User talk:BrokenSegue/Archive 5

This is an archived copy of User_talk:BrokenSegue from December 20 (2005) to June 19 (2006).

Photo permission

I have received permission to use the photograph of Franconia Notch in my article on White Mountain art. Please see the Talk page for the composite image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Frost_Photo_Comparison.jpg.

Again, if you wish a copy of Forrest's e-mail to me, I will happily forward to you.

Thanks. JJ 00:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re:Category:Wikipedians by D&D Alignment

I noticed you are categorized as a Wikipedian by alignment. If you are in to userboxes, there are now infoboxes available using a standard template. See the alignment category page for details. This is a copied announcement, please reply on My Talk Page or in the category talk if you have any questions. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 18:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irish people for peer review?

The additions and editions made on this page even within recent weeks - especily photos - has vastly improved it, to the better I think. Would you support it being submitted for a peer review, and help tidy it up/add some more? Fergananim 14:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank for you for protecting the Palestinian exodus from the revert war.

Please encourage the participants to use talk. Zeq 14:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BrokenSegue, I thought you should know that you have protected an article that has been gutted of its sourced content by an editor who asked for protection before starting an edit war. The editor in question continually disrupts articles in order to push his POV. --Ian Pitchford 16:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the last one to edit the article. In any case I have made a suggestion on talk page , gave it few days and only after that started to make changes. This was answered by reverts and edit war without the use of talk. It is good that protection was used. Zeq 16:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Zeq gutted the article of its sourced content this morning and asked for page protection as soon as he had been reverted by an admin. After he'd requested protection he gutted the article again. --Ian Pitchford 16:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian and the admin zero were the one who engaged in edit war instead of using talk. I have sked for protection as soon as I saw that Zero, instead of engaging in talk has just delted everything I did. Zeq 17:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, thanks to protecting this article we have started talking: Talk:Palestinian_exodus#What_is_wrong_with_this_article_.28and_the_transfer_section.29_-_take_2 . Thanks again. Zeq 14:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nature review responses

Hi, thanks for working on the response to the Nature reviews. Two comments:

First, it is inconsiderate to mark all of your edits as "minor". Please reserve this tag for things like spelling corrections.

Second, please don't blindly apply whatever change the referee suggests, or delete the offending material—check it against some reputable source. Referees make mistakes, for one thing. More importantly, however, you may be curing the symptoms but not the disease...there could be deeper problems in the section that you are only cosmetically fixing. Sorry if this is not what you are doing, but that's the impression I get from the sequence of very minimalistic changes you are making.

—Steven G. Johnson 21:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel prize

Thanks for the correction of the notes. Ben ^T/_C 23:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self revert

Did you mean to revert yourself here? Broken S 21:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, thanks for noticing that, BrokenSegue. I initially read the comment from Nature's reviewer to mean that the reference to Robert Broom was irrelevant, and should be removed, here they meant we should expand on it. Perfect proof why I should do more than skim instructions! -- user:zanimum

Village Pump

Thank you for cleaning up my gaffé and answering my question. The gaffé was inadvertant; the "edit page" function only gave me a blank page to work on; I thought it strange, but being new, I did not realize the implications. Do you know what I should do in future if that happens? Very, very, much obliged. Is there some easy way to create a "second" page (the function also seemed to think the current page was too long)? normxxx

Thanks again! I noted the first revert, but I thought that might be by a special VP editor and perhaps was because I also had forgotten to add my signature! (I really am new!) normxxx

Article references

I noticed that the category of White Mountain art says "0 articles in this category." Please see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:White_Mountain_art. How do I add an article reference to White Mountain art? Thanks. JJ 13:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Review

These are not entirely complete, but I would appreciate any feedback and/or comments you might have. I confess to just plunging in without much reading of style guides, etc. In some ways, there is way too much information. Is there a "simple" document on creating articles? In any case, your help would be appreciated.

