This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Excirial/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  No-peacock.svg Internet-group-chat.svg Technical Barnstar.svg Gnome-address-book-new.svg Utilities-system-monitor.svg IC Carrier Icon.svg Application-x-geda-symbol.svg Preferences-desktop-wallpaper.svg Preferences-desktop-font.svg  
  Userpage Talk Awards E-Mail Dashboard Programs Sandbox Sketchbook Blocknote  

July 2010

Please don't do that again. Take a look at the page. I just did that a few minutes ago, so let it slide. I'm starting a new page. I'm not being a vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph507357 (talkcontribs) 22:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Huggle was showing me an old diff where you blanked the page. Seeing the strange hailstorm of reverts your edit has caused i wonder if there was a network hiccup, or if this is simply a strange coincidence.
Either way, my apologies for that revert. It seems the article had long been corrected by the time i pressed the button, so there was no reason to warn you for vandalism. I striped the warning (Feel free to remove it altogether), and i wish you a pleasant day of editing - even after this unpleasant incident. With kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 23:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


Hi there. If he's so into SPIs, I'd say let him have it: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamiecocopops. De728631 (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, all 5 sockpuppets have already been block par WP:Duck. The last one (Edition frostie) was blocked about 20 minutes ago, and i don't think that a checkuser is warranted in a case such as this Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

... for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Cheers, MC10 (TCGBL) 21:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You are more then welcome of course - though it seems Edgar181 beat me to the block. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy Excirial's Day!

Featured article star.svg

User:Excirial has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Excirial's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Excirial!

00:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. RlevseTalk 00:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Such a pity it is almost over, but it sure was a nice and enjoyable surprise. Thanks a lot! :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please I need some help

Dearest Excirial, in the past days and weeks I have been trying to post some information about our Hot Sauces called Mayanik since other mexican hot sauces appear in the Hot Sauce page on the Americas Section. Within the hour somebody erases my writings. Could you give me some advice to avoid somebody to erase my info for no reason?

Thank you.

Bawiki829 (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Why Tuscarora Intermediate Unit 11 is deleted???????????

Tuscarora Intermediate Unit is non profit educational service agency. It services school districts of Pennsylvania. There is no intention for advertising this. If you feel this as an advertisement, please visit or read more about intermediate units in Pennsylvania. Could you please revert your changes back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsriramkumar (talkcontribs) 16:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is currently only marked for administrative attention trough the usage of a speedy deletion template, which was added by User:Blanchardb. Such template's should not be removed by the creator of the page - instead you should state the reason why the page should be kept on the Article's talk page (And i see you already did that). An administrator will evaluate the article and determine if it should be kept or removed, taking into account the reason you provided.
Seeing the article's current state i would equally give you a few pointers. In order to be on Wikipedia, an article's subject has to meet a certain notability threshold. In other words a company or agency must have some sort of "importance" to be included on Wikipedia, which is done trough the inclusion of reliable, third party sources that are independent of the subject. Technically taken, all the content in an article should be sourced with such references.
Second, i would advice to do a strong pass over the article checking for World to watch and Promotional language. Sentences such as "The Intermediate Unit board, administration and staff are proud of the services they provide, and they welcome inquiries from the community and recipients of services." could be deemed promotional as they have an inherent judgment in them, rather then providing truly objective information. I hope this helps, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The whole thing is a copyvio and should be deleted on that basis. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice catch - page removed as a copyvio. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 17:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

List of works about Jiddu Krishnamurti redirection

I invite you to look at User_talk:Alan_Liefting#List_of_works_about_Jiddu_Krishnamurti_redirection regarding my misgivings into renaming the page and the hard-redirect into Bibliography of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Thanks. (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, i should have left you a note regarding this revert, but it seems that i forgot to do so due to the current sea of tabs present in my browser - apologies for that. The reverts i made were entirely procedural, as an article should be moved instead of being directly copied over to a new name. Not only does this preserve the old edit history to allow for historical lookups, but it is also a requirement presented by the copyright licenses Wikipedia uses.
I see that you already contacted the editor who made the original move, which is generally an excellent action in circumstances like these. If you reach an agreement regarding this matter the appropriate actions can be taken (Either moving the article or leaving it as is). If there is no response from the other editor in a couple of days i would advice that you list the page at WP:RM, since IP editors are restricted from moving pages. Naturally you are also more then welcome to register an account, which would allow you to move the page yourself once it becomes autoconfirmed (4 days old and 10 edits are required for that). With kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 17:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the prompt response and explanation. To me it seems like a complicated procedure to reverse an action whose error (imo) should be evident. So the editor's original seconds-long page move can drag into a days-long "resolution" phase...shades of bureaucracy...anyway that's only my opinion. I will wait for mr. Liefting's input. Thanks again. (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
After having another look at the situation I presume that Alan intended to move List of Jiddu Krishnamurti Works instead of List of works about Jiddu Krishnamurti, since the titles are rather similar. As a result i moved the page back to its old title, and i moved List of Jiddu Krishnamurti Works to Bibliography of Jiddu Krishnamurti instead (With the former title redirecting to the new name). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your effort and time. I sort of figured as much about the page titles. I wish there was a better (more inclusive of other media and formats) category than "bibliography", but that's how it goes. (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
There is one problem with the new redirection of List of Jiddu Krishnamurti Works to Bibliography of Jiddu Krishnamurti. There are section links, both internal and external, in this page, and also a number of page links. All reference the old page title, therefore introducing latency on page load due to the redirection. I recommend reversing the redirection instead of hard-coding the links to the new page title. Personally, I don't see why the page has to be renamed - is there a wikipedia policy in play here? Thanks. (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, there are a lot of policies related to editing, page naming and formatting, and most of those are combined in the Manual of style. The MoS is essentially a several hundred pages thick work that details virtually everything related to a page, and it can be seen as a baseline formatting goal for every page (Fortunately reading the entire document is not required unless one wishes to write FA class article's). There are probally more detailed sections, but i presume Wikipedia:MOSNAME is a starter in this case, which states that titles have to be as "Precise" as possible.
Since i'm only quoting policy now (Rarely a good thing - to much change that it becomes red tape), i would give some examples from around the Wiki. For example, List of works by beethoven is a redirect to List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven, List of works by Edmund Sharpe redirects to List of architectural works by Edmund Sharpe and List of works by Philip K. Dick redirects to Philip K. Dick bibliography. This is done because "Works" is a somewhat more ambiguous term which can refer to a large amount of topics. Besides this i would point out that article's detailing a list of works almost exclusively use a structure akin to "List of works by <Name>", instead of "List of <Names> works". There is likely a MoS entry on this specific issue as well, but well.. to much policy digging is rarely a good thing.
As for the redirects - there are several bots around that fix such redirect issues - In other words, the redirect issue should at least fix itself within a reasonable amount of time. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


