User talk:CT Cooper

User:CT Cooper/Floating buttons User:CT Cooper/Talk page templates

A small issue from the past

Remember the IP you blocked a week ago for being a sock of Antony1821 (here)? Well, now it's back and making similar edits. When you get back from your wikibreak, can you please deal with it? Thanks. – Kosm1 fent 13:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson beat you to it: [1] Thanks anyway. :) – Kosm1 fent 11:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm back again now. I couldn't find any more, but let me know if there are. CT Cooper · talk 13:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! :) – Kosm1 fent 14:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Good to be back. CT Cooper · talk 15:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's back with another IP from the same provider (46.198.28.49), making edits of similar to previous socks of Antony1821, for example [2], [3], [4] and introducing false information to football biographies, for example [5] and [6]. What to do? – Kosm1 fent 18:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked that particular IP for six months and reverted all its edits. Looking at Special:Contributions/46.198.110.136/16, it appears that a large proportion of edits from this range are by this user, so given his persistence, I have taken things a step further and blocked the entire range for a month. There is a strong potential for collateral damage, which is why I'm limiting it to a month, but this should stop or slow him down for a while. CT Cooper · talk 18:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are God. Kthanksbye. Don't worry about collateral damage; if there is any, it will show up within a month. I hope that will teach the dude a lesson, although I doupt he is ever going to listen. Thanks again! – Kosm1 fent 18:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I direct your attention to this IP by the same provider doing edits of a similar style to Antony 1821: [7], [8] and [9]. Please keep an eye on this user for further incriminating evidence or block him if you feel like it. Thanks! – Kosm1 fent 16:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP as it is clearly another sock. I've also blocked the range at Special:Contributions/176.92.75.146/16, as again it is quite clear that he has edited from this range before with other IPs. CT Cooper · talk 21:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cooper! As you can see, there is no stopping him – but we can at least slow him down if we remain vigilant. Cheers! – Kosm1 fent 06:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agenda 21 - June 2012 Edits

Good work on the edits to Agenda 21. I think the article is coming along. There's still some work to be done on the opposition section. Also, I'm thinking about replacing the UN flag with the Wiki Box for books. Agenda 21 is a book complete with a cover, ISBN number, author is United Nations, it has a publication date, etc. My schedule is hectic for next few weeks so might not get it up there until then. Thoughts?Justanonymous (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really thought of it as a book, although I suppose it is one, and a full infobox is better than just the flag. If your up for it feel free to be bold. CT Cooper · talk 16:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TheShadowCrow

Hi. I noticed your warning on talk of TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs). I was actually going to post there a warning about his inappropriate edit to the WP:BLP article about Teimour Radjabov, [10] but after seeing your warning I realized that it is not an isolated episode. He was actually warned that this is an arbitration covered area: [11], and the edit to Teimour Radjabov was done after your warning about BLP violations. What should be done in this situation? Grandmaster 17:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know about his recent edits. He has had more than enough warnings, and the warning I gave him was given as a final warning. I therefore I'm blocking him for 72 hours, not a very long block, but long enough to get the message through. I did consider WP:BLPSE to blanket ban him from editing all BLPs, but I thought a block was enough for now. He does seem to have a particular problem with Armenia-Azerbaijan releated content, so WP:AA2 restrictions also remains an option. CT Cooper · talk 18:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking prompt action to resolve the BLP violation. Since this is not the first time TheShadowCrow does that, I filed a report on him at WP:AE, so that the admins could decide if any AA2 restrictions are necessary. Grandmaster 19:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani image issues

Cooper, It has come to my attention that several images of Baku Crystal hall could be in breach of Azerbaijani laws and violations of Wikimedia rules. According to the guidelines at Commons:Freedom of panorama#Former Soviet Union images such as File:029BakuCrystal.JPG, File:Crystal Hall Baku Inside.jpg, and File:Baku Crystal Hall 7 May 2012.JPG could face deletion. Is this something we would need to raise awareness elsewhere? It also means Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2011 would need to be reviewed, as there are images from Armenia. Also Eurovision Song Contest 2002 (Estonia), Eurovision Song Contest 2003 (Latvia), Eurovision Song Contest 2005 (Ukraine), and Eurovision Song Contest 2009 (Russia). Images of buildings are not permitted for those nations either. Wesley☀Mouse 10:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The images can be moved to en.wikipedia, where fair use applies, I suspect with no problems – the only criterion which needs some discussion before that happens would be #8. Cheers. – Kosm1 fent 11:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they could be. There isn't a clear consensus on how to deal with FoP issues on the English Wikipedia, with mixed practices of uploading such images both as free and non-free. The confusion is shown through the mash-up template on the issue such {{Non-free architectural work}}, {{FoP-USonly}}, and {{FoP-US}}. I have argued that actually the Foundation's definition of free content does not mention countries and per Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights only US copyrights matter on the English Wikipedia, and since there is freedom of panorama for buildings under US law such images are free on the English Wikipedia. The problem with Commons is that they demand images be free in both the US and the country of origin, making the lack of FoP in the former Soviet Union a problem. This is a third rail issue on both Commons and the English Wikipedia, with it being further complicated on the latter by being mixed-up in the general debate on if the English Wikipedia should respect non-US copyrights (Jimbo Wales is an advocate of doing so), and I've been thinking about requesting a community wide RfC to agree on how we will deal with FoP on the English Wikipedia. In the circumstances I would advise being safe and uploading the images as non-free, although such use may only be justified per WP:NFCC on articles on the building. CT Cooper · talk 11:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Cary Fowler; Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008; Lovendegem; Svenska Mässan; Slovenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 1993; Sonja Škorić; Sint-Lievens-Houtem; Angel (Mika Newton song); Destelbergen; Rich Ross; Jetstrike; Malmö Arena; Kluisbergen; Selecția Națională; Assenede; Lithuanian presidential election, 2009; San Marino RTV (TV channel); Waasmunster; United Provinces of Central Italy