JJ 19:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am away until after the New Year, so I will not be able to work on your suggestions. I wanted to make a quick comment. My belief is that photos produced before 1979 (I think that's the date) must have a copyright statement to be copyrighted. After 1979 that is not required. When I get back I'll research this, but have you heard of this? The photo I used is from a 1960 album cover.

Thanks again for your constructive and very prompt response. JJ 00:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a document put out by the Cornell Copyright Information Center. It states that works published between 1923 through 1977 without a copyright notice are in the public domain. That's the information I used to justify my use of the Gibson image. JJ 23:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crepuscular Rays FPC

I'm just pointing out that Fir0002 has promised to upload the second image over the first if it gets promoted (which it looks like it will), so it will be in an article. As for whether an image in that gallery section illustrates an article sufficiently is an interesting question. If it was moved up to the main section of the article would that be sufficient? Raven4x4x 05:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change for Wikipedians from Florida

The list Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Florida has been replaced by Category:Wikipedians in Florida. Your name has been removed from the list. If you would like to remain listed as a Wikipedian from Florida, please add [[Category:Wikipedians in Florida]] to your User page. thanks!

Dalbury^(Talk) 11:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC), a member of WikiProject Florida, a new project to improve articles about the state -- please join us and help![reply]

Mount Chocorua

Thanks for reviewing my article. I used the New Hampshire tag, since that made it clear where the Mountain exists. If the New Hampshire is unnecessary, please feel free to rename the article. Or, should I be the one to do it? Please advise.

To my knowledge, there is only one Mount Chocorua. I'll move it now. JJ 13:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seigenthaler's friend includes (targets) you in his polemic

Sun Sentinel article

"Yet there I was, spending my holiday time trying to fix it. And every time I tried, one of Wikipedia's editors promptly changed the item back.

This editor's screen name was "Broken Segue." Wikipedia thrives on the work of such anonymous editors. They spend huge amounts of their personal time correcting "vandalism" that is done to various entries in the encyclopedia.

This time, the problem was that my material was too original.

Though Wikipedia's own logs would show my computer tried to help John, "Broken" had no proof that I am me.

All would be well, "Broken" said, if I simply wrote my story and posted it on the web. Somehow, that would make it all true, and quotable in Wikipedia."

Lotsofissues 01:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

You have been very helpful to me regarding wiki issues. I have noticed that there tends to be redundancy because, often, two or more articles are related. This leads to "duplication" of information. In particular, please see Tennis and Tennis scoring. One article deals only with scoring, while the first article has a section on scoring. Scoring is scoring, so both the scoring article and the scoring section should be identical. They are not, however, since different people have contributed to the writing. I got involved because of a discussion of the poorly written information on tie-breaks. Finally, my question is: How should articles that contain, basically, the same information remain consistent? Is this where templates might be used where the information is written once and "inserted" into each article?

Thanks again for your help. JJ 14:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

I know there's a way to add my signature to comments that I made when I was inadvertently logged off. But, I don't remember how to do it. Can you help? Thanks. JJ 23:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I forget to login, so my signature becomes just an IP address, e.g 192.163.17.5. I saw somewhere that you can, basically, go back and say that 192.163.17.5 was really JJ. But, I don't know where I ran into this.

Signpost

I saw your tip, if you would like to add a story before Monday, please contact the edition-in-chief. thanks! Wiki eZach 05:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt

Hi, I understand your reason for reverting, and I've left a note on his talk page offering an olive branch and trying to arrange another round of negotiation. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 00:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sig

Maybe later. --Shell 00:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Copy and paste

Thanks for that. Wasn't aware of the policy, glad to know it exists — much easier that way. Deadsalmon 02:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UTUTO

I reinstated the UTUTO article, because the page that it was copied from says that the text is available under GFDL licensing. Just wanted to let you know.--Esprit15d 21:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh and Daoud Al-Kuwaitys' article

Hello My name is Shlomo Elkvity and I'm Saleh Al-Kuwaity's son. The text I wrote for wikipedia is from a Cd I have made with my fathers' music.I have all the rights for this text.Please restore this article.Thank you very much.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulka (talk • contribs)

This note is in reference to Saleh and daoud al-kuwaity.

