User:Fvw/TalkArchive/7
| Welcome to my talk page. If you want to leave criticism or question my judgement, that's fine, communication is important. If you want to have a chat, point out good or funny articles or leave suggestions or compliments, that's even better. If you want to list this page on VfD, it was funny the first five times, let's give it a rest now, ok? Please add new comment threads at the bottom of the page in a new section (click here). I'll reply on your talk page, copying what was said to keep things clear. Please sign your comments. |
| Archived talk pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
|---|
Block
Thank you, Fwv. SlimVirgin 07:04, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Fvw, do you need the blocking information to stay on my Talk page, as I was going to archive it? Let me know if you have a preference. Best, SlimVirgin 08:02, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Open proxies
Frank, I fully agree that open proxies should be blocked—permanently, too. But I am not quite sure that a bot is the right way to go. It seems to me that checking for open proxies can be done completely offline. (In fact, why check at all? Why not just assume that the list at e.g. [1] indeed does list open proxies, and just block all the listed IPs without double-checking?) Then just generate a list of the appropriate SQL statements, and have a developer run them. (I assume that blocks are stored in the DB somewhere.) Seems much simpler to me, especially because running the SQL on-site will produce less load on the servers, consumes no network bandwidth, and avoids the precedent of having a bot with admin privileges (which seems to bother at least one person). Did you talk to the developers, e.g. Tim Starling? Finally: make sure your bot unblocks IPs before blocking them as open proxies to ensure that prior short-term blocks get indeed overridden. Lupo 07:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Importance of Anonymity
To Frank and others: I understand the frustration with vandalism performed via anonymous proxies. While the initial reaction to block all open proxies seems like a good idea I think the ramifications of this decision should be explored.
There is strong historical precedent for supporting anonymous communications, be it whistleblowing or controversial topics to a desire to make a claim or position without influencing perception given personal reputation.
The suggestion to require a user account for anonymous editing was not deemed suitable due to the ease of creating new accounts as the abused ones are terminated. Perhaps there is a middle ground?
Some suggestions that come to mind:
- A user who creates an anonymous account will have all edits directed to a moderation queue. If the edits are deemed productive and useful they can be accepted.
- An anonymous user with a good history of useful edits might be granted direct access to avoid the delays associated with a moderation queue.
Again, I want to impress upon those involved that while anonymity can (and will be) abused there are times when it becomes critical to the discussions at hand. The state of affairs in China and other repressed nations as well as increasingly intrusive legislation here in the United States (PATRIOT act monitoring of web activities without a warrant for example) is a strong reminder of the importance of anonymity for controversial and important topics.
Please try to consider any workable solution that will serve both the interests of Wikipedia and anonymous users.
Thank you,
Martin Peck
- There are a lot of technical solutions possible for the anonymous editing problem, and if you want to code them, it'd be much appreciated. However, until we have those solutions, blocking anonymous proxies is a necessity. Keep in mind however that a single group of users being blocked from wikipedia is losing out on the labour of that group of people, but those edits can always (theoretically) be done by others. First-hand experiences and other information "that's need to be brought out in the open" shouldn't be put on wikipedia and will be removed anyway, wikipedia is not intended for original research and other unverifiable information. --fvw* 13:15, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan. Regarding the original research / unverifiable information this is probably of little use as you indicate. The corporate employee or expert desiring anonymity is probably more applicable (Unlimited Freedom blog my favorite example). I'll start looking at the Wikipedia sources to see if I might be able to accomplish this. Are there others already involved in this project working on similar / related features? I'll move remaining discussion to a devel list or appropriate forum. Thanks again.
advice on error
Thanks for that, I'm feeling at bit slack at the moment, I've been up all night Richard Harvey 14:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for reversion...
...on my home page. Paul Beardsell 20:05, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sandbox
Are you blind!? Its there-check my last post.
