not that Rideau Hall is is in anyway any form of Renaissance. One despairs of this project - one really dies. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ulwencreutz (contribs) seems likely to be a sock of user:Contebragheonte, judging by this edit, which refers to this prod. Presumably the prodded article is on the noble title which his enemy claims. By the way, I reverted the latter edit not because I have any view on the notability of the Dukes of San Donato—an AFD on which I would be unlikely to !vote could decide that—but because I was suspicious of the edit. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
mea culpa on SPI Giovanni33 page
Sorry about invading the wrong turf - Jehochman and V7 are both specifically involved in the SPI accusation with V7 just coming off an edit war block. I have no horse in the race at all, just get annoyed at folks who routinely make accusations with zero evidence (the material at issue does not appear idiosyncratic to one editor, to be sure). Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, with respect, I couldn't disagree more...when looking at the POV pushing at the same articles, the same material, the same problematic issues. same series of IP originations, these editors have all the trademarks that I well knew Giovanni33 to have...--MONGO00:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, no worries. I understand everyone's frustration there; it's a difficult situation. MONGO, I'm not entirely sure how much of it is POV pushing anymore; rightly or wrongly, and different from some of the other "alternate" views of history out there, this one appears to be gaining support in the academic community rather than being relegated to the fringe - or at least that's the case outside of the US. Our earliest prolific contributor wrote hundreds of articles spurred on by his university studies. There's cause to be suspicious of the accounts, I'll grant, but CU won't help in this case, and I'm not terribly certain that SPI will either. For the record, I'd venture to say that at least a third of the duck blocks I review ultimately reveal penguins. Risker (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The academic community seems to reward oftentimes far left viewpoints and revisionist history and condemns those that disagrees with them as bigots, nazis or idiots...its unfortunate the manner in which academia rewards like thinkers and undermines contrary thinkers. But I concur that regardless of whether this is Giovanni33, its only an admin issue if they fail to follow policy...however, SPA's and POV pushers here solely to promote an agenda still need to dealt with. I'm sure if I broke down these accounts edits it would be pretty convincing this is Giovanni33...it wasn't hard to demonstrate patterns in the Seven of Diamonds case.MONGO16:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I don't think any of you are lobbying, I think you're all trying to look out for the best interests of the project and the appropriate content and sourcing of the project. You're just all coming at it from different angles. Here's a suggestion (and it's a suggestion only): At AfD, they have a method for calculating the notability of an academic that involves how often their works are cited; it's discussed at WP:PROF. If the author of the sources that are proposed for inclusion has a high "number", it's more likely that it is considered a significant academic source, and the fact that several editors try to include it is as likely because it's significant as because it's a POV-push. On the other hand, if the author has a low "number" (i.e., not a lot of citations of his/her works), the likelihood that multiple accounts trying to insert the information are operated by the same person is much higher, and the more likely it is a POV-push. This might be a helpful way of killing two birds with one stone: ensuring the sources we use are as academically accepted as possible while also looking for patterns to eliminate SPA pushers of theories that are not well accepted within the academe. Risker (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please find out whu i have been oversighted here:
19:41, 11 May 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana (edit summary removed)
19:40, 11 May 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana (edit summary removed)
I am aware that someone claimed to have been outed in that thread (I think some were playing with fire and shouting when they became burnt), but my edits and the debate in which I was involved in no way pertained to that. The oversight appears to have been more than heavy handed and smacks of unexplained censorship. I would like my comments restored or at least a very good explanation form whover has removed them.. Thank you. GiacomoReturned09:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, when edit 1 adds improper material to a page that needs to be oversighted, and edit 10 removes it, then edits 2 through 9 need to be oversighted as well so that the bad content isn't visible in the history. This is no reflection on the editors who contributed edits 2 through 9. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. It was a valid conversation relevant to the subject, that one sentence (which had little to do with the debate) which contained the "name" could easily have been removed - sledgehammers and wallnuts rather spring to mind - don't they? GiacomoReturned15:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into this (or arrange for someone completely impartial to do so), Giacomo, but I think most of what was removed was information linking an account to a real-world identity; if you commented on that then your edit may have been removed. If not, then your edit was probably left in place. It would not be, in any way, a reflection of your edits, but on the edits made by others who made an inappropriate link. Risker (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I made no comment or reference to the "name", my comments were completely unconnected with that (as was almost all of the thread), and I require them to be restored. GiacomoReturned19:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, your edits cannot be restored without restoring the suppressed material to public view. That isn't going to happen because you require it, as you know, which leads me to wonder why you are pursuing this request. AGK [•] 22:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: the content that GiacomoReturned added to that page remains accessible and visible. Only oversighters, however, can read the specific "diffs" from the history of when the information was added. That is because someone else added personally identifying information to the page which remained there when GiacomoReturned made his edits. Once the personally identifying information was removed, all of the "diffs" between the addition and the removal were suppressed. Non-problematic information, including GiacomoReturned's edits, were left in place fully visible on the page. Risker (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Board elections
I have just been looking here Category:Board elections 2011, but it's so complicated I can't see what I want to know, and you are sure to know the answer; is there just one page where all the candidates are listed? - obviously I won't be voting for Coren (any editor so small and inadequate that he can only cover his errors and subterfuges by declaring other editors mad, should be sent packing, not voted onto the board), however, I would like to know who else there is to vote for, without going through dozens of alphabetical pages. GiacomoReturned20:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, well, I suppose it's not supposed to be a beauty contest is it? Even so...! Middle-aged men in baseball caps are generally to be avoided as are men who wear short sleeved shirts. Ms Richardson looks worryingly familiar as though she's a long lost American relation of Lady C, and ErrantX (who I may vote for) needs a hair cut. Ferdinando Scala looks OK and intelligent and so does the one from Jerusalem. The one from Holland looks a little too healthy for my liking (I'm always cautious of healthy, smiling people). One or two of the others look OK, and one looks a little unwashed, I shall have to peruse them carefully. Thank you. GiacomoReturned20:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've not formed any firm opinions, and I expect there will be a few more candidates before the closing date. Myself, I'm kind of leaning toward Ms. Richardson, who is possibly the first Board candidate whose real life accomplishments justify a proper Wikipedia page, while still understanding both the purpose of Wikipedia, and having experience at an international level in non-profit executive positions. It will be interesting to see how it all ends. The one thing I am disappointed about is the voting system, which is the Schulze method, because there is no effective way to oppose a candidate. When voting, rank only those candidates you could live with on the Board; if you do not believe they are suitable candidates, do not rank them in any way. Even ranking someone in "last place" places them above candidates who receive no ranking at all. Risker (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there going to be a "None of the above" option? not a snipe at the candidates, although I do think it's a poor crop—but at the moment it seems to be "you're getting some permutation of these people even if you don't want any of them", and I don't really like that. – iridescent21:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like Ms Ricdardon too because she's the only woman - well (knowing Wikipedians) half the others could be women too, but she's the only one confessing to it. Needs a few more, I like women on the whole, I wonder what Bishonen is doing - you and Iridiscent could always run too, that would liven things up. GiacomoReturned21:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescent, the best I could suggest is to find the least objectionable candidate and rank them in "last" place, leave the rest unranked, and register your vote. That's about as close to "none of the above" as I think the system will permit. And Giacomo dear, I'm flattered, but I think my chances of success are pretty well non-existent. Risker (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have an irrational loathing of all hats, especially baseball caps, and even more especially when they're worn backwards. And wearing a hat indoors is just so ... yuk! Interesting to put a face to Coren though, it explains so much. MalleusFatuorum06:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think one must be charitable: perhaps it is the middle of the Canadian winter and the elderly have to wear caps indoors to save on fuel costs. I agree with you though, my mother used to swipe us around the back of the head if we wore hats indoors and knock then off; I got swiped quite a lot which probably explains things. GiacomoReturned07:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More of the same