Hello and thank you. I will make those changes.It seems to be so difficult !I will try to learn it.Zulka.

Prod non-substitution

Thanks! Avi 03:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

protected edit

In regards to this edit [1], actually I think that page ix is correct. Normally in an introduction, the foreword is listed in lowercase roman numerals, such as ix, which would actually be page 9. This makes sense also because stylistically when citing a page, one cites the numerical number (in this case 6) not the written number (six). If the user really meant six there, he'd have put "6" instead, so I believe it really did mean to be "ix". Please revert the change until we can clarify this? Swatjester 04:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Saleh and Daoud article

It's really a little complicated for me...making those changes...You can delete it for the meantime , till I learn all about it.Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience.Zulka 08:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Zulka[reply]

Edmunds.com post

Hi Broken Segue,

  You put a warning on my first and only post,edmunds.com.  How do I go about getting my post to stay? juejuebie

Darcy Frey article

Thanks for putting the wikify tag on the Darcy Frey article. But I'm wondering if this article is a copyright violation of some sort, it reads like copy from a book jacket. But how to check? Also, it coincidetally appeared only a day or so after I created links to Darcy Frey in 2 other entries, so I don't know if someone went and put up something as quickly as possible. With all the controversy about Senators' offices editing wikipedia entries about their Senators, I'm wondering if this was put up by some publicist or publisher who doesn't know (or care) about wikifying or wiki style. What do you think? Bruxism 05:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me

Hi BrokenSegue,

You contacted me concerning the copyright tags of Image:Mt Conner, seen from the road to Uluru.jpg and File:Mt conner.jpg. I have taken them by myself when I was in Australia in August 2004. Thanks for helping me!

Best regards, Manfred

Dcadran

how do we get in contact with you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dcadran (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for the prod tag advice

Thanks. I fixed another article where I used the tag.--Drat (Talk) 16:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheney shooting in ITN

I thought this was notable not because of the political ramifications, but because the second-most senior member of the US govt. just shot a person. Maybe that's just my take. Harr o5 05:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

I would like your advice about NPOV. Please see the article on Josh White. In particular, I posted a comment on the Talk page, since I feel that using language like "fraternized with a number of radical left-wing activists" should not be used unless there is a specific source for such a statement. Is this the kind of statement that I can delete based on the NPOV concept? Please advise. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnJHenderson (talk • contribs) 17:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest

how can I suggest that my mytalk page become an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcadran (talk • contribs)

Henryk Batuta

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub stub] Why? It doesn't make any sense to have it formated like that. --Яǿǿ⁷² ✉ 02:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VPN

Hi. Can you have another look at this edit and check you changed what you meant to? Cheers, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Search box poll

Hi! Have you been checking the edit counts of the "yes" voters, or does someone need to do that? Thanks! —David Levy 03:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really rigorously checking them. If I see a red user page I check how many contribs that user has. There are no red yes votes. Feel free to check the rest of them. Broken Segue 04:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two minutes after posting the above message, you tagged the vote of Cheesy123456789. —David Levy 04:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did. After your comment I thought I should go and give the list another check through. I noticed that I had never seen that user name before and I check his/her edit count. Do you have some problem with my actions? Would you like me to do a more thorough check of the whole list? I just don't want to waste my time going through every entry (that's what I meant by non-thorough, I just look for red flags [no pun intended]) Broken Segue 04:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to your actions, provided that you scrutinize the "yes" votes to the same extent. —David Levy 04:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look at the other list sometime tomorrow (although I don't think it is actually my responsibility). Broken Segue 04:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of this was your responsibility, but you opted in. It's neither fair nor ethical to single out your opponents' votes for such scrutiny. —David Levy 04:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David Levy. Why do you care about the post count of voters? I feel the strong urge to delete your comments. dposse 04:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. PHF 16:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jirs

Hi,

Could I prevail upon you to block Jirs indefinitely? What s/he was doing was not just linkspam. S/he was adding links to a pornographic shock site that opens applications on your computer. This was systematic, malicious vandalism, and I suspect that s/he will be at it again as soon as the block expires.