Arbitration Committee case opening
You have been named as a disputant in the recently opened Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute case brought before the Arbitration Committee. You may wish to add evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute/Evidence to support your case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:33, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
Your blocking without explanation
Sir, you have blocked me without explanation for 24 hours yesterday. You simply said "vandalism" yet you gave no example as to what vandalism. I was not engaging in any vandalism so it leaves me wondering what you were refering to. Care to shed some light on the matter? 168.209.97.34 08:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Re large and bright-red banners people don't read
I don't know what the policy on this is, but my gut instinct says it would be OK to protect talk archives for preventing this sort of mishap (and any possibility of crypto-revisionism). Of course, some people may cry "abuse of admin powers" because admins can do that and mundanes can't... *sigh* How about a read-only archive: namespace? :-) JRM 12:05, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
- Yeah, perhaps some sort of archiving provision would be nice. But I think there are more important things to be done with (and more importantly, to) MediaWiki right now. I suppose I could protect them, but I'll just stick to petty whining until it becomes a real problem. --fvw* 21:01, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
- Oh, I was only kidding. I'm not going to ask for new features and hold my breath; if I really wanted them I'd look into becoming a developer. As is my understanding, the whole thing is a PHP/Perl/MySQL hack; I could manage that. However, using the software has a higher priority than fixing it right now. JRM 08:07, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
Request
Can you please not revert the gay template discussion? My edits of the gay holocaust article were in good faith but has now been totally reverted, I have been attacked on the talk page, and I will not edit it again. I don't want to be smeared like that user was trying to do, because this is my real name and I don't want to get in trouble. Thank you Noah Peters 21:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters
- They're not direct personal attacks, so there's no grounds for removing them. You'll have to live with it. --fvw* 21:52, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
- These comments directly question my motives, implying I am homophobic, which constitutes a personal attack. I have removed no votes except my own, all the rest is stray commentary about me. PLEASE do not revert, or I will seek to block your IP. Noah Peters 21:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters
Noah's vandalism
O.K., will do. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for cleaning up after my mess. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 03:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
your alarming notice
Hello, it took some sleuthing to find who left this alarming warning for me, since you did not include any contact information. I believe you left the alarming warning after I added a link to the page regarding Bhajans, because apparently you deemed it to be spam. The referenced page is a noncommercial page of chanting and devotional singing that includes many bhajans and links to other pages of bhajans, and which is soon to include even more. If you deem it to be not appropriate to this topic for some reason, that is obviously part of your job, and I am new to this process, however it seems that you are quite quick to send alarming notices that must certainly chase away those who have come to contribute valuable links, such as the link I added to your bhajan page, which had no links at all until I added the link to our free, streaming audio page of bhajans, which also includes links to other pages of streaming audio bhajans. I think that it is a shame that I'll have to see your alarming notice whenever I check my user talk page at wikipedia.
FVW replied: Wikipedia is not a web directory. Only add links that are informative and strictly relevant to the subject. --fvw* 15:56, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
Of course, giving a link to a free page of streaming bhajans is clearly informative and strictly relevant to the subject of bhajans. It was surprising to see that you left this message on my page and then chose to also leave the nasty warning alarm on my page just because you thought that my page of streaming bhajans somehow did not relate to the subject of bhajans. I think this makes it clear that you like to bully people who have come to participate in this effort, since I clearly explained why this alarming notice was not wanted or warrented. Is there an administrator that I can bring this problem to?
Hi. After you posted the VfD for Great Googly Moogly, I really got into it and did a fair amount of research and editing work. I agree that in its original state it wasn't worth keeping, but it's a completely different article now. Would you take another look at it and see if you think it's worth keeping in its current state? --RoySmith 18:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Pfft, it took some heavy pondering, but I've landed on the keep side of the line, though only by a hairs breadth. May I suggset you move the first line/paragraph down to the end though? After all, it is no longer the main topic of the article. --fvw* 23:27, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
- Thanks. I agree about the first paragraph; I'll take care of that now. --RoySmith 01:07, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Very well. I'm sure you'll agree that directing users to DanP's talk page is not objectionable. - Jakew 00:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) There are rules against replacing user pages with profanities or insults. Mere editing and advising readers to read the talk page is perfectly acceptable. I suggest that you read up on the matter. - Jakew 00:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
VFD on CBHQ
Sorry, twas a mistake, having a lot of editing tangled up here :) JoeBaldwin 15:16, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
Autoblock
A block against me expired at 12:34 today. It is now 15:07, and I find myself unable to edit. The reason I am given is: "Autoblocked because you share an IP address with "Jakew". Reason "user page vandalism"." (from the mailing list) Fred Bauder 16:05, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
Inappropriate block
Fvw, I think that you acted inappropriately in blocking me for "user page vandalism". It is in the past, but I would still like to discuss this with you. I will set a watch on this page, so please reply here for clarity.