Can I get some more information on your block of Xpsp2windows (talk · contribs)? It's not readily apparent who this is supposed to be a sock of from your block message or from his edits. Kuru (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind - I see it in your block logs. Kuru (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
It may be easier to use the "suspected sockpuppets" and "comfirmed sockpuppets" links the sockpuppeteer template on Xpsp2windows provides - all sockpuppets should be listed in those categories. That method may be preferable since my block log will be more difficult to search trough (especially if the block is several days or weeks old). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 17:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Could you look at this DIFF and see if the outing or release of personal information qualifies for revision deletion? TIA ----moreno oso (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like Tnxman307 took care of the repeat vandal. BTW, where have I seen that green template message thingie with the "Frankly my dear" type message? ----moreno oso (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, it was certainly something that warranted a revdel, and perhaps even an oversight (From the looks of it that IP belongs to a long term vandal). As for my pagenotice - i actually copied the one Moonriddengirl uses and altered a little to suit my needs. Perhaps you saw hers? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. I got mine from HJMitchell and it looks the same. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia is all about sharing :). Take a good look at my own userpage, and then look at the pages where File:Computer Icon (IconDesigns).png is used - you will see quite some similarities. As you can see quite a few people copied my entire userpage or the navbar on top of it. There are actually more of them then listed there, since people often swap the images with others they like. I guess that is the same way for the green template - I copied Moonriddengirl's, and someone else copied my adaption later on. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI re Cycling

I've got your back. :-> [1] Cheers, CliffC (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi Excirial, just thought I'd leave a note that I took the liberty of making some corrections on your statement in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cgoodwin#Neutral. I hope you don't mind that. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 16:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for those corrections. My ability to write grammatically correct English quickly diminishes if i am dual-tasking or feeling somewhat sleepy. And in this case, both apply. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Lol :) Sleep well. Good night and best regards to one of the top editors I admire. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 16:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a couple more hours of awake time and i can do so i guess. Oh, and i hope that you don't mind that i slightly tweaked your user and user talk page - the pages looked fine in Internet Explorer, but Firefox doesn't automatically add a line break if a page becomes to wide. As a result your talk page header was thrown outside the page boundaries which made it unreadable unless a user used the horizontal scrollbar. Or to cut a long story short - its fixed. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :):) A personal privilege for me to have you edit my pages... ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 16:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

List of people killed by dogs in the United States

Astro1 removed the National Canine Research Council's (NCRC) information on this page claiming the material was self-published (it is not). For this reason I have deleted the Clifton study-- which is very clearly self-published.

Astro1 insists on re-posting the Clifton study despite the fact that it violates the very criteria that he cited as the reason to delete the NCRC data. It is an undisputable fact that Merritt Clifton owns and publishes his own magazine in which this "study" is published. A cursory review of the magazine shows Clifton as the publisher and his wife as co-publisher.

Furthurmore, unlike the NCRC (which has an advisory board comprised of some of the most repsected canine professionals in the country) - Mr. Clifton and his Animal People Magazine are not canine professionals nor does he have any credentials in canine behavior.

At this point it is clear that Astro1 has an agenda in removing NCRC material, while keeping Clifton's material.

Astro69 (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astro69 (talkcontribs) 21:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

After having another look at the situation i noticed that there was a SSP case related to this page. Having read trough that i notice that:
  • Your account was just 3 minutes old before you edited the page in question, entering the same debate as Record44
  • Your edits are identical to Record44's
  • Your username is incredibly similar to Astro$01.
Counting this all together i would say that it is pretty clear that you are Record44 / Beinsh. Using multiple accounts is not allowed, especially not if this is used to evade a block. As of such i blocked your account and I would urge to stop creating more accounts. You can request an unblock on your main account, but seeing that you created another sockpuppet i would advice waiting at least a month (Without additional sockpuppets) before doing so. I would again warn that creating further accounts will just result in summary reverts and blocks. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


Slap another barnstar in your locker for handling unblock requests using WP:AGF. You are a decent person, keep up the good work. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words - i appreciate them. (And its always good to hear that i am handling unblock requests correctly). I won't give myself a start for it though; There are so many to choose from that i wouldn't know which one is appropriate. And as always - awarding a star to yourself seems a bit silly ;). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

related edit, related RFA

Thank you very much for your support and comments in my RfA. It was an eye-opening experience. I will not be trying for it again any time soon, though. Cgoodwin (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically i was in the oppose section, but i hope that my advice was somewhat useful to you. What i said on your talk page was meant however - your RFA is in no way a reflection of your value to Wikipedia as a whole, and to be honest i really hoped that i would end up in the support section after some questions had been answered. I can equally understand that it was an eye-opening experience, and I'm afraid that it was not positive one at that.
The RFA process is less then ideal to be honest. Adminship is really just a few buttons that allow users to delete, block and protect, but the potentional for disruption is sky-high if not used properly. As a result people expect a certain amount of policy knowledge, and therefor often seek hands-on user experience in any admin nominee. As a result many editors doing excellent work outside these area's face a somewhat hard time being promoted (Though technically adminship is little more then an extension of those non-admin area's). Still, i hope your not to put-down by this entire episode, and i wish you all the best for the future. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for a second pair of eyes on an IP...