Thanks, Hbackman 03:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, don't worry about it. ;) Didn't mean to bug you, just didn't know whether you'd not blocked indefinitely on purpose or not. Hbackman 03:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanko panorama on FPC

On the FPC talk page, yoy said: Yes it has a chance and, if you can, upload it at a higher resolution... - I just did - care to vote? Thanks, --Janke | Talk 09:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homepage Cleanup

Thx for reverting that edit Dhp1080 05:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuatara on peer review

Hi BrokenSegue,

I've seen you've contributed to some articles about reptiles. Maybe I could interest you in commenting on tuatara on its peer review page, Wikipedia:Peer review/Tuatara/archive1? I look forward to your comments, and many thanks!

Samsara _contrib ^talk 19:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox redirects

Hi BrokenSegue. I wanted to bring my comments about the userbox redirects to your attention and get your feedback. I may be missing a point of policy here. I also wanted to let you know that I'm not interested in creating a big broo-ha-ha over this; I'd just like to get it right. My current opinion is that the userbox redirects aren't harming anything, and they are convenient for users. Thank you. --F a ng Aili 19:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flamarande

How funny, you explained your reasons only after I began to the "ruckus about nothing". You find the comparasion with Inquisition insulting? First, look at my userpage (see the "political incorect userbox"?), then give me a good comparision (instead the inquistion) with the curent unofficial and sneaky "userboxes deletion policy", that gained in strength conviently after the redirects were deleted, then undeleted (because of userprotest) and now proposed to be deleted definitably. Flamarande 22:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I presented my case to Jimbo Wales, and I really hope that "somewhere", "someone" finnaly decides about the userboxes for good. "Delete them all" or "delete all the political ones" or "let them all be free". I can live with all the three options, what I don´t agree with that the "controversial ones" are being deleted, and the "political correct ones" are being allowed. The blatant fact are they are also political statements and only deleting some of them is censorship. I will return tomorrow and therefore I am unable to answer to any reply. SorryFlamarande 22:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to apolagize to you. I confused you with User:Tony Sidaway (read his page, please) who simply deleted the redirects userbox/userboxes without any warning, bybassing all the usual channels and putting a delete/protection unilaterally. As some users began to protest it returned to normal. As I saw your legitemate proposal I thought: "Oh no, he is trying it again." and I simply saw red. You were caught in the cross-fire of this damned Userboxes controversy.

Believe it or not, I am NOT a radical defender of the political/religious userboxes. This is a encyclopidea (or a good atempt of one) and I honestly wish there was a official policy which openly said: "No political and religious userboxes of any kind". Somebody simply deleted my completly apolitical ASoIaF userboxes (which are about books, and nothing else) without any warning (I am the creator for Chris´sake) or explenation. What I totally disagree is that some Administrators/Users are turning a PROPOSED policy into a "burning campaign" without even waiting for any kind of official policy. I don´t believe that self-rightous Administrators /Users should become rogue Vigilante/Cops. This movement gained a lot of elan at the same time User:Tony Sidaway deleted thes redirects. They should wait for the end of the debate. This "burning movement" is creating the same divison it claims to want to prevent.

Having said this, I still don´t agree with the deletion of the redirects. There are lawfull exceptions in the rule yourself think applies in these cases, namely number 3 and number 5.

I am truly sorry and I hope you can excuse me. I would be much obliged for a reply (please don´t ignore this honest attempt). Flamarande 18:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

Hello, I am in a bit of dispute with another administrator. I was having a discussion on the talk page of Talk:Intelligent design. I also filed an RFC for the topic too. In the midst of the discussion, an administrator moved the entire thing to a subpage, then, on the main page, made ad hominem attacks against the argument. He should not be allowed to do what he has done. As a final "F-you" on the subpage with the RFC, there was a section for "Outside views" for "Non-regulars." He then signed it. He has 7x as many edits to that article than the person who edits it second most. Could you please help me sort this out? --Ben 03:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

President Peter

I can't put President Peter on my userpage according to you , so I have put it on Macromedia Fireworks, as it was created using Fireworks. The Republican 17:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PP

Hey! Please try not to overlook adding a page you protect to the list of currently protected pages at WP:PP. Thanks a bunch. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help!!!