It is generally agreed that one of the distinguishing marks of a civilised society is the right to speak in one's own defence.
DanP made certain allegations against me on his user page. I felt that these were incorrect, and responded accordingly. There were two different versions of my reply. Let's review those:
- "Yes, each will doubtless follow similar accusations by yourself. Childish? Yes. Irresponsible? Yes. Can you find anything after November 2004? I doubt it. I can change. Can you? - Jakew 00:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)"
- "Please see your talk page. - Jakew 00:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)"
Now, according to Wikipedia:Vandalism, user page vandalism is: "Replacing User pages with insults, profanity, etc. (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks)". I think that we can agree that neither of those comments is an insult, nor is either profane.
I can find no policy documents referring to it, but it is claimed that editing a user page in such a way that the user "might find objectionable" is not accepted (though it is definitely not vandalism - see above). Assuming this is true, I can just about see that the first might be considered objectionable, but the second? What reasonable person could possibly object to directing readers to his own talk page? - Jakew 00:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've seen you revert several changes to this page, so I know that you're there. Do you have the slightest intention of discussing this? - Jakew 01:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Jake, this is most certainly a case of misuse of admin powers. I suggest you apply for mediation as by not responding to you it shows he has something to hide. - Robert the Bruce 01:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Utter rubbish. Both of you, stop trolling. If you'd like to make an encyclopedia, please do so. Stop the editing warring, the childish editing of people's User pages when you know that it's incorrect (and then doing it again), and the spamming of User pages trying to drum up support for ridiculous accusations against other Users. RickK 07:34, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't believe it is appropriate to defend an out of control sysop. I suggest that you stop for a moment and consider the medium to long term implications to Wikipedia as these people (blade runners) whose sole purpose (and joy) is derived through "slapping vandals" become emboldened and start to extend their need to control to normal folk. No matter what your POV is or what you may think of me or any other person around here these people should not be allowed to wreak havoc on Wikipedia. Think about it. - Robert the Bruce 09:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You have now made at least 50 contributions since I made my original request for discussion. It is therefore clear that you do not intend to discuss this directly with me. Are you prepared to discuss the issue via a mediator? - Jakew 00:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Good luck Robert. I have had RickK block me simply because I was cleaning out some old entries in MY OWN TALK PAGE!!! After the block I have tried to discuss the block with him on his talk page but he simply reverted my requests for discussion. While I do understand your concerns I think it's hopeless because wikipedia does very little to control their rogue sysops. RickK seems to take even greater enjoyment from blocking ISP proxy servers without regard to everyone else who is using it. It's such a shame that a few bad apples can ruin the rest of the bunch. 168.209.97.34 07:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
External links vs External link
I'm having a little trouble finding the entry in the manual of style right now, but "External links" is always supposed to be plural, even if it's just one link, as it's a "standard section name". --fvw* 17:30, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I'll just ignore these for the time being. If you can locate the style guide reference please let me know. --GRider\talk 18:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee case opening
The case against User: Robert the Bruce has been accepted. If you wish, you may bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce/Evidence. Exploding Boy 19:27, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
67.101.158.54
I am sorry if I bother you by trying to put more information on the site. I thought the site was a really open source project. I am leavign the page open like that becuase along with The Lower east Side Tenement Museum of New York the NY University and the City College of New York we want to create an articulo in this issue (Museums and Civic engagement). We had the idea that the article should be writting in an open source fashion and we though that wikipedia should be the best place. BUt after you message I think we should take our project to a more open enviroment.
I really dont understand your attitude.
Have a good day!
Gonzalo Casals another gay male with a more openned mind!
thanks for ...
your persistence with "Condi Rice" vandals. !!!!
Obsession
Ok, either you obsessively read your talk page or you got it already.. Well, it's both, actually. And I agree, he's about to cross the vandalism line. Joyous 03:49, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
All this vandalism is giving me a headache. Sorry if my edit seemed like I was saying yours was vandalism - but you accidently reverted to my version, which i didn't realise was a revert to a different vandalised version. I hope it all straightens out now... AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 06:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I get a bit enthusiastic about voting. I got really carried away last November, and voted for George W. more than 62 million times, so this could have been a lot worse. Thanks for noticing! Tuf-Kat 06:13, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
revenge etc.
Yeah, you were a few seconds faster. I've got to go do something else for a few hours, but I have a question: for the block on Sexman69, when our blocks expire, do the indefinite blocks come into effect, or did our blocks nullify those indefinite blocks? How does it work exactly? -- Curps 09:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I've finally bitten the bullet and read the source, it turns out that the first block to expire removes all blocks of that address (range blocks only get deleted if a block for that specific range expires). I don't necessarily consider the username against policy (but perhaps I'm assuming too much good faith), so I'm not going to unblock and reblock indefinitely, but I'm not going to object if someone else wants to either. --fvw* 09:16, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
You seem to have just deleted a page that was being listed for copvyio, because it was supposedly the duplicate of a mistitled version of the same page (which, it seems, never existed!). I am farily certain that our current copyvio policy requires the copyvio notice to be present as the page is listed for a week or two on WP:CP prior to its being deleted. I have restored it. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The original copyvio is still there in the page history of Feeding Babies In Emegencies (which won't be deleted until the 5th), so depending on how you see matters it's either a duplicate page creation or a deleteagain. Still, if you want to keep this one for the full 14 days too, be my guest. --fvw* 03:06, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
- Ahh. You provided the wrong link to the duplicated-from page. Way to confuse everyone. :) -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Protecting George M. Cohan
Thanks for protecting that page. I was starting to get pissed off with battling them. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 03:58, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
How do you find out how many edits you've made
How do you find out how many edits you've made? Do ppl use a script? Is there a users stats page somewhere?
- Try this. Heed the warning on that page though, edit counts say very little. --fvw* 04:42, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
vandalism?
Sorry I don't know what this is about. I have only edited three times total, all very small: one was a mistake where i clicked on the wrong thing, once i edited two lines out of a newspersons profile because it was incorrect, once i changed "is it" to "it is". I don't know much about IP addresses being shared, I thought everyone got one to themself. This is weird because another site I visit very frequently gave me much the same message earlier today, telling me to stop harassing another poster, who I do not even know or had heard of. Could you please provide the pages that were vandalized, and I will see if I have even visited them. Thank you.
Sean
- The article in question has been deleted again already, it was a rant of personal attacks, I'm sure you would have remembered had you posted it. Your computer does have its own IP, however your browser is probably configured to use the shawcable proxy. Go to your browser settings and disable "use proxy", you should get a slightly more private talk page that way and not run the risk of being blocked from editing because of others. Let me know if you need any help. --fvw* 05:18, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
ok i'm not sure how to do that, what if i just sign up an account? I don't plan on editing much if at all, but i don't want anyone thinking i'm making personal comments about them. thanks.
i've done so, vega007 is my username
1923-24 NHL season
Thanks for adding that cleanup (context) notice at 1923-24 NHL season. When I saw that there was a clean-up notice, I didn't realize that the lack of context could be a problem. --Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a useful tag, I only discovered it a few days ago. You might want to reconsider having a separate article for that NHL season though, unless there's something especially noteworthy about that season for which there isn't room in NHL or whereever. Wikipedia isn't a sports almanac after all. --fvw* 09:13, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
Noah Peters
Hello, you seem to have encountered User:Noah Peters before, could you please comment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User:Noah Peters? Lots of confusing edits and signature forging by several accounts. I smell a troll here... jni 09:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Korean spiritualist vandal
Frank, thanks so much for stepping up and keeping an eye on this guy. I certainly hope I got through to him. - Lucky 6.9 22:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Block
23:07, 31 Jan 2005, Fvw blocked #15493 (expires 23:07, 1 Feb 2005) (Autoblocked because you share an IP address with "CheeseDreams". Reason "Violation of ArbCom ruling at The Jesus Mysteries".)
Why is The Jesus Mysteries part of this? It is about a literary work, and is an article about a book. And, if you note the top of my talk page (no idea why they placed it at the top or the base), I was explicitely asked to make the contribution that I made. CheeseDreams 23:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
P.s. discuss this openly, not via e-mail. What are you afraid of? CheeseDreams 00:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)