I've got an issue that's popped up that looks like User:Krlzh block evading again with IP While the editor is avoiding Joker (comics), they are still gravitating to the Batman related articles with a pref for film tidbits. There is also a similar tone/language gap in the broken English and a tendency to attack other editors.

I'm just wondering if this reasonably passes WP:DUCK. Which would be annoying since Krlzh has gotten 3 IPs in the rough range (,, under a current 1 month block for evasion.

Thanks for your input,

- J Greb (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that this is indeed enough of a [{WP:Duck|Quack]] to block as block evasion, for three reasons:
  1. The editor resides in an IP range known to b used by Krlzh
  2. The editor focuses on the exact same topic area.
  3. The editor is just as prone to personal attacks ([2], [3]) and original research.
And besides this, the IP seems well-versed in editing syntax - more then any completely new contributer could reasonably be. While not a block reason at all, i would say that, combined with the above three points, would indicate a very likely sock. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


...for that. I think of this set of IPs as "Jayjg's "fan" - they seem Hell-bent on describing Jayjg in unflattering, racist terms. I guess I'm now in their cross-hairs too... oh well! TFOWR 15:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Your more then welcome of course. With some luck they ill figure that their edits are utterly pointless; They are reverted within seconds, and i doubt it really ruffles anyones feathers (To be honest i'm mildly amused that anyone would deem vandalism a "Fun activity" for the weekend). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflicts at RFPP

I must be a slow typist ... I went to update the two requests at RFPP, and on each hit an edit conflict that you had already tagged thhem as done. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, i have a use a handy script (importScript('User:Steel359/protection.js') that i use while i'm handling protection requests. It lists all the RFPP templates in a sidebar, which will place the template (+ an edit summary) once clicked. Its quite convenient and fast. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - I've also added the script, will try it out next time I look at RFPP. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Pastor Terry-John

A new one on me. I've been called many things by other editors but "sinner" is a new one. :-) I'm tempted to reinstate his comments to my talk page. NtheP (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It was certainly different from the usual personal attack; I wonder if this is simply an editor who doesn't understand the purpose of Wikipedia (yet), or if it is a returning vandal who is putting up a show. Either way, its not productive. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 17:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully, just the former. NtheP (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


Thanks, I was just going to re-open his SPI. De728631 (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all, i was drawn by the loud quaking sound that came from your talk page. I cases such as this you could just report to WP:AIAV to speed things up; I'd like to see the admin who would refuse to block on procedural grounds once a clear case such as this actually reports himself trough contacting you. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


Userpage Protection Barnstar.PNG The Userpage Shield
For reverting personal attacks on my userpage in a timely fashion. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
You are more then welcome of course - always glad to aid a fellow patrol who does his job so well that he becomes a target himself :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


Hmm, well, yes, I agree it was drifting that way. OTOH, it is supposed to be a discussion, - and empty support/oppose or "per above" adds nothing to the discussion...and we are not supposed to just tot up the !votes....except, sadly, the reality is, the numbers count for far too much. So I'm not really criticising here, I'm just berating the state of RfA.  Chzz  ►  23:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC) P.S. I'm sorry if my melancholy re. this type of thing has landed upon you.  Chzz  ►  00:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Alessandr79

related unblock, original message

Hiyas Favonian, just a courtesy notice to tell you that i unblocked the above user par an unblock request on the unblock-en-l mailing list. I know that the user if on a rather bad start due to sockpuppeting, edit warring and spamming, but i decided to WP:AGF and give them a final chance. (Or perhaps WP:ROPE is more appropriate)

I thoroughly explained the respective rules to them, so the used should be well aware of the respective policies. I equally stated three conditions for the unblock, which the user agreed to. The conditions are:

  1. No more sockpuppets for any reason.
  2. No more edit warrning whatsoever - reverts and edits must be discussed with the other user, either trough the article or the other users talk page.
  3. No more edits related to in a fairly broad sense of the word. This was a precaution in order to ensure that the editor wasn't merely spamming a link - if that was the intention an unblock would be futile for them. I know this is close to an editing restriction which may only be opposed trough arbcom or the community, but in this case i would argue that it is close enough to the advertising / spam policy for me to issue.

I equally warned the user that this was somewhat of a last chance unblock. Part of me hopes that the intentions are genuinely positive, but in case this proves to be incorrect i would say that they can easily be re-blocked. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. I have no problem with the unblocking subject to the restrictions listed. I shall apply liberal doses of AGF to my cynicism and see what happens. Favonian (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


can u show me a SINGLE vandalism of the account User:Rogvaiv1? ( (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

this should suffice. Besides, seeing your edits you already knew this. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

English Moutray Heritage

Thanks for that - he appears to be back as User:Paulm2010. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Banned again - methinks it's time to suggest an IP block. How would I go about doing that? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, its a known sockpuppeteer (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Moutray2010/Archive), and the last SPI didn't show any blockable range of IP's or sleeper accounts. He's not particularly dangerous or annoying, so the best way to counter it is trough blocking any sock-puppets trough WP:RBI. As for the IP range, the best way to ask this is WP:SSP, since only checkusers can view the underlying IP addresses of an account. In cases where you spot a large group of disruptive IP socks you can simply propose the block at WP:AIAV though. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Right - I'll ask around tonight, then, and see what results. Thanks very much for your help! --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi. Your input on the length of the Catholic Church article would be welcome at Talk:Catholic Church#Long_version.   — Jeff G.  ツ 21:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For keeping up with unblock-en-l while the rest of us were off in the Nexus. Or just slacking. --Chris (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :). It seems that the amount of people working on the list is slowly increasing again, which is a good thing. A 6 day backlog on the unblock requests is rarely a good thing. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, and there appear to be a lot that fell through the cracks and are ~2 weeks old. At some point (when I have more time) I'm going to run through them all. --Chris (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Rev. Ian Cook