I seem to have been able to attract your attention to Nancy Cartwright - perhaps this discussion might be of interest. It is completely unrelated. Or extremely similar. Sometimes it is hard to say. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note to say "thank you" for your effort in sorting out the sockpuppetry issues at the above page. It is appreciated. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks too. I have found quite a bit more information ans some portraits etc, but would editing the page be red rag to a bull - I don't think time and waiting is the solution - any ideas? The inference is that the page should not be deleted, but what do we do with it? it can't be left like that; it's misleading. One family who held it briefly for 50 years amost 400 years ago cannot be alowed to monopolise and hold it to ransome from the family who held it very uneventfully from the mid-1600s to the 1970s. GiacomoReturned11:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was further socking yesterday, which makes 5 accounts in just a few days. Therefore, I have taken the unusually harsh step of blocking a rather wide range of IP addresses to prevent further accounts from being created and to permit legitimate editors of the article to regain control of it. If you have the information to improve the article, now would be the time to do so. Risker (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your assistance, Shirik. This will provide the community with the tools to review the appropriateness of any changes in protection, now that the pending changes trial is being devolved. Risker (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BLP and flagged revisions case
I would like to ask you to re-read the comments at the "BLP and flagged revisions" case and reconsider your decision to decline. In particular, I would draw your attention to:
Statement by SlimVirgin
Comment by Sjakkalle
Comment by Eraserhead1
Comment by Guy Macon
...and if you don't re-read anything else, please at least carefully consider the points made in:
Just to note that I arranged for another administrator to provide the full list of all BLP articles that had ever been under pending changes protection for review by the community, and that this matter has now become moot as the articles involved have been reviewed in accordance with Arbcom expectations. Risker (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
please undelete gymnast sandbox page (nofollow is OK)
As discussed in your offer, please undelete the sandbox page and add the nofollow notice. I understand the sensitivity and even the snap judgement that the page must be pedophilia or promotion (it is neither, though). Unfortunately female gymnastics is a sport where the top athletes are minors.
Subject is notable (real sources including NBC network television (when she won the Nastia cup), national team-member, international meet medal winner, probably in the top handful of female vaulters in the world...all despite her age) and the draft article already shows some of the reasons for notability. Wiki tends to have a very good understanding (and low bar) for soccer players and video games, but because of the male demographic, less understanding of sports like gymnastics. In any case, I can handle that kind of discussion fine after the page is done as part of a normal AFD with the overall community if someone is inclined.
Mad? I doubt you know the meaning of the word. Poor little Mr FT2 is a little verbose, I grant you, but which of the Arbs are not? One can't expect civil servants to behave as one does oneself - what does it matter? it's not as though one is going to meet them anywhere. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, are you there, Hamlet's father's ghost or whatever you go by these days? One may unfortunately meet them — recollect the encounters under the sign of the cupcake of Bedlam! Have one, they're delicious, hihi! Bishonen | talk21:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I saw your edit on the bad image list, but noted that it was put in alphabetical order as the rest of the page is, therefore I alphabetised it for you, but just thought I'd let you know for the future! :)
Thanks, Thehelpfulone - duly noted! Apologies for not responding directly sooner. I've taken your message to heart and my most recent addition to the list was properly positioned. Risker (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification Clarification
I've stayed far away from this as I tired of being called a "troll" by Barong and his pals, but I have been watching the situation closely. Since Motion 5 seems to be the only one that passed: is he allowed to simply switch IPs and edit even more "semi-anonymously"? Because that is what he has done.[11] Does the clarification need further clarification? It would seem that since most knew that 125.162.150.88 was him, he was at least going to remain as that IP until it's all been decided, if not actually comply with the restriction and create yet another named account. It's not like his recent edits are disruptive, but the strange quiet from the first IP doesn't mean he's been taking a "breather". Good luck to the AC sorting this one out... Doctalk22:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info; I believe someone else has blocked one or more related IPs. It's a difficult situation; Barong has made some useful contributions to the project, but also seems to have made a good attempt at trying to rewrite history in order to justify the actions that led him to be banned in the first place. There's no winning (for anyone) in some cases. Risker (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jack/Barong/IP, you know my position, which is that I see no reason to lift the restriction on alternate accounts, a standard restriction that has historically ALWAYS remained for reinstated editors who were banned at least in part for abuse of alternate accounts. Complaining here about it is rather pointless, particularly as you have spent the last several months illustrating exactly why that historic retention of restriction has been appropriate. This is about your