My user account is block I dont anderstand way? Hier is my page User talk:Hipi Zhdripi#Vandalism and hier is the rv. [2]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.180.13.109 (talk • contribs) .

Life Alert and I've fallen and I can't get up

Hi there. I wanted to let you know I've done some serious hacking on both of these pages, as I see there is an anon user or two setting up both pages to basically be advertisements for Life Alert.

Having seen the U.S. commercials with my own eyes, I know that the company that advertised the product in 1990 was called LifeCall, and I haven't been able to find any evidence that the LifeCall of 1990 is the Life Alert of 2006. If there is demonstratable proof of that, some of the assertions made there might make more sense - but I've been looking to no avail for such a connection. Unless one can be found...well, the two companies have different names, and the first one let its trademark expire, correct?

I hope you'll find the edits to these two pages to your liking; I'll keep an eye on them for a while. Please feel free to comment on the talk page there or my user page, and/or restore edits you may feel were inappropriate. Skybunny 22:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, it appears (although of course I can't prove, as a non-admin) that User:Ddrose is probably our same culprit, and created an account for the express purpose of making the Life Alert page. I'm about to revert several changes already made to I've fallen and I can't get up on the basis of no proof provided for this user's assertions. Skybunny 00:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Punishment

Please, the paragraph that keeps being removed FROM THE INTRODUCTION in capital punishment should stay removed. (We are still debating the insertion of the topic in the body of the article.) Almost everyone on the talk page agrees, except one very vocal dissenter. It makes it very difficult when people keep reverting it back. I know it's generally true that removing a paragraph is vandalism, and I'm sure you had the best intentions by reverting (thinking it was possible vandalism), but it's a matter of one person who keeps re-inserting the same paragraph and us having to go and keep deleting it, so it's really an interesting scenario. We are considering arbitration. YellowPigNowNow 04:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I assumed the edits were vandalism. Sorry about that...carry on. Broken Segue 21:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FIRST

I noticed that you are part of the Wikipedian FIRSTers category. There's another category for FIRST members, and I think it would be easier to put these categories together. You may add yourself to the other category by adding the {{User FIRST}} userbox to your page. Jared W 18:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.NET Bot Framework

Hi, thanks for applying to use the .NET Bot Framework.Your request has been approved, and you should soon receive instructions as to accessing the source code of the framework. You have also been added to the Spam list for announcement emails regarding the framework. If you do not wish to receive these announcements, please feel free to remove yourself from this list. Messages sent will involve announcements of new versions, features and other important information. Thanks, and enjoy your use of the framework,Werdna bot ^(DNBF)/_T\^C on behalf of Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 13:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.6.14.2

After you deleted the comment that 71.6.14.2 made. 71.6.14.2 put it back there. Please block this user or do something. It is getting very annoying. He keeps on going on about Wikipedia(R). Please respond on my talk page. FellowWikipedian 03:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, BrokenSegue! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured pictures vs. Featured media

Hello. I think renaming makes a lot of sense, and I'd like to revisit the possibility -- as long as it hasn't been ruled out. Is there a reason why your renaming proposal never actually happened? Was the idea rejected somewhere, or did discussion on the matter just die out? Thanks. -- bcasterline • talk 23:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I think focusing the criteria on "encyclopedic value" and "Wikipedia's best work" would allow fairly painless expansion into other media types. Most of the criteria revolve around either those two points or technical details (resolution, license, etc.). I see what you mean about the amount of renaming/moving work involved -- there would be a significant amount of it. But, considering the debate over diagrams/maps is recurrent, and considering other media types (with WP:FSC apparently defunct) are neglected entirely, I think it would be worthwhile. Anyway, I'd like to pursue this issue, so, as you suggest, I think I will bring it up on the VIllage Pump when I have some time the beginning of next week. -- bcasterline • talk 00:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at the Village Pump here. Tell me what you think. Thanks. -- bcasterline • talk 22:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletions

Hi BrokenSegue,

My user name is Primetime. I had to create this account to edit here because I'm blocked, though. Recently, an administrator has been going through all of the articles I created or expanded significantly and has been deleting them because they think that they're all copyright violations. I noticed from the Meta inclusionist page that you're an inclusionist also, so I thought you might be able to help. I've been creating articles since November of 2004. They discovered that I had copied a few of the articles from some books, but now, they're assuming everything I've ever added to Wikipedia has been a copyright violation. They even deleted articles that I wrote with spelling errors and ones that I have saved as reports for school. They also deleted an article about my family, Maxwell (surname).

If you could help me, I would be greatly in your debt.

Best wishes,

Primetime

Just a comment regarding Primetime: don't believe anything he says. Full stop.

Most of the guy's major contributions -- probably ALL of the them -- have been plagiarism, and his response to being caught has been to lie, lie, lie, and lie some more. In between the lies, he puts up a series of ludicrous rationalizations, excuses, and justifications, ranging from (to paraphrase, with some duplicate refs) it's a conspiracy by my enemies [3] [4], they're prudes trying to censor me [5], it's okay if you're not caught [6], I give money to Wikipedia [7], it was hard work making my plagiarism look nice [8], Wikipedia would probably make out okay in a copyright infringement lawsuit (direct quote: So long as Wikipedia does not encourage [emphasis mine] the copying of material, it is not liable) [9], your deleting of 'my' articles makes me feel bad [10], and the frankly bizarre -- direct quote here -- …but it seems as if you only like the [Wikipedia policies] that enable you and your publishing-house buddies to delete stuff. He's also resorted to blatantly transparent sockpuppetry to evade his block and re-add his copyvios (see Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Primetime, many of whose re-additions have already been deleted). This attempt at admin shopping is only the latest ploy.

This guy has wasted everyone's time (ask User:Michael Snow, User:Will Beback, and the admins at Wikitionary), and he has not only exhausted every last shred of good faith, he's taken out a second mortgage on future uses. We've given him the opportunity to come clean, and his responses have been obfuscation, legalisms, and some outright lies: my personal tolerance for this nonsense is limited.

And chat with Jimbo, while you're at it: Primetime's comments indicate he's communicated with Jimbo, and I suspect he's gotten a similiar (albeit more politely phrased) message from him. It's not worth the effort, in my opinion, to salvage even what might possibly could be his actual work: he's made direct lies before regarding his plagiarism, and I don't see the value of believing a word he says -- including "and" and "the" -- now. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I've gathered. I take everything with a grain of salt. I can't refuse someone's appeal, however, and I'll look over the articles he mentioned. I doubt I'll find anything. Broken Segue 04:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't want sound like I'm over-reacting, but his track record of various ploys had me worried that his admin-shopping and line of patter might find an admin who didn't look carefully enough at the background, so I figured I should put as much info as I could up front. Yeah, it's overkill, and yeah, the banning by Jimbo is a huge and obvious red flag for any admin taking him seriously, but still, an ounce of prevention and all that... --Calton | Talk 04:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am carbine

Dear BrokenSegue i am carbine i am just not logged in please believe me. I can prove it in a weeks time. please revert my page thx

58.169.30.135 11:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (carbine)[reply]

Zigzogger

You may wish to consider unblocking Zigzogger, or, at the very least, reducing the ban from indef, due to a checkuser request: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Zigzogger Kevin_b_er 00:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox of Value

I don't know if you and Leonardo are the same person, but I recognise the clash we had on the above page was accidental. I will now avoid adding anything further until responses are made...--Jack Upland 12:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]