Cleanup: That '70s Show; Eurovision Song Contest 1998; National Highway 544 (India)
Merge: ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability USA; List of television stations in Europe; Naguanagua
Add Sources: Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008; OGAE; Norway in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009
Wikify: Armenia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2011; Slovenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 1996; Georgia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2011
Expand: Fountain of Dreams; I Love Belarus; Avenue Campus

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I'm still very curious about your ethnic backround.

On the Victor Ortiz page someone else already claimed that the source DOES back it up, so the person removing it should have given a reason why it was being removed.

Nearly all kickboxing articles are very poorly written and sourced and lack lots of information. It's my goal to fix that someday, but it would take a lot of work for articles no one really reads.

Cenk has nothing to do with AA.

The issue on Cenk was "repeated editing" and the one on the chess player was "saying opinion in the summary." These are different. Me and Grandmaster debated over something in the AA area before but no rules were broken and we discussed it on talkpages. So I don't see why I should be banned if I hadn't broken a rule twice. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I find it very disturbing that an editor is questioning the ethnic background of another editor in what can only be deemed as a racial attack. How is someone's ethnicity going impact a way they work on an article? On the 23 June 2012, you came out with a double attacking remark to CT Cooper, by saying Why are you in love with this guy so much? A you a turk living in Germany?. That comment alone is a personal attack as well as a racist attack. Anyone else caught doing such actions would have been blocked for those alone. CT Cooper is an established editor who knows how to contribute to a high standard on Wikipedia. He knows that everything written needs to be verified by reliable sources, something which most editors on here knows are vital for encyclopaedic accuracy. A simple word of advice, think what you are about to say to someone before actually saying it, as you could end up getting yourself into far deeper trouble than its actually worth. Wesley☀Mouse 15:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Wes says, your persistence on wanting to find out about my "ethnic background" is troubling, and could be considered harassment; posting personal information about individuals which they have not chosen to disclose is strictly forbidden - so I wouldn't go down that road if I was you.

On Victor Ortiz, the source given has no mention of the content you added, and I don't see how that observation can be disputed. You will need to present a new source before re-adding it.

On Cenk Uygur, the content you added was related to the Armenian Genocide, and on WP:AA2 the topic areas for which sanctions covered are defined as "Topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts", which I interpret to include Armenian Genocide related content. You were edit warring on that BLP, but the primary reason you were warned was for inserting original research into the article in violation of WP:NOR and the WP:BLP policies, and soapboxing another BLP policy violation on the talk page. On Teimour Radjabov, you were blocked for making further BLP policy violations in both the edit summary and in the article. A common theme runs through here - a serious lack of respect for WP:BLP policy. As I said on your talk page, you are not going to be spoon fed policy, and once warned that they are violating BLP policy editors are expected to familiarise themselves with the policy and avoid further violations - you have had plenty of time to do that, so I consider your attempt to create a distinction to be wikilawyering. I should point out that receiving a warning before being sanctioned or blocked is a courtesy, not an entitlement - the blocking policy requires that admins take steps to educate users about policy and warn that their behaviour may lead to a block, but no warnings are needed at all in the case of established users who should know better or very serious violations of policy. CT Cooper · talk 17:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision 2012 GA review.

Good evening buddy, hope you're doing well.

I'm starting to have deep concerns about the GA review for ESC 2012 article. Its been weeks now, and nothing has been finalised. Tomica has said the only remain issue is referencing, and once that has been fixed, along with these tables then it would be a pass. Tomica also says we can continue with the review while we are still trying to reach an agreement on the split jury/televote tables, but I feel that those tables may fail the GA as a result. What do we do? In 2009, the EBU made the breakdown of results available for public viewing, and have been used as references on the 2009 article. But this year, those breakdowns seem to be withheld, and therefore making the tables semi-dubious. Would hiding them into a collapsible table, like I previously mentioned about London 2012 page using, be a way around this issue? Wesley☀Mouse 17:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing very well, thanks, and I hope you are as well.