behaviour, which has been far from exemplary. I am very well aware of your personal situation; indeed, I have experienced similar events in my own life during the time that I have been on the Committee. My expectation of people who are in this situation is for them to take a break, not to go about acting as if they are so indispensable to the project that any degree of bad behaviour will be tolerated. None of us is indispensable. Your primary complaint seems to be that the continued existence of the restriction to one registered account without IP editing means that you're being treated differently than other editors. You are entirely correct, you are being treated differently, because most other editors don't go around creating alternate accounts to continue battles with other editors to the extent that they were banned from the project; you've tried to frame the behaviour that resulted in your original ban as having been part of the valiant fight against deletionists, but you'd put that argument forward contemporaneous to the case and it was not accepted then, nor is it accepted now. Your deliberate compromising of your registered accounts, and continued taunting posting as an IP, does more to reinforce the appropriateness of continued of restrictions than anything Arbcom could say or do. Perhaps you should consider some serious self-examination to figure out what is truly motivating your behaviour here. Risker (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moar bad-faith. I've meant well all along. John gets this. You, however, are enabling a host of trolls and assorted other unimpressive editors. I've given up on this failed community and am merely taking the piss to demonstrate what you and too many others are abetting. People see this, and are leaving. Examine your own behavior here, and that of my detractors. They are the future of this site, and that's pretty sad, really. 222.124.91.51 (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you've given up on this site: leave it and stop your definitive trolling. No one's begging you to stay except some users whose user pages you've gussied up and whose pet projects you've improved; consensus be damned if the colors chosen aren't to your liking. This "failed community" gets along just fine without your disruption, you'll be shocked to know. You are not nearly as important as you believe you are to the success of this site. We have bots for that stuff. You should appeal it to the community. Or ArbCom. Or even Jimbo. Doctalk07:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As is anyone that doesn't want to hunt pigs all day. Steal their glasses and blame them for being wrong. Disgusting, really. Doctalk08:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay folks, this is quite enough on this page. Jack/Barong/IP, you have been informed that you may edit from a registered account of your chosing - at least one that you've not already compromised. So either register an account or go away; it's your choice. Doc, I'd appreciate it if you'd allow this to be the last word on this subject, at least on this page. Risker (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know you said enough but I just want you to know I just blanked my user page and plan on leaving due to this editor harrassing and stalking me without anyone stopping it. I just thought you should know this since I am the second editor now leaving for the same reasons. Be well, --CrohnieGalTalk13:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rhode Island Red is back in ownership mode at Juice Plus, in spite of the requests made prior to his 6-month ban that he stop editing the article altogether. The article is a travesty, as many have remarked over the years, and a blot on Wikipedia's reputation. I would suggest an admin investigation into the neutrality of the article, leading in all probability to a permanent ban on his activities there, but I have removed the article from my watchlist instead. --TraceyR (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tracey R, I am very concerned about your conduct with respect to Juice Plus and the campaigning that you are now doing, insinuating article ownership, misstating that I was banned in the past, and absurdly asking for me to be banned from WP in the future.[12][13][14] The time has come for you to stop this harassment, as I have had to endure more than enough of it in the past and it is becoming a serious hindrance to the project and my editorial freedom. If you aren’t willing to refrain from such inappropriate conduct voluntarily than I suggest that we take this to the highest level of dispute resolution in which we can discuss COI and you connection with Juice Plus. As a distributor, you should have revealed your COI long ago, but instead you lied about it and have been skirting the rules all along. This harassment, and the contentious editing on Juice Plus, must stop. How do you want to proceed? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem prudent for this user and I to disengage from direct contact going forward, as direct contact is more likely to inflame the situation than resolve it. Comments from this user would best be posted elsewhere than on my Talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Risker. You have new messages at WP:RfPP. Message added 00:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Given recent events as indicated on your talk page, it's probably best to just leave things as is right now until you've come to a decision about what you'd like to do within the project. Risker (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse
I'm guessing that's not a username you wanted to hear of again. However, she's started what appears the self-same behaviour over on Wikinews.
I note from the block log you tweaked the final block to also prevent sending emails; since Mattisse emailed the administrator managing a dispute resolution between myself and her, I'm soliciting your input. You'll find some of the drama at n:Wikinews:WC. My opinion is this is a continuance of the same disruption as took place on Wikipedia. If I get that confirmed, I'd expect she'll simply be banned as too disruptive. --Brian McNeil /talk06:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian McNeil (talk • contribs) [reply]
Hi Brian; I've read the DR and the Water Cooler posts at Wikinews. The blocks on various Mattisse accounts on this project were changed to include email blocking because of the nature of the emails; their content would have been well over the "personal attack" line if posted onwiki. From our experience, Mattisse has considerable difficulty in letting go of disputes and has continued some of the same battles for years; in fact, it is the way many of her socks are identified, by repeating the same behaviour. Several of her socks have been good contributors, but then they return to old battles or are identified when a different sock behaves inappropriately. This is ultimately why she has been removed from this project.
Having said this, I think Wikinews needs to make its own decision here. The Wikinews community has the right to expect that Mattisse follow the Wikinews editing standards (which are very different from Wikipedia standards), or to demonstrate a willingness and ability to develop her skills in this direction; if this is not happening, or if she is not acting within community norms, your project is within its rights to consider sanctions.
It's my personal opinion that English Wikipedia should not have any expectations that sister projects such as Wikinews will be willing hosts to users who are no longer welcome on our project; it is one of the serious weaknesses with the "standard offer" that has been promulgated for banned users, because many of our banned/indefinitely blocked users are no more able to work within the cultures of the sister projects than they have been on this project. There are indications that groups of such banned users have had very dramatic effects on the cultures of some of the smaller projects; on the other hand, sometimes there have been good results for both the sister project and the user. For obvious reasons, I'm more aware of the times things don't work out than the ones where there is success. Risker (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the considered response. Wikinews has, previously, taken in some barred from Wikipedia and they've worked out just fine. Although, it seems I upset someone enough to post on my WP talk that I perhaps should not be soliciting other opinions on the matter. As you say, on a smaller project the disruption frequently outweighs any possible positive gain. --Brian McNeil /talk13:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian McNeil (talk • contribs) [reply]
Thanks for your comments to improve the article, Gunt50 and me assessed together the concerns about the article that you detailed in the nomination. Check the progress we made and if the re-phrasal of the sentences that were doubtful is now clear. Thanks again.--GDuwenTell me!03:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice; I did not have an opportunity to review again last night, but will be over there within the next 24 hours. Risker (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, about the comments on Jennifer Connelly's FAC, we have tried to assess your concerns and it would be helpful if you could revisit the article again and either support or oppose the promotion to FA. Many thanks for your initial comments and your time.--GDuwenTell me!02:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We'd be thankful if you could keep working on your sandbox if possibly, since the source review would considerably help to succeed in the nomination. Me and Gduwen are willing to collaborate. --Gunt50 (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oi! you managed to wipe out my note to self! :-) I've read my email and the link. I don't have a good answer for you. I'm insanely busy IRL (it's only Wednesday and I've been in 20 hours of meetings this week), and am likely to remain so until the end of the month. At that point, I plan to take a couple of (well deserved, I hope) weeks to decompress and do some content work, but I had planned to work on something quite a bit less contentious. I keep hearing that editing is supposed to be fun, at least some of the time, and I'd kind of like to check that notion out. Let's play this by ear. Risker (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no problem -- I wouldn't take it as an invitation for anything. I mainly just wanted to let you know that I'm kicking. Hope you enjoy your vacation (and the fun editing). --causa sui (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Ched, nice to see you about again! I am devastated to admit that I haven't had a decent brownie in months; if it wasn't already sweltering here, I'd make up a batch right now. Yeah, there I was hoping to do my last review of an article at FAC, and instead wound up doing a rather complicated sockpuppetry investigation. I'm taking a couple of weeks' break from the arbcom stuff at the beginning of July, with the specific intention of doing some research and improving some content, but I wonder if people will leave me alone if