User talk:MrDarcy/Archive3

Back to current talk page ● To my user page

My apologies--

Overlooked the Talk about SerialBox. Thanks for pointing out my error and correcting it. Happy new year! Aresnick 07:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gernika-Lumo

Why did you do two incompatible actions at the same time: (1) revert my edits and move (to the original location) and (2) move-block the article. If you block an article you must block the current revision, not taking sides, if you take sides, you can't use your admin privileges.

I ask you to reconsider or I will have to open an RfC on your behaviour, as it is clear that you are taking sides and not helping to solve the problem. --Sugaar 08:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to your post in my talk page). Darcy: you ahven't looked at the issue well. The consensus was reached in the Bombing of Gernika article. I moved Guernica (city) to Gernika-Lumo to keep names coherent. Then (several weeks later) this user Grant appeared out of nowhere and single handedly moved it back without any notice or whatever. So we started a discussion and an RfC that went nowhere no consensus). So I finally decided to move it back to Gernika-Lumo (official name) to keep both articles coherent in naming, at least while the dispute was solved. This is when the move-war started. But really, I find ridiculous that to have Bombing of Gernika (consensual) and Guernica (town) (no consensus) with different spellings.

As you say "When an article is protected, it's not an endorsement of the version that gets protected", yet, you did take sides and supported one version over the other, protecting your own version. That's what I see it's going well too far in using your sysop privileges. You can either protect the existing version (that was mine, stable for at least several days) or enter the dispute as common editor (in which case you should not use sysop privileges). You have done both things at the same time and that's what I consider clearly abusive.

Additionally, I have no idea who may have asked you to protect the article. I could not fnd anything in your talk page or in any relevant administration pages or in the corresponding article's talk page. So I'm flippant because your actuation is like the proverbial elephant in the pottery shop, you know: instead of helping to fix things, you have created a bigger problem.

I ask you to either unprotect or to protect the version that was before you edited. Else you are breaching the administrator deontological code. --Sugaar 04:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You didn't move to "the start of the discussion" that would be Gernika-Lumo because the discussion started when Grant irrupted with his confuse interpretation of WP:TITLE and not before. You should porbably not have moved anything anyhow, but you moved to a version in the midst of the dispute, a version that is quite contested. Additionally, you reverted my last edits that were not disputed as far as I know (nobody has ever protested against them and most of them if not all are plain facts). --Sugaar 04:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't let Sugaar's blatant untruths and distortions go unanswered. There is no consensus for "Bombing of Gernika". Both articles referred to "Guernica" when they were first created and they stayed that way for many months, until Basque nationalists got on the case and unilaterally moved them, against WP:Use common names. Bombing of Guernica was not on my watchlist, so I didn't notice its new home. Several other editors have also objected to the move since it was made. Grant65 | Talk 04:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was clear to me that there was no consensus for a move. When there is a consensus, I will unprotect the page, but frankly, that discussion doesn't look promising to me, and you may need to consider mediation. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Disruptive stalker behaviour of user:Velten

I just wanted to thank you for dealing with this situation; not necessarily for blocking Velten, but for intervening at all. I know there must be a lot of admins who'd not want to get involved in something related to an arbitration case, so I'm glad my message didn't just get overlooked and shunted to the archives. Anyway, from your replies on WP:ANI I got the impression that you were looking for signs that Velten was obviously being disruptive (e.g. using misleading edit summaries), and that you had found them, which is why you blocked her. Well, my view is that her just following me around to irritate and get at me is disruptive in itself, regardless of whether the actual edit is iffy or not. I really don't like being followed, and the other editors she did it to before didn't like it either, and I'm sure other people wouldn't, and nobody should have to stand for it. Her modus operandi is problematic because anyone looking at the edit histories wouldn't know there was something disruptive going on unless they knew about her history. Anyway, thanks again. Extraordinary Machine 23:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reversing the edits of MyKungfu

...on the AKA and the KAPsi pages. But, why can't you semi-protect pages that MyKungFu vandalizes? B e arly 541 01:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's back, this time as MrGrand Wizard —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccson (talk • contribs) 15:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

McGrandWizard has indicated on his user page that he was forced to change his name from User:GrandWizard because racial connotation. This is true, but a review oh GrandWizard's contributions] shows he extensive updated Sigma Pi Phi which was created by MyKungFu. Same person here.Ccson 01:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Broadwaydad

This User, while editing other articles, seems to be another User involved with the Daniel Rodriguez page, and well as the Chelsea Opera Company page. It seems odd to me why a bunch of new Users would edit just those sites. Of course, we welcome new Users to Wikipedia, but why would a load of them concentrate only on two articles? Acalamari 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; it seems you already knew about this User. However, I still find it odd that several new Users would edit a few pages, all at similiar times. Acalamari 19:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks - they're all meatpuppets, or worse, socks. If the article survives AfD (which it well might), I'll file a checkuser request, as this is a pretty clear attempt at votestacking. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad form at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Freedonia (2nd nomination)