GAs, unlike FAs, are not supposed to finished and can have less important sections missing and this would fall into that. One possible solution is to just leave the section out until a consensus is reached, however if that action is contested then it could derail the GA, as articles have to be stable to pass WP:GACR. Simply collapsing them could be a good compromise, and I presently think it would be okay under MOS:SCROLL, though others may disagree. Worst case scenario, if the GA fails, then that will give unlimited time to resolve this issues and the article can be re-nominated and swiftly promoted after a short time - unlike AfD and other some processes, swift re-nominations won't cause a fuss from what I've seen, as long as any concerns of the previous nomination are resolved. CT Cooper · talk 20:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 2

I find it funny that your other half is calling me a stalker, when in truth it is you who is stalking me. I'm merely taking note of that fact. Since you want to get in my business, I thought I'd see who you are. I find it a little strange that a German cares so much about a racist talk show host, a racist chess player and AA issues. Therefore I'm assuming you must be a turk living in Germany because Germany has a high population of them. And of course you saying what you are "isn't important" sounds to me like you don't want to say because you're embarressed how easily I found out. Not that I'm demanding you disclose what you are. I'm asking out of curiousity.

Someone else in the history of Victor Ortiz claimed that the source DOES confirm the info. Whoever was removing should have explained why, like you did.

How does the Armenian Genocide fit into the azeris? They didn't have anything to do with that and I don't see what confirms it's a part of AA in your link. Neihter does Cenk. My punishment for BLP was the three day ban. My punishment for what specificly happend on the racist chess player's page was 6 months from AA articles. This seems highly over zealous. It's as if you're hoping I'll lose interest in it by then, so the azeris can still pretend their chess hero isn't a racist. In fact this whole thing hides the fact people like Grandmaster are basing their lies that Radjabov's words were, loosely construed, OFF OF NOTHING.

There is also no reason why we should hide the President of FIDE saying the racist rant wasn't acceptable. Accept to make the azeri look better. Hmm...

Also, this was formerly on the page: "President of FIDE Kirsan Ilyumzhinov condemned possibly Radjabov's words as "not permissible".

The bold part doesn't make any sense at all. It's clear azeris have vandalized the page, but since no one cares about Radjabov besides them, they've gotton away with it. I may have violated BLP, but that doesn't change the fact my edit was better and Grandmaster's edit removed referenced information. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that made me laugh. I love the remark "your other half is calling me a stalker". Please tell me when I called you a stalker? I used the {{tps}} template which is there to show that I was watching this talk page, and responded to a post on a user's talk page that I get along with very well and consider to be a good friend in the Wikipedia community. And to call me "other half" is a little over-zealous in all respect. What gave you the assumption that CT Cooper and myself are in a relationship? Very bad assumptions on your part, but ones that did make me laugh nevertheless.

You also still demand that CT Cooper must be a "Turk living in Germany". Have you actually taken time to read Cooper's main user page? You will notice by reading that alone, that Cooper is British, he mentions that fact in his introduction about himself. So your other remark posted above of "sounds to me like you don't want to say because you're embarressed how easily I found out", is very clear that you didn't "easily find out" anything, as you obviously haven't read Cooper's main page, which you have answered the ethnicity query. On that note, I'm going to go back to doing something more constructive around here and improve articles to an encyclopaedic standard, while drinking coffee and giggling at the most funniest comment I've ever seen. Thanks ShadowCrow for actually putting a smile back on my face. You truly have made my day. Wesley☀Mouse 09:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're ability to read my userpage reflects on how you read up on policy, then that does explain a lot. WP:HOUNDING allows the checking of user contributions for violation of policy, and your past edits have put you under a lot more scrutiny. If you learn policy and stick to it, then you won't hear from me or another admin again, but until that happens I'm not going anywhere. It is patently obvious that the only reason you were "curious" about my ethnicity was due to your intent to use it as an ad hominem method of discrediting the actions taken to ensure you follow BLP policy. The Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy explicitly forbids this - you have managed to violate a good few bullet points at WP:NPA#WHATIS. Given this, I am giving you a final warning on this matter. If I see a single edit from you which involves disparaging another editor because of their background or any hounding of other users for information about their ethnicity or similar, then you will blocked for a significant amount of time, or indefinitely for serious violations.

Armenian Genocide falls under "related ethnic conflicts" in the definition I gave in the previous reply, given that Azerbaijan is discussed in that article and are even mentioned in the lead on Armenian Genocide denial, so content related to the denial is definitely covered. I will respect a community consensus or an Arbitration Committee ruling that Armenian Genocide is not included, but nothing else, so as it stands if you edit content related to Armenian Genocide, you may be blocked for violating the restrictions placed on you. Even assuming that it is not covered, editing on the edge of a topic ban has been strongly frowned upon by the Arbitration Committee - the idea of topic bans is that you find something completely different to edit. Actually the six month restriction has been imposed so that after six months you will have a chance to demonstrate that you can edit in the AA topic area within policy - if there reason to believe that won't happen then the restriction can easily be extended or made indefinite. CT Cooper · talk 11:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]