I'm hanging around here. ;-)Risker (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for dealing with that instance of sockpuppetry. The Chester Markel account wasted a great deal of my (and others') time and goodwill, particularly on Talk:Abortion, where things are iffy in the best of times. (Now is not the best of times). So thanks for catching that. MastCellTalk16:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you would think the discussion would be onwiki; investigations of accounts that appear to be disruptive to arbitration proceedings are pretty well never discussed here. The investigation is conclusive; other checkusers have been asked to review and comment, and there have been no dissenting opinions. His edits with respect to Talk:Abortion were not a factor in the investigation. Risker (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have followed the discussion and joined in (as is encouraged) on the abortion page. I did not follow anything else, although I saw that the editor in question had also taken part in a couple of AN/Is. I am a little shocked, the editor in question was as civil throughout the debate on that page as everyone else, and well-reasoned in his/her argumentation. In fact the editor's clear-headedness impressed me, given the way discussion on that page can become bogged down. I'm not here to question how wikipedia conducts its investigations. Just to say I did not detect troublesomeness in my encounters with this editor, and they did not waste either my time or goodwill on that page. DMSBel (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DMS, no offense intended here, but you joined our merry cause in 2010, so you wouldn't be able to remember the whole John254/Kristen Erickson ridiculousness (John was Charles' puppetmaster) as it happened at the beginning of 2009. You can read more about it here if you'd like, but the end result is that he was banned for abusive sockpuppeting, and there isn't much leeway in those cases. Kind regards, Ed[talk][majestic titan]07:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re: to Risker. Ahhhh ... you do remember then. :) .. that was a long time ago .. haven't been on IRC in AGES! Well .. you enjoy your break from AC .. I know just since I've been back, I've seen more than enough there to last a while. Oh .. BTW ... my daughter and her sig. other are finally gonna tie the knot in July ... YAAAA HOOOO!!! ... Glad for my grandkids too ... just wish they wouldn't grow up so da-gone fast. All my best. :-) — Ched : ? 21:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I remember this user from the last ArbCom case I was heavily involved in, that time he initiated the case as Erik9, and I remember that time too that I had no suspicion about the sockpuppetry before it was revealed. Seems to be a rather well-accomplished sockpuppeteer who is able to stick around by employing a civil demeanor, but who then tends to raise the level of conflict in venues such as ArbCom. He seems to be back to his old tricks. Anyway, thanks for uncovering and dealing with this. Sjakkalle(Check!)11:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci
Risker,
I apologize if you're the wrong person to go to about this, but a while ago someone else linked me to a discussion they were having with you about this issue, so I know you're familiar with it. Please let me know if there's a different arbitrator I should bring this up with instead.
As I understand it, user:Mathsci is under agreement with the arbitration committee to not be involved in race and intelligence related articles. However, he is clearly still following these articles very closely. Recently he has been leaving borderline-harassment comments on the user talks of editors he apparently dislikes, such as this one on mine where he makes accusations of meatpuppetry and other violations. I also see he left another one here in someone else's a couple days ago. He has also done this in my user talk a few other times recently, such as in this comment threatening me with enforcement at AE (and apparently threatening you as well).
I don't really even know who Mathsci is, I have never interacted with him outside of his periodically accusing me of policy violations and threatening me with sanctions in my user talk. I am aware that he has made an agreement with the arbitration committee to no longer be involved in the R&I topic area, so I'm wondering if what he's doing now is a problem? Any advice would be helpful, thanks.Boothello (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, a Sockpuppet that you blocked indefinitely on June 19 may be active again under another name. Do you mind investigating? I read the instructions, but I have no idea how to do it. Banned accounts are User:Chester Markel, User:John254 and the new account is User:Fistoffoucault user contributions [15] or it may be a Sockpuppet for User:Aronoel, they seem to be active at the same time. Thank you so much for your help! USchick (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiry about a deleted page
I noted that a voice actress I was going to add data to has been deleted, namely Carrie Savage, I would like to know what happened exactly, seeing as how I was just on this page a few months ago. Murakumo-Elite (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/File:Goatse.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/File:Goatse.gif){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2008_September_15#Image:Goatse.JPG){kind=link}