Hi there. It's not really good form for you to go around deleting the specific claims which make an article notable at the same time as you're nominating it for deletion. It's true that the Freedonia article didn't reference the incident, but it did happen (there are a bunch of reliable sources which describe it), I have now done so, etc. Deleting articles which are unreferenced rather than posting {{cite}} tags and asking for fixes is in violation of the fix-before-delete AFD rules. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 07:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social therapy/Fred Newman edits by user BabayDweezil

Hi, Seeking on your opinion/input on BabyDweezil’s most current edits on both the Social Therapy and Fred Newman Wikipages. I added both Rick Ross’*Rick A. Ross Institute for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements and Steven Hassan’s Steven Hassan’s Freedom of Mind Resource CenterFreedom of Mind links to their information on Fred Newman and Social therapy et al under “Sites critical of Social Therapy” on the Wiki social therapy page only. As they both are critics of Social Therapy, Fred Newman, et al. Both are also well known and regarded as knowledgeable on the subject of cults, destructive groups, etc. Therefore, It seemed quite reasonable to me to add these two additional links to the existing links of www.ex-iwp.or, www.dennisking.org and www.publiceye.org on the Social therapy page. Baby’s first edit as to add {{Unverifiable-external-links}} above the “Sites critical of Social Therapy”. I have no objection to Baby’s BabyDweezil edit but sincerely felt that it belonged above all the external links – “Sites with information on Social Therapy” as well and not just above those critical of Newman because the Social therapy WebPages certainly do not provided all the information which consumers need to make and informed decision. I believe this is especially so as the Social Therapy websites are clear self-published and these websites offer no other point of view than that of Newman and believers in Social Therapy. Additionally, none of these websites mention to potential consumers (therapy patients) that Newman has quite a long history of having sexual relations with his patients and does not find this to be problematic. Nor do the websites mention that Newman and Social Therapy do not adhere to the APA Code of Ethics and that this is a politically based group. Nowhere on any Social Therapy Group WebPages are any of the above mentioned to potential future therapy clients. Since I think that this information is very relevant and pertinent which Newman and the Social Therapy Group is omitting I believe it is certainly fair for this information to be provided by other websites such as ex-iwp, Rick Ross, Steven Hassan, Dennis king, don’t you? After I moved this banner up above all the external links [1] , Baby then proceeded to delete all but publiceye.org from the list of site critical of Newman. [2] So I do not understand how BabyDweezil BabyDweezil can assert that it is against Wiki policy to omit sites which are critical of Newman/Social therapy yet not see the fault that self-published Social therapy sites are the only resources needed. Personally, I find Baby’s most current statement of “Freedomofmind.com and Rick Ross’ site are both commercial websites primarily designed to sell the services of these self proclaimed experts. Commercial websites are advised against as external links.” To be very hypocritical and self-defeating. What are your thoughts on this? Thanks, GrownUpAndWise 14:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC) GrownUpAndWise[reply]

This looks like a content dispute rather than a rules violation - he hasn't violated WP:3RR since he returned, and he does seem to be citing WP:EL correctly. I don't think I can help you here, as I don't want to jump into a content dispute with which I'm unfamiliar. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry About This

Sorry about the situation with Daniel Rodriguez, as well as the other articles and the Users involved. It originally began when a new User linked me with the article, asking and thanking me for help. I did several edits to bring the article to Wikipedia standards, but my edits were undone. I informed Mr. ChrisGriswold, and he did a lot of work on it, but even his edits were typed over. You found out about it, intervened; but now we're all dealing with a load of new Users working on the same pages at the same time. All I'm saying is that I'm sorry for this; all I did was try to improve the page. I didn't expect this to happen. Acalamari 18:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I will continue to help where I can. Acalamari 19:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