I'm not sure he's a sock for Pastor Terry-John. PTJ was pretty hellfire-and-brimstone, and a self-righteous asshat. RIC appears to be misguided, and he doesn't appear to be carrying out any of the same activity. I wouldn't be amazed if it was OK if just gave him the category page for Wikipedian Christians, explain wikilove to him, and let him go. They may have (had) the same intent (evangelism), but they're reacted to the blocks in completely different ways. If there is an intermediate account, where he goes from PTJ to RIC, I'd be a little more convinced. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The modus operandi is very similar (Random religious postings on various pages, similar usernames), and i have to admit that i never saw these kind of edits before. At the very least i deem it a little bit strange that there are suddenly two contributers making these edits in the timespan of a few days. The reaction to the block is still religious, though on the complete opposite side of the possible spectrum, so much that my "bad faith" sense tells me that it may just be a bit of theater.
However, to quote Favonian (From this section): "I shall apply liberal doses of AGF to my cynicism and see what happens". If you believe this editor may be changed for the good please go for it - i prefer a good contributer over a blocked account any day. Besides, Favonian was rather skeptical about my own unblock as well, and even if it ultimately proves to be the same user we would have a clear WP:ROPE case and proof that it is indeed a (new) sockpuppet line. And if not, we will gain a new contributer. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks (sorry for the late response, I just got back for the visitation for my aunt). I'll try to keep up with him and see if he can pick up something around here. The timing is a bit strange, but (my grandfather being a minister) the timing registers to me as a coincidence as it does something fishy (I'll grant my perspective may be skewed from having to deal with older evangelicals almost daily). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
So, sockpuppets of Pastor Terry-John have been leaving nasty messages on Rev. Ian Cook's page ([4], [5]), and Cook appears to be trying to learn (I may not be the best teacher, but I'm basically going to see what his first edit might be, and then explain how people are likely to react and why). I'm not asking for an unblock yet, but I'm fairly certain these are two different people and that Cook does intend to help (his message on ANI did say that we were doing good work). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mariposa botnet

RlevseTalk 00:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Rev. Ian Cook

I'm not sure he's a sock for Pastor Terry-John. PTJ was pretty hellfire-and-brimstone, and a self-righteous asshat. RIC appears to be misguided, and he doesn't appear to be carrying out any of the same activity. I wouldn't be amazed if it was OK if just gave him the category page for Wikipedian Christians, explain wikilove to him, and let him go. They may have (had) the same intent (evangelism), but they're reacted to the blocks in completely different ways. If there is an intermediate account, where he goes from PTJ to RIC, I'd be a little more convinced. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The modus operandi is very similar (Random religious postings on various pages, similar usernames), and i have to admit that i never saw these kind of edits before. At the very least i deem it a little bit strange that there are suddenly two contributers making these edits in the timespan of a few days. The reaction to the block is still religious, though on the complete opposite side of the possible spectrum, so much that my "bad faith" sense tells me that it may just be a bit of theater.
However, to quote Favonian (From this section): "I shall apply liberal doses of AGF to my cynicism and see what happens". If you believe this editor may be changed for the good please go for it - i prefer a good contributer over a blocked account any day. Besides, Favonian was rather skeptical about my own unblock as well, and even if it ultimately proves to be the same user we would have a clear WP:ROPE case and proof that it is indeed a (new) sockpuppet line. And if not, we will gain a new contributer. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks (sorry for the late response, I just got back for the visitation for my aunt). I'll try to keep up with him and see if he can pick up something around here. The timing is a bit strange, but (my grandfather being a minister) the timing registers to me as a coincidence as it does something fishy (I'll grant my perspective may be skewed from having to deal with older evangelicals almost daily). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
So, sockpuppets of Pastor Terry-John have been leaving nasty messages on Rev. Ian Cook's page ([6], [7]), and Cook appears to be trying to learn (I may not be the best teacher, but I'm basically going to see what his first edit might be, and then explain how people are likely to react and why). I'm not asking for an unblock yet, but I'm fairly certain these are two different people and that Cook does intend to help (his message on ANI did say that we were doing good work). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mariposa botnet

RlevseTalk 00:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion

ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User's talk page blocked for no good reason. Thank you. --Ian.thomson (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I see this has already been handled, and i think it may be wise to explain my stance a bit further.
In general, there are two types of sock puppeteers - the "POV pushers", and the "pure disrupters". The former will edit any article related to a certain subject and tend to sway it in favor of one of the parties involved (nationalism is a common example). The latter type of puppeteers are simply out to cause a stir by riling up as much trouble as possible, mostly trough vandalizing or causing a soap.
In case of the latter puppeteers sometimes select a "theme" and create a set of sockpuppets who behave similarly around this subject. A few more pointers to detect them:
  • As they like to waste everyone's time, they will jump onto any serious attempt at conversation. You can see that rev. ian cook engaged in a long discussion with you on this issue.
  • As said before, the farm often revolves around a single type such as religion. Disruptive sockpupetteers often don't care about the content or argument they make, and may switch 180 degrees in order to cause conflict. Note that the pastor and the reverent were exact opposites of each-other. Don't be fooled though - take Barryispuzzled for example, who created a lot of accounts to edit war with himself in order to create some ruckus. Other disruptive puppeteers have been known to engage in territorial conflicts, playing both parties against each other to create a response (After all, who would expect opposites to be the same?).
  • Note that Pastor Terry-John ‎was blocked on the 7th and didn't edit since. It is rather unlikely that someone would watch the account three days later, only to attack another user that was accused of sock puppetry. This is often a signal that these people are the same person, with the "Attacks" being aimed at causing a stir or to prove the discussed socks 'innocence' in the "They attack me as well so can't be friends" sense.
Sure, the above can be wrong for some account, and i will not delude myself to believe that there is never an incorrect block, just as there might be incorrect unblocks. Dealing with sock puppetry is a balancing act where one balances lenience with suspicion in order to catch as many sock puppets as possible with as little collateral damage as possible. In this case it proved to be a known sockpuppeteer, so i think we can chalk it up as "Correct". Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

further question on Elizabeth Tilley

Thank you for replying to my question about Elizabeth Tilley. You said to rationalize a seperate article for her she had to separately notable. Well, here is my thought, they were both passengers on the Mayflower and they both parented a lot of children together, so "multitudes" of people trace their ancestry to them (well to him , anyway, which makes little sense by today's standards.) The only big difference is that he signed the Mayflower compact and she didn't, and that is only because of the patriarchal morays of the time. So, from my point of view, she is just a noteworthy as he is. Does this seem reasonable?--Ishtar456 (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Question on some rangeblocks.

Hiyas PMDrive1061, due to an unblock request on the unblock-en-l mailing list i noticed some rangeblocks you placed two days ago, and after having a look i had a few questions regarding them, since 2 out of 3 were blocked as proxy ranges.

The first IP range ( seems to be comcasts Business Network, which provides web access to com cast business customers. The range was blocked for harrasement and personal attacks, but trying as i might i cannot see any personal attacks in this ranges contributions that warrants a year long rangeblock. Most edits seem good, and i cannot seem to see any revisions that have been oversighted or revdelled.

The second IP range ( was also blocked for personal attacks, in combination with a statement that it was a proxy range. Checking the DNS on this range, i found it belonged to the university of Dortmund. I equally cannot see any grave vandalism in the range contributions that may warrant a year long block. I haven't really checked on the proxy matter, so i would also ask how you determined it - seeing its a university i presume that students have access to many workstation computers though.

The last range ( was blocked for being a proxy and harrasement, but safe for two 5 days old attacks from a singular IP i cannot seem to find any grave vandalism in the range contributions. Equally i noted that the range consists of smaller /22 ranges which seem to be registered to various different companies. Therefor i kind of wonder if it is really a proxy range, and if yes, if a smaller block would suffice. It would be strange if a proxy would go cross-company.

Well, that was a long list of text i guess. Any light you could shed on these would be appreciated :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I have been incessantly stalked and now e-mail bombed by a banned user across this wiki and several others for the last two weeks. The user name is User:BoxingWear among others; Jimbo himself banned him under the name "George Reeves Person" or something like that. There are at least three other users here who have been stalked for years by this whack job. One has provided me a list of his known IPs which I blocked. and this idiot is now using proxies and zombies to attack and impersonate me. Take a look at this: [8] whereby virtually all the changes and protections have been due to this same deranged maniac. For that matter, look at the edit history of my talk page. I have been in touch with law enforcement over this and the idiocy continues. So, as he continues to attack me, I am simply blocking all his proxy ranges as a precaution. This guy is batshit insane and I would rather block a few innocent users at this point. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
PS: I'm working hand-in-hand with a third party at Eflightwiki who has CU rights. That's where he's been hitting the hardest. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Would it be a feasible to disable the e-mail feature for yourself on Wikipedia? Personally i use a throw-away e-mail account which forwards my Wikipedia-related mail to my main account, which allows me to cut-off any person who spams me without revealing my real mail address. Equally i use Gmails filtering feature to blacklist certain e-mail accounts. In case my account receives an e-mail from the blacklist Google will automatically delete the mail and forward it to another throw-away account which, in turn, sends a copy of the complete CAN-SPAM act to the user who send me the mail in the first place (Thus effectively bombarding them without me ever noticing).
I know this situation is incredibly bad, but is there a chance we could use a combination of protections, e-mail settings and blocks to keep Mr. funny out? If these are zombie proxies it is possible that they are botnet-related, which means that they could be in virtually every range (Seeing the geographic diversity this is quite likely). Equally a zombie proxies is likely only one (Or a couple) of PC's in a single network; Blocking entire networks as a precaution could in effect blank complete geographic area's from Wikipedia access while not really impacting the zombie proxies used. Regardless, best of luck with this situation - it easy for me to talk about solutions, because i'm not in the situation myself. If the roles were switched i wonder what my response would be though. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 23:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I was using a throwaway account, but I never thought the dingaling would actually log on and use e-mail. So, I've disabled it for now and I simply forwarded the garbage as spam. If you think it best, I can simply block the individual proxies as they edit here or elsewhere instead of the ranges. This is a nightmare and I simply want it to end. Ask Jimbo what he's gone through with this yahoo. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your RfA

I have closed your RfA as "Withdrawn" per your request.

Without commenting either way, my advice (should you ever consider going through RfA again in the future) would be to read the comments left by both the supporters and the opposers - see what you need to continue doing, and what you need to change/do in addition.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I presume that you are probably becoming tired of me and my constant talking, but i wanted to leave a final comment: Don't give up Wikipedia because of this, and don't presume that the RFA votes are some sort of community evaluation of an editors worth to the project. RFA is an inherently negative process because it comments on the contributer and its contributions instead of talking about content. Some people leave permanently after a failed RFA, some vow never to run again and some run again later (Sometimes they pass, sometimes they don't). Whatever you decide, keep in mind that RFA's and administrator are really nothing special, and that Wikipedia benefits from all kind of productive editing. Administrators are merely one piece of the puzzle. In other words, keep your own enjoyment of the project in mind as well.
Best of luck, and kind regards, Mr. Talktive (I mean, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 23:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC) )
I will remain on wikipedia. I have to finish the WikiCup.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi. :) I've got another question about the unblock list (and your templates are working fabulously for me! Not to mention all the terrific information you gave me about setting up canned responses and whatnot. You do rock :D). How hard-core are we about the ISP, school, university, or workplace issued email address? I've got a correspondent from Indonesia who claims he doesn't have one. He's contacting us via Gmail. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hem, i am incredibly glad that the unblock mailing list now has few extra admins who actively involve themselves with the requests. The past two weeks it seems that everyone had little time for them, which meant we ended up with a huge backlog that i have been attempting to clear away during the weekend. Its fun work, but after 20 requests in a row it can get a tad tiresome.
But on to the "Require e-mail" part of the question. I would say that this requirement depends a bit upon editorial judgment and believability of the request. A few things i tend to watch are:
  • The block reason for the range \ IP adress. If it is a sockpuppetry range i tend to be more cautious.
  • The likelihood someone has no paid mail address. A substantial share of ISP's provide such an address, but geographic location and requesters age may make it possible someone doesn't have such an address.
  • The age of the block. If someone requests an unblock of an IP 2 minutes after its blocked its quite likely to be the person who was origionally causing the block.
  • The amount of people a block could possibly impact. A request from a range with 65536 address is more likely to originate from someone innocent, then from range with 16 addresses.
  • As a sidenote - some relatively small ranges (Or even single IP's) may host a LARGE amount of contributers per IP. In that case you can just check the range contributions to see how active a range is normally.
Other then this you should just trust your instincts. We have incorrect blocks at times, so i have no doubts we also have incorrect account creations or creation refusals as well. WP:AGF or WP:ROPE may help in such cases; If someone is out to stir up trouble this will be visible. Personally i do a standard check on accounts i created or unblocked after some time, and in cases of doubt i tend to monitor them a while for vandalism. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 15:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. It all makes very good sense, and I will proceed accordingly. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

A question

Hello, I have a question regarding user or article talk pages. On English Wiki we should use English language when we talk? Right? The use of other languages is not allowed? Thank you. Adrian (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not Excirial but I feel that I can answer. I hope you don't mind Excirial :) Yes, English is the preferred language on the English Wikipedia but if you want to use other languages you might want to maybe take a look at and/or use the encyclopedias in other languages that we have here - you can see all the different language versions we have so far here. Chevymontecarlo 10:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Savvy Rest


Thank you for giving input on my request for an article to be written on Savvy Rest.

I am still interested in having an article written about Savvy Rest. I'm wondering how to go about requesting that it be written. As I have a conflict of interest, Wikipedia suggests that I request that someone else write it. I only wrote what I wrote as a suggestion of what someone else might write, not that it would pass Wikipedia's guidelines.

You had asked about references and links for verifiability and notability, so I am putting those on this page. I followed the link button at the top. I hope you can click on them. Wikipedia is my fourth foreign language.

Inc Magazine Mother Jones Magazine Eco Sex--Sleeping Green Between the Sheets Crozet Gazette Sustainable Furnishings Council Eco Sleep Solutions

Actually I read the Wikipedia article on Essentia, and I found it to be far less notable or verifiable than Savvy Rest, and that's what is keeping me going.

Also according to Google about 95 people per day search for the term Savvy Rest. I would think that a neutral Wikipedia article would help them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelpenny5675 (talkcontribs) 18:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Michael Penny Michaelpenny5675 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi, how are you? Long time no speak! Do you remember me? :P Are you still on IRC much, or...? Chevymontecarlo 18:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this Excirial

It's so good to see you around always :) Thanks for this. Regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 15:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


When are you going to use Huggle again? WAYNEOLAJUWON 19:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, i have been awfully busy lately off-wiki lately, and most evenings i'm a bit to tired to start vandalism fighting over worries that sleepiness will cause me to mess up a tad to often. Once things quite down again i'll start vandalism patrol again, but in the meantime i will just busy myself with less real-time activities such as expanding Wikipedia's coverage of botnets, and patrolling new article's. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay. WAYNEOLAJUWON 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Elen on the Roads

Hiyas Elen,

I just blocked the above user on the basis of it being a suspected impersonation attempt. Still, i was wondering if the account might be made by you, for editing on insecure networks or something alike (The name could be read as a joke for that purpose). If the account was actually you, do feel free to unblock the account, and accept my apologies for the incorrect block. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 15:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Soon to be followed by User:Elen gets hit by a truck and is all over the Roads. Or is that too long? HalfShadow 20:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
ROFL! I feel that one needs an animated gif :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Good to see it is actually you - when the name popped up i couldn't help but smile at it, since the purpose of the account could be a funny pun on your regular name (And frankly, it would have been a waste if a troll would have come up with it). Still, i didn't want to risk it being a troll and figured that if it was you i could always unblock you later on. Good to see you already took care of that part, and i'm glad that you don't mind the block. Either way, happy editing, but mind the cars! :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at SandySucks (talk · contribs)  !! Isn't Wiki fun :) Not to worry-- I realize many won't read evidence, pile on old grudges, grind axes ... typical DR on Wiki. But we have higher venues for admin abuse of tools in the event RFC/U isn't useful; I sure hope we don't have to end up there over such a silly thing. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

(Related) I have unblocked this account (a) to show that it is me and (b) to test unblocking as I've not done it before, and I'd rather muff it up on me than on some poor editor. Exiciral, your block was entirely correct, and Sandstein your decline also, as there's no way you guys could have been sure it was me. But as I assume you weren't intending to block me, and indeed you both said if it was me it was OK to unblock, I figure it's OK to unblock this account. I've also badged the userpage, to avoid any further confusion. Thanks everyoneElen of the Roads (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for BredoLab botnet

Orlady (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Kennedy mmbando

Hi Exciral. I'm surprised you put a G11 on this. I would have thought a A7 if it needs a speedy, but it's really a classic example for a BLPPROD unless I have missed something. Anyway, it's entirely up to you :) --Kudpung (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You are entirely right that this should have been an A7 - i actually intended to tag it as such, but in the process i got distracted and placed a G11 instead of a A7 (So much for the benefits of multiple tabs in a browser :) ). The reason to tag it as an A7 over a BLP prod was due to two facts - It was deleted two times under that criteria already, and nothing in the text or in a search gave any indication that this person would be notable.
A BLP prod is a tad different. Instead of being not notable a BLP prod indicated that a text is not, or not correctly sourced. There may actually be a claim to notability in a BLP (A claim is sufficient to pass A7 after all), but unlike other article's an unsourced BLP is a no-go. Thus i generally place an A7 on non-notable pages, and a BLP prod on pages that may be notable, but are unsourced (Provided that a quick search doesn't turn up any good sources) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page!

WAYNEOLAJUWON 19:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You are more then welcome of course! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks please

First added in this revision.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.

And what i am referring to is this edit and this edit summary. Don't threaten other editors with "Administrative actions", instead, discuss the issue at hand with them, and try to reach concensus. Also, note that you may not revert an article more then 3 times every 24 hours (WP:3RR). Also, when in a dispute, discuss. Don't start an edit war over it, as mentioned above. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Look who first treatened whome
Look who first treatened whome. I refer to the edition of LukPOl on my personal discussion page dated 14:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC). If you do not read Polish ask LukPol for translation. I write in English on English Wikipedia.
More over if you are administrator look on his discussion page my effort to explain him logic and facts. That is all. I hope you are objective person - no offence please :))
Anyway, I do not consider the warming about possible administrator intervention as offence.--Cleaghyre (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Generally, User:Cleaghyre is account founded for controversy changes, trollings, quarrels and edit-wars. This "user" has several editing, of which nearly all is just controversy changes, trollings, quarrels and edit-wars. Someone (administrator) should respond and help. LUCPOL (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
This user, all the time, introduces very controversy changes, not discussed first, and promises to be a long wars. Please, help. LUCPOL (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
If you believe that another editor is making mistakes while editing, the first course of action is to discuss it with the other editor in the conflict, either on their own talk page, or on the talk page of the article itself. Discuss the change, argue why something should or should not be kept, and support this with reliable sources. If you disagree with eachother and cannot find a middle ground, seek dispute resolution, for example trough a third opinion. Either way, you should not:
  • Threaten each other with administrative action unless something is clear vandalism. This at least sours the discussion, and at most might work the other way around.
  • Start reverting eachother over and over. Don't turn something in an edit war - that has never resulted in anything positive.
  • Turn into a human fireball. Disagreements can be downright annoying at times, but don't overreact. Being civil and constructive is more productive in both the short and long run.
This goes for both of you. Administrative intervention in edit wars only leads to protections and blocks, which are both undesirable most times. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


Dear Excirial, I just noticed that all comments in the deletion debat about "Paolo Corallini" have been deleted. It is true I wrote two comments, and I noticed two different IP appeared. I don't know exactly why, probably since I have 2 computers at home.Is it a crime? Again, I didn't know it was not possible to vote twice, so I won't do any longer. But why other comments two have been removed? I noticed that one of them, by reading the name, is from a people I know. But what about the fact that it's suspected to be me? Let me tell you I'm not involved in hopping IP's as you said, as I don't even know what means. and however, how can it be me to comment from different IP's in such a short span of time? Moreover: how can Ryulong delete comments with no evidence at all?He did only by trusting his suspicion?? So does wikipedia etiquette relies on administrator's simple suspicion? In my job (lawyer) nobody can be judged with no evidence...Here I saw FIVE comments cancelled, only by assuming the fact that maybe are not written by different people. The last thing, even if these people never wrote before, is not possible for them to read wikipedia rules and reply?I did the same, before writing I read the rules. I personally believe Ryulong's behaviour is extreme, unrespectful, distorted, childlike and useless, I don't know who he is, but it seems Wikipedia for him is the only place where he can feel he's powerful. Please do not allow this. It's a very disappointing thing what happened on this AFD page. But I guess you are all already sure that all comments are by me, because you GOT the, forget about what I wrote. Bests, Nagemasu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagemasu (talkcontribs) 06:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A deletion discussion is, as the name already says, not a straw poll where people can vote in order to determine the outcome. Instead it is a discussion between editors to establish if a page does or does not meet the inclusion criteria (WP:BIO, WP:N).
As for the removal of the other comments - it is very unlikely that an IP or account gets drawn to a specific AFD on their first edit, while also being able to quote several policies. If this happens several times in the same AFD we can be virtually certain there is meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry (See also WP:CANVAS) going on in that AFD which is, by definition forbidden. Note that I deliberately left the WP:RFPP for this AFD open, in order to let another administrator determine if it was likely that this was the case, and seeing that user:HJ Mitchell protected the page, I believe the striping of comments was warranted. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 08:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


Origional conversation

Why on earth is this redirecting to Neopets? I was looking for information on a poodle-beagle cross, not Neopets. A CTRL-F search of the Neopets article does not yield any occurrence of ``poogle. -- (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Article titles are often redirected to other, related pages. I presume that a Poogle is some form of Neopet, and seeing that this page has no other content it was redirected to the main page of the related article. You will likely have more luck on the Poodle, Beagle and other related pages on crosses (Such as, for example List of dog breeds by country). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page! I appreciate it! jeffC (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete revert

Your revert of The Road only revert one change. The vandal made multiple changes. I am having difficulty correcting the situation myself. Would you mind looking into it? No reply is expected. Thank you. T.Randall.Scales (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The rollback reverted the article back to the version added on 07:28, 20 November 2010, by another IP user. It seems that the user made another edit after that, but i cannot really call that edit vandalism by any standard. If the article needs to be reverted further back (I can't see any more vandalism though :) ), just open the article history and open and save the revision that needs to be saved. Alternatively, you can simply edit the page, and change the content manually. Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You're fast!

Barnstar of Reversion2.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
You're doing some fast reverting on Huggle. Good job! WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, User:ClueBot NG beats me to every other revert i think, but thanks nonetheless :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


I've made the necessary changes. I didn't intend my article to be an advertisement and I think I've made the necessary modifications that makes it sound more neutral. Can you take a look? If the changes are sufficient, can you remove that advertisement tag on my article. If not, I don't know what to say, I spent some time on it and don't have much more to contribute to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrashing0donut (talkcontribs) 09:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hiyas there Trashing - i fear i ended up having to delete the article, as another editor noted that large sections of the article have been directly copied from several pages of the university website. For legal reasons content cannot be directly copied from other sites unless those sites specifically state they have a copyright license that is compatible with Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA, GDFL or compatible). If such a notice is not present content is seen as a possible copyright violation and speedily deleted.
The best way to deal with such an issue, is rewriting a page and using the sources as an inspiration for text, rather then using it as a source for words / content. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
could i have theoretically just referenced them? or is that still not-kosher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrashing0donut (talkcontribs) 09:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
There are multiple problems with using an institutions own website as a direct source of information. A primary concern is of course the copyright issue, which is paramount in this case. The fact that Wikipedia is editable by everyone is rather sensitive as far as most licenses go - its therefor not possible to add a mention that part of the content has been copied - this would not be sufficient to satisfy the copyright requirements.
Another issue is that an institutions own website is a primary source. Wikipedia itself uses tertiary sources as a means to establishing verifiability for its content, as tertiary sources are further away from the subject and thus tend to be more neutral. This was quite visible in the article - the language was heavily promotional which is entirely understandable for a website (Man of course wishes to leave a good impression), but for an encyclopedia information has to be neutral in tone and not advertising for a certain goal. Have a look at WP:RS as well, to see what counts as a reliable source to base article's on. That guideline, along with WP:N and WP:NPOV are the core guidelines to writing a good article, and are well worth a glance if you intend to write an article. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them - either here, or at the help desk. The latter option may be somewhat more convenient, since more people work on that page, as opposed to me and a few other persons who view my talk page every now and then. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Block of Bugapi

I'm not sure what, if anything can be done, but I would also strongly recommend considering a block of the IP addresses that the user has been editing under for most of the past five days or so. They can be found listed here. Strikerforce (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd also recommend extending this block to a permanent one. This is a single purpose account focused on promotion of a web server product that this editor is associated with. In addition to the edit waring, violation of the 3-revert rule, this editor has is bent on disrupting the AFD on the article in question and has taken recommending deletion of an article on a competing product here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee (Webserver). No less than 5 editors have tried, in vain, to give this editor the benefit of the doubt and direct them towards more positive contributions. More details are available here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bugapi--RadioFan (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed there Radiofan - extended to permanent block since that kind of nonsense is beyond acceptable. The 2 day block was intentionally short to allow some input in the deletion discussion, and to (hopefully) prevent a myriad of IP's all over the place. I admit that i was actually close to an indef before, but seeing the addition to the other deletion discussion, i believe that WP:RBI is the only way to go here, as is for any future IP's or socks. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 15:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help here. A lot of time has been wasted by a number of editors dealing with this, time to get back to something more productive.--RadioFan (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

New York Mining Disaster 1941

Hello, you removed my edit from a page, where i pointed out a mistake on the page. You sent me a message about it, and then at the end of your message you said " Excirial (Contact me)" so i clicked on the "contact me" and i got here. I dont see how i can talk to you, so i try it this way. Please let me know how we can chat normally. That would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the edit in question mostly because of the word "Bullshit" in the article content. If you spot an error, there are generally two things you can do: The first one is correcting the error yourself by editing the table, and removing the mistake. As Wikipedia is a work in progress, content may be incorrect from time to time. Hence, the edit may actually have been made by someone who didn't know that both names refer to the same country, and just added both based on different sources.
The second option is asking someone to correct it, by pointing it out. This is most times the best course of action if the edit would be complex, as opposed to simple fact corrections. Your comment was actually a correct way to deal with the issue, it was just the location that was incorrect. Every article has a talk page (A discussion page) where editors can discuss the article itself. Mixing the discussion in the article itself would eventually clog it entirely and make it unreadable from all the comments.
All in all its most times best to Be Bold! and correct mistakes you see. After all, if something is wrong, it should simply be corrected. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

US-Mattress Deletion

This is to advise you of what is going on with the request to remove our company page. There has been a vandal that keeps trying to post slander on our page, and we keep removing it. Now they have posted the removal request. All info on the page is verifiable and accurate. Can you please cancel the deletion request, and protect the page from repetative vandal changes? Thank you. Brightonmiplace (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the user who was posting the information on the grounds that he seemed to have made a sockpuppet in order to do so, but the prod deletion, and the subsequent AFD nomination were actually both posted by me - see the deletion discussion for the reasoning behind the nomination and the actual deletion discussion.
In essence it would seem that the page was never truly notable or supported by reliable sources. The other editor who posted the criticism just made it catch attention i'm affraid to say, which resulted in the nomination from my side. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome back

Hello and welcome back Excirial !

I have a request;

With this edit [9], User:PANONIAN divulged his personal opinion about the Hungarians, which is totally unaccaptable regarding both Wiki-policy and the inward of Wikipedia when saying that :

Could you please deliver PANONIAN this ArbMac warning as an administrator, in order to spur him to adhere to the good purposes of Wikipedia?

ArbMac warning
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Balkan topo en.jpg In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you.

Thanks.--Nmate (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)