America's Beloved Tenor

Blech. I feel sorry for Mr. Dominguez, and expect the articles may run into Biography of Living Persons issues as they are so unattractive and poorly written. Thanks for devoting time to this mess. KP Botany 18:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really trying not to support you in this as the articles are painful reading. I'm going to rewrite them, over the next few days, though, just support my rewrites and copyedit as necessary (my writing is a bit turgid). Yes, I hate it when Wikipedia is used as a parking lot for crap. I support small theater groups, though, and would like to write one for one of my favorites, a small, but award when group, whose director's bio should be up before he gets a MacArthur Foundation genus award, so folks can come here to learn about the group, when I do please delete it with my permission if it looks like any of these. KP Botany 19:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprisingly, Greekvoice has been on the Mario Frangoulis Talk Page, increasing the suspicion. Acalamari 01:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting stranger by the minute. Exactly what are they hoping to achieve by heavily editing Opera and Broadway-related articles...I don't know! Anyway, I checked the history of the Daniel Rodriguez article, and it was JournalSquareNYC who created the page first, and after she created it, Leah01 appeared, as did all these other Users. The relation of JournalSquareNYC compared to the others is unknown, but the likes of Leah01, BroadwayDad, Operadog, etc, are definitely related somehow, and I am also interested to know about the checkuser results. Also, the overwhelming majority of the edits done to Daniel Rodriguez have been done by Leah01. Acalamari 02:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I edited Chelsea Opera Company so it looks ~~like less of a pile of crap~~ better. Please copyedit, comment, and protect it from being edited to drivel with your voices. I don't think the opera company has done anything to be so poorly represented in writing on Wikipedia, so let's at least make sure they get correct spelling, readable sentences and prose. KP Botany 21:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mario Frangoulis page is hideous. I've started running through it, it can't have been sourced since the editors don't spell the names of anything correctly or recognize the correct titles of their sources. Is there a worst of Wikipedia contest? KP Botany 22:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving most of the text to the talk page for clean up and verification before it is put back in the article, please support this. Gee, I can't find a Wikipedia article on Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Raincoat. Should I start one? KP Botany 22:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mr. Darcy, it's "Dreamcoat" as I corrected it in the article. I'm joking, but I realize with prose of the nature found in the article, there is quite a bit without clue. KP Botany 22:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was a little slow on the uptake there. I get it now :) | Mr. Darcy talk 22:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting a check user request. They all sound exactly alike, and are easily confused, one for the other, and all are whining, for example, about other small opera companies without independent sources--to which I say, tag away! KP Botany 02:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now they're posting solicitation notices on article talk pages.[3][4] I apologized to him for misconstruing his blatant solicitation of donations as just what it was, though. KP Botany 19:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So they're all the same family? I don't sound exactly like all my siblings. KP Botany 16:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'm just thinking about what I need to do - block all, block most, etc. Their only major offense is the vote-stacking on that AfD, so mass blocking would probably be excessive. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you ask about JournalSquareNYC also, or is it too late? Or did they give a whole list with the results? KP Botany 17:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's not the same person, based on IP addresses used by those users when they forgot to log in. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, he just sounds alike. KP Botany 18:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At a loss

Hey, hate to bother you, but I don't even know where to start with this user. Can you figure out what's going on? Whatever it is, it has to be something screwy; I don't like that he has libellous comments on his user page. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection request

Please unprotect template:Philosophy topics. It has been protected for long enough to get your message across. I would like to make some edits to the template unrelated to the dispute. If the dispute there spirals out of control again, I'll be sure to bring it to your attention so you can step in again. The Transhumanist 07:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MrDarcy, I agree with User:The Transhumanist's request, but with an exception. I am wondering if it is possible to restrict the article, temporarily, from updates by IP users. They, of course, can contribute to the discussion. I was part of the problem on the page mentioned (of course, I maintain that I was the party in the right - but those who read the comments can judge for themselves). Right now there are two main parties to the edit war - myself and User:Buridan. There has been a request for comment, people are responding and I'm going to approach the editing on this page with a higher level of 'professionalism'. It feels like this might bring more responsible and knowledgable people out of the woodwork leading to a consensus. But, there have been some reverts done without discussion by IP Users and that fuels the fires so to speak. Steve 18:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Unfortuately, this edit war spans multiple pages. The one I was thinking of is the List of basic philosophy topics. I think it would help to block anonymous user edits temporarily, but it isn't critical. Best wishes, Steve 19:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message turning down the semi-protection. My idea was more of a preventative measure for pages with lots of contention. But I appreciate your position. I'll let you know if there is a significant increase in anonymous user activity. And, thanks for looking into it. Best Wishes, Steve 21:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Land of the spree

Ah well, now we both know that the "libertarian" pipedreams of little groups of teenagers are "encyclopedic". What a joke WP is becoming. No doubt I'd be accused of breaching NPA if I identified a contribution toward the end of that AfD "debate" that's the epitome of earnest, affronted stupidity, and thereby has a certain unintended humor value. -- Hoary 07:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh, I seem to be drowning in AfD tempests. Perhaps I should just ignore this stuff. "Go ahead! It's "WikiPromotion'!" -- Hoary 04:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could take a look at Martin Perreault and Lee Isaacs, if you had time. -- Hoary 05:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illicit block

Hello Mr. Darcy, I have replied to your comments on my discussion page.FasterPussycatWooHoo 11:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asperger syndrom redirect

I'd like to ask you about assburger syndrome. In my eyes, it should have received a full deletion debate. At least in my locale, the pronounciation of assburger and asperger is exactly the same. Anyone hearing this term who is not familiar with it would have difficulty guessing at the spelling, especially due to the frequency with which one hears the words ass and burger (though not together). I'm not suggesting we must keep it (though I'd say as much at RfD) but at least let the debate run its course to see if others agree with me. Should it be undeleted and relisted, or taken to DRV? BigNate37_(T) 14:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geo.plrd/Phoenix (ROTFL)

Did you even read the page? It said Boo Also I only recreated it once, as a joke. And I speedy tagged those articles, for a reason. Scarlet met A7, (notability) and Boyfriends met A1, (No substance). G e o. 04:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyKungFu

Please keep an eye on this user User talk:2Cold06, who was created about the same time as GrandWizard in October 2006 and basically unused until now, since McGrandWizard is blocked. He has one edit to the Alpha Phi Alpha article, and today posted a request on the talk page for help on an article for C.C. Poindexter. Mr. Poindexter was never a member the actual fraternity and although he participated in early formation, he was not given a founder status. I feel the only reason this user wants Poindexter's article and the others he mentions is similar to the article on Sigma Pi Phi and the deleted article Alpha Kappa Nu; to disparage Alpha Phi Alpha, but I can't think of any Alpha who would want to devote time to persons that the fraternity doesn't venerate. Thanks--Ccson 04:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I caught that one edit earlier. I'll keep an eye on him, but let me know if he picks up where MKF last left off. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user User talk:CarmenBryan has made an opinion to the AFD for C.C. Poindexter after only joining wikipedia on Jan 7, 2007. The user just happens to have a copy of the book that MyKungFu references to refute my dates. This can only be another sockpuppet of Mykungfu. I dissatisified that he's trying to rig the AFD request and once again not acting in good faith.--Ccson 05:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually

No he does not have the right to blank notices that are placed there regarding vandalism. --Kukini 23:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave it be...but we seem to see the need to archive notices differently. --Kukini 23:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. OK. Like I said, despite the fact that the user is not behaving appropriately, I backed away (i.e., I stopped intervening). For what reason do you feel it appropriate to threaten another administrator with 3rr for replacing a post that he put on a user talk page that was deleted? --Kukini 23:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since 3rr is a technical issue, from my vantage point, I reverted twice and replaced other deleted notices once. I guess we do understand the issue of users being allowed to delete notices differently. If there was a ruling allowing users to delete notices regarding vandalism without archiving them, I am disappointed, but obviously will live with that. I will watch for the response to your request. Happy editing, --Kukini 23:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always have more to learn....I think I may have been in error here [5] too. I have asked for help from another admin to improve my learning/growth. I will do my best to learn from it and fix my errors. Just trying to help keep the wiki clean and strong. Best, --Kukini 23:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is proving to be an interesting and useful thread. Thanks for working with me on it a bit. Best, --Kukini 00:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking some time to learn more about the norms and rules in this area now. So...your first message to me served as a good "wake up call." Oh..btw...good to meet you. --Kukini 00:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phony admin?

I don't think that this user is an administrator, though his user page would have you think differently. I find this misleading and wrong. What is the proper way to handle this? –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. What I've noticed in the past month is that my life is made much easier if I just send my issues to the admins, rather than taking them into my own hands. Thanks for being patient, and thanks for being prompt. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's

I've replied to your comment on my talk page. Shimeru 20:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CC Poindexter

I think that the author's behavior in other respects does not bear on the notability or verifiability of the article, which I believe is the subject being discussed at AfD. If you think that he should be blocked or otherwise punished, then do it.

I'm sure that you intentions were good, but I see too many abuses at AfD to debate each in private. Sorry.

Kevin

--Kevin Murray 21:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Assertion that I attacked you as the nomnator for CC Poindexter Darcy, there is a big difference between criticizing the form of a nomination and attacking a nominator. I have done the former and not the latter at CC Poindexter. --Kevin Murray 21:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Opera Company

I really dislike one sentence leads, because on my browser/screen set up, they disappear as if there is not lead paragraph, only the following. KP Botany 01:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm fine with one paragraph when it comes to short articles, in particular. It's just the one sentence that I can't deal with. On the other hand, I've kinda lost interest in whether or not the article looks like crap after dealing with these folk(s). It's at least tolerable, properly spelled, and gives mostly accurate verifiable information. I will post mine to my sandbox (which I once created but could never find again) first, for you to look over and decide, before I create it, because I don't want to fall into the trap of not being able to read my own stuff and see it is awful. No matter how hard I work on my botany articles, always MPF or Curtis or Mr. Darwin or JB pop by correcting the most awful things--and I spell check and proof read. KP Botany 02:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please delete this copyrighted image?

I didn't know that this image (Image:Juliaallison.jpg) was copyrighted, and I used the wrong copyright tag. Could you please delete it? Thank you! Bearly 541 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bearly 541 02:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question on warning

Hi, I noticed the warning you left for Starwars1955 here, and I think you may have made a mistake. Starwars1955 has been blocked for something else for five days, so either you warned him for something he didn't do, or you warned him for something he did several days or weeks ago. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. Comparing your last edit to mine, I was trying to ensuring that your comments weren't tampered with. Starwars1955 seemed to be changing them. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this. Hrm... --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering something

Is there ever a case where a user talk page should become protected? Is this strictly taboo? Because there are a pile of 3rr violations here [6], clearly due to the fact that the blocked user is needling others by reverting the information on the user talk page. Still learning about all this here...--Kukini 02:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops...I see that I was thinking correctly on this one. Sorry to bug ya. --Kukini 03:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you delete this image, too? [7]

I am not using it on the Links Incorporated page. Thanks Bearly 541 03:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation issues arise

It's looking like most of the article is largely plagiarized from its sources without use of quotation marks. I removed one, but something has to be done about the whole article, as an administrator, what is it that should be done? KP Botany 17:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which article? We'll have to find the last clean version, if any, and revert to that. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, Daniel Rodriguez. I made notes on the talk page, but I suspect the other article may be problematic also, as they write alike from the same computer. They did source it in a way that it's easy to check, though. I removed one sentence, but I don't want to spend any more time on this. KP Botany 18:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am now editing on this article (and no, I am in no way related to the "family" of users, nor do I have any connection with Rodriguez, Broadway Magic, that Opera company, etc). I was asked by one of them to try to fix the article, and am convinced that with the references provided a good article can be written. The subject certainly meets Wiki's notability criteria, even if the editing/creation of the article has been contentious. Jeffpw 23:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has never been in question on that article. However, the concerted attempt to use Wikipedia as a PR outlet is obviously against policy, and the article needs a serious trimming to make that happen. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with you on that, and plan on doing a major rewrite on the article tomorrow, after reading all of the references provided. If nothing else, the editors who have been working on it have certainly provided us with lots to work with! :-) Jeffpw 23:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And each editor has variously attacked everyone attempting to fix the article, although Mr. Darcy far worse than me, and Mr. Darcy didn't get the least bit irritated, and the editors lashed out at everyone who tried to show the editors the right direction. It is one thing to be dealing with a single poorly written article by one user, but it's not very pleasant to deal with 3 poorly written, poorly spelled, improperly sourced articles missing quotations, by editors with a conflict of interest, with the wrong titles for everything, and by 8 'shadow socks' of one user who wholesale reverts all changes to try to keep it an unusable. The articles were simply unreadable until people other than these editors started editing them. And, yes I got a little testy after spending a few hours researching and improving their article by this duplicitous group only to have them turn from attacking Mr. Darcy to attacking me. They still don't have the information from the article about singing at age 10 right, either, so please check everything carefully or just read the articles and write something up. Thanks Mr. Darcy for maintaining your cool through this, I really do think Wikipedia is an appropriate place for off-off-broadway, whereas there never would have been a place in Britannica. Oh, and I will just ask you to verify mine first after seeing this. KP Botany 00:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles C. Poindexter

Darcy,

If you want to move the Poindexter article somewhere like myspace, I can work on developing a neutral article for reposting.

--Kevin Murray 21:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like the text moved somewhere where I can redevelop the article for reposting at a later date.

Thanks.

--Kevin Murray 21:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How Many Will Be Blocked

These are the Users that KP Botany listed. How many have, and will, be blocked? Technically all but Leah01 would be indefinitely blocked, wouldn't they?

Just asking, as I was also dealing with these Users. Acalamari 02:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All but Leah01 and the IP (we don't indefblock IP addresses). Might take me a while to get through them all, but that's what I'll do. The editor behind them agreed to edit just via Leah01, and since there wasn't a serious violation here, I don't see any cause to block that account. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that IP addresses are not indefinitely blocked. If they were, Users who use have that address but don't vandalize would be blocked. Anyway, it seems that this incident is pretty much over. If you need me for anything in the future, just contact me and I'll see what I can do. Acalamari 03:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Darcy, you're just too nice. KP Botany 04:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take another look

At the Daniel Rodriguez article? I have spent several hours workingon it today, and I think all of the issues have been addressed. I went ahead and removed the resume and clean up tags, since I think they have been taken care of. If you still see either issue as a problem, feel free to revert me. Additionally, I checked every reference to make sure it supported the assertion in the article, and they did at the time. That one editor has made a change that is not supported by the reference as it now stands, and I have contacted him on his talk page about it. Jeffpw 23:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's just one thing though: the page is a mess of sources. I noticed that some things in the article are sourced two, or even three times. Can this be changed so that the more reliable source is the main source? Acalamari 00:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, it's rare one hears that too many sources were used! I suppose some could be dropped, but considering yesterday the article had "Unsourced" tags slapped all over it, I think the contributers wanted to err on the side of caution. Also, areas where there are three refs given were done that way because there were many examples given in a sentence, and the refs support individual assertions in the sentence. Jeffpw 00:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thought as well. The problem was that the original author/contributor was trying to overstuff the article, and got the mistaken impression that anything that could be sourced could stay. Now it still reads like a press release, with far too much detail, and the references section is kind of hilarious between its length and the use of some substandard sources. One way to attack the problem would be to trim out anything that doesn't come from a highly reliable source, like a daily newspaper, or in the case of basic personal details, from his official site. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am now trimming references, and also "fluff" that, while perhaps interesting, does not really add to his notability. I submitted the article to be assessed and peer reviewed, so we can get some more outside opinions. This article will become a decent example of Wikipedia, or I will die trying (and I am now inclined to think that the latter is a distinct possibility). Jeffpw 10:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'll get there. The guy isn't just notable; he's borderline famous in the U.S., as a lot of sports fans know who he is by sight/sound, if not by name. So there's plenty to work with. Keep it going - you're doing a great job. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to die, Jeff. It's at least readable, or actually better right now. Good articles about minor celebrities that are properly informative and resourced are an important area in Wikipedia, one that Wikipedia can beat the larger, stabilized, paid researcher encyclopedias in (although they don't have to deal with some aspects of Wikipedia), so it is, imo, worth the effort to go a little overboard making sure it really is a good article. It's where Wikipedia will, imo, eventually stake its reputation in usefulness.

Another editor is right now getting ready to write an article on C. C. Poindexter. It had been up for deletion. Poindexter started the first African-American fraternity, however, he was also an agronomist, somewhat known in his time (there were a large handful of African-American agronomists in the early 20th century) for his contribution in another area, something I had seen while researching maize. So, now, we got the maize article, we got books on Poindexter, and someone will put a credible biography of him on Wikipedia. I think they're very important, maybe not today, but give it time, and Wikipedia will be the starting point for information of this nature because of folks who are willing to take on these biographies. KP Botany 03:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BDORT Talk page vandalism

Hi MrDarcy, the same account is back doing the same thing - blanking the Talk page, replacing with same message, signing as Richardmalter. Thanks for any help you can provide. Crum375 21:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked that account (looks like a new one to me). | Mr. Darcy talk 22:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, it is very much appreciated. Yes, the previous account with the exact same blanking, edit and signature was an anon-IP,[8][9] whereas now it's a logged in single-purpose account.[10] Crum375 22:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I present an administrator to ArbCom?

User:KillerChihuahua has been harrassing me ever since I mistakenly placed a warning on other user's pages. He also has monitored my edits for other users as well as rudely harrassed me in an incident where I was seeking to confirm if my ex was editing on Wikipedia. He has done this to me as well as other vandals. I really am tired of his rhetoric, and I am highly certain of asking ArbCom to revoke his adminship. Can you please help me or point me the direction of doing this? Thanks. Bearly 541 02:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you before, you must first try other methods of dispute resolution before Arbcom will hear a case. And I draw your attention to the advice and comments you received the last time you asked about this, which you did not apparently read thoroughly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KC, I'm not sure why you felt compelled to follow Bearly here and respond; it seems to lend credence to the claim that you're harassing her. Bearly, KC is right - you need to follow dispute resolution procedures first before going to ArbCom. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merely trying to save you time and effort, letting you know I am a) aware of her spurious charges and b) have already advised her appropriately. You may wish to rethink your position considering that a user who harasses other editors, as she has been harassing Jersyko, is likely to be monitored. Monitoring is not harassment, nor is it even "lending credence" to an absurd claim. I suggest you read the history of this situation before giving undue weight to her claims. I will be happy to provide you with extensive diffs, if you wish. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: I take exception to your phrasing of "felt compelled". Perhaps you did not consider how that would read. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chihuahua didn't add the dispution link. I really don't care anymore because I am sick of being harrassed by him and others. When I come on here, it's like I am in jail, because he always monitors my edits and comments rudely, which is senseless. Bearly 541 02:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my talk page, not a place for the two of you to continue your scrum. KC, I've had plenty of history with Bearly, all of it positive, so perhaps you shouldn't be levying accusations at me. You can take all the exception you want. I'm not involved in the dispute, and for you to come here and attempt to pre-empt her conversation with me is shady, at best. That closes the matter as it applies to me. Please take your dispute elsewhere. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my comment as an attack??? Yet you call me "shady" and use "scrum"? Please explain what in my post was a personal attack. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same Question

I have the same question: What exactly did I say that was a personal attack? What I said, was the other person appeared to be unclear as to what POV mean on Wikipedia and gave a link that section. I also pointed out that the person attempting to prevent change on the page through the addition of verifiable fact was, in fact, a professional advocate for the organization in question. That too is a fact. -- PBurns3711

"What exactly did I say that was a personal attack?" See [11] for some references perhaps? MikeHobday 10:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any place where I accused PBurns of making personal attacks. I did warn another user who appeared to be making personal attacks against PBurns, but that's been the extent of my involvement. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles C. Poindexter

I noticed you closed a recent [[12]] on this topic as the article was apparently created by a WP:SOCK of a banned editor. I just noticed the article was recreated by a newly registered user. WP:AGF but it does seem a bit suspicious that someone registered and created this article the day after it was deleted (and had no other edits). I honestly don't know the history here and to me it looks like a stub that may or may not be adequately sourced, but it might merit watching... as does the creator probably. Like I said, I don't know the history of this article and the banned editor so your thoughts on what appropriate action is might be different.--Isotope23 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with your approach. If I did already have the mop and bucket I would not have blocked at this time. I would have added the article to my watchlist (which I actual did) as well as the editor and kept an eye on him. I actually took a bit of time to look at User:Mykungfu & User:2Cold06's edits to see if there were any sock "tells" but I didn't see anything that jumped out. Personally my philosophy is to be very judicious about blocking, particularly indef blocks, unless there is clear evidence of malfeasance. That said, I would be shocked if this isn't User:Mykungfu.--Isotope23 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Libel Issue

Hi, I have two issues that I think are appropriate for an Admin.

IP user:87.106.61.219 at this time of this post has only made two contributions. The first was to request an unblock of IP User:85.214.71.55 and to insert libelous material into the article on Nathaniel Branden.

The content in question has been in dispute for quite some time. The talk page shows the back-and-forth comments under two sections, "CGI" and "Accreditation".

My position is that the graduates of this school, Nathaniel Branden (a living person), and the school itself are being libeled if the statement that CGI is not an accredited school is wrong or misleading. It implies that this school is just a diploma mill and therefore the diplomas are meaningless. This is one of the worst kinds of libel since it strikes at a person's professional credibility and ability to make a living and it directly attacks the school's ability to attract future students.

On the talk page I have provided a sufficient sources to back up my arguments and have shown that the source used to back the libelous statement is not a valid or creditable source. (you can read the reviews of the book on Amazon and see statements saying it attacks Branden).

A second problem, which may be related, is the reversion of the sourced entry of Ayn Rand from the List of philosophers born in the twentieth century. This is being done by IP user 217.172.182.239 who gives no explanation on the talk page - just repeated deletions). This is the kind of thing that starts the worst kind of edit war - one where people's minds don't meet on the talk page and where concensus is ignored.

I wonder if sock-puppet activity exists in either of these cases. I would appreciate any help you can offer. Best Wishes, Steve 19:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect

Mr. Darcy, I am sorry for the "drama" last night. A sockpuppet of MyKungfu vandalized my page three times last night, and your dear administrator friend, KillerChi, reverted all of the vandal warnings [13] on the IP page and told me that the edits were not vandalism. Could you please semi-protect my page so that this won't happen again? I am very tired of being treated rudely on Wikipedia by administrators like Chi, and it's my time to go. Thanks for understanding. I'm gone (finally). Bearly 541 00:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning a user

I approach you concerning the continuing conduct of a user whom you had blocked previously for 24 hrs.This user is User:Kishanjoshi.He made an extremely tendentious edit to the article History of India with prejudicial and ethnically derogatory language[14]. This edit was reverted by another user User:New Rock Star [15], following which Kishanjoshi impersonated another user's signature User:Sigma 7 [16]to harass New Rock Star with some pretty hurtful remarks, violating NPA[17]. Kishanjoshi then got blocked for 24 hrs[18]. He has returned, and reverted his old edits back to History of India [19]. I am concerned that edit-warring might resume on his part so I am intimating you of this problem as a preventative measure from the situation escalating to the previous levels. I request you to watch the article in question and intervene in case of any impropriety (none has happened as of this moment though). Thaa.Rumpelstiltskin223 02:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Let me know if he pulls that impersonation stunt again - I'm not inclined to block him over a content dispute, but impersonating another user is unacceptable. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, listen to me

I need your help. This person: Dasnedius/Myer Link/Wiki-star/Frieza-bomber/General Cui/etc. is the one who created multiple accounts and kept going in as those names to revert the pages. I just didn't know how to stop him. I don't want to create multiple account names because I know it's wrong. I had done this prior and I no longer want to do this. I can start new user pages but I do not want to. I just want a last chance as my original user name. Bare in mind that it would make it easier for you to track my activity instead of me creating new user names as well. All I want is a chance to prove to you that it is that person who is the sockpuppeteer and is creating multiple accounts right now. Please, just help me get rid of the indefinite block. I promise not to break the 3rr rule. I will not create any puppets either. After this, if you find me make a mistake, then I deserve to be indefinitely blocked. But please, I am coming to you with honesty and wholeheartedly, member to member. Please, help unblock me so I may be a part of the community. Please give me one last chance. I couldn't sign in so I had to give this message to you through my ip. - Zarbon

I'm going to answer here because I'm not sure where else to post it where you'll see it. As far as I am concerned, you need to take a few weeks off from Wikipedia before I'll consider unblocking you. You have a long history of policy violations, and yet past blocks have made NO dent in your inappropriate behavior. You violated several of our core policies repeatedly, and what's more troubling is that you seem bent on participating in edit wars with other users. The reverts on Zarbon and Dodoria were completely out of control. If you believe another user is editing from multiple accounts, then there's a procedure for investigating those - one you've used before - but you chose not to use them and instead created a sock of your own. The bottom line here is that you should come back in a few weeks and we can discuss an unblock. (And by the way, if you follow through on this: Bare in mind that it would make it easier for you to track my activity instead of me creating new user names as well you will make the situation much worse for yourself. Using sockpuppets to avoid a block is a surefire way to earn an indefinite block.) | Mr. Darcy talk 04:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I am going to listen to you because you speak the truth. I will do whatever you say as long as you can help somehow reactivate my account in a few weeks. But I promise you, the edit warring, etc. is over. I am a person of my word and I do not lie. The only reason I had done that puppeteering or what not was to stop a real puppeteer from continuing to create more and more incessant reverts. I understand that it was wrong, and I swear to you I won't do it. I will check back here once a week to hear from you. And whenever you feel that I've learned my lesson, please help me out to reactivate my original account. Much thanks. - Zarbon

Fair enough. Let's revisit this in two weeks from the block date, which would be January 7th. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I have listened to you and I have come back. It is now Jan. 15th. Please notify me how we can reactivate my account. I am a person of my word and I will not make any mistakes as in the past. I really miss the community and I promise to do my best. Please help me rectivate it. Thanks again for your help. - Zarbon

You may file an unblock request on your old user talk page (User talk:Zarbon). I placed a template there, so all you need to do is replace the dummy text I used with the reason you feel you should be unblocked. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I did that. So how long do I have to wait before I receive a response from an admin? - Zarbon

Template:Catholic-link

A deletion discussion in which you voted, that of Template:Catholic-link, is up for deletion review, where the template may be deleted or retained depending upon the review discussion. You are welcome to comment and/or vote at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Catholic-link. The key point of this discussion is whether the "default keep by no consensus" result was correct; discussion of the template itself is secondary (but may still be important). — coelacan talk — 04:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism only account

Hey Darcy, check out this: Special:Contributions/User:Jack1214. Essentially vandalism only. I suggest someone get rid of him. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 13:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave him a final warning. Looks like a kid, so I'm going to give him one last chance. He's only hit two articles and the vandalism was just dumb, but not really awful (no profanity, racism, etc.). Thanks for the heads-up. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets of MyKungFu

Hi, Mr. Darcy. I am semi-retired/retired from Wikipedia, due to this mediation case against Killer Chihuahua. I noticed that you have had a conflict with her regarding her conduct, so I put your name as a minor party. However, can you please warn MyKungFu's IP sockpuppet for reverting edits on the AKA page, because I don't want to get into anymore drama with her (KC). Thanks. Bearly 541 20:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored semi-protection to the AKA page. However, I'm not a party to your conflict with KC and have struck my name out on the mediation page, with an explanation in the discussion section. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please don't blame every individual who puts a bad or poor edit on mykungfu. i haven't touched been doing anything like that at all... 172.168.33.152 01:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Darcy, I am being railroaded. My questions on the topic certainly led to the project being formed. I haven't got a 'network' on wikipedia (unlike the people who are trying to railroad me) and the presentation on the block request is *ahem* somewhat biased, illogical, and misrepresentative on many points. I note that people who apparently have no connection with anything relevant have jumped in or been recruited to add their opinions. Even worse, I couldn't find the material in the first place, I tried and have only now received a link. The situation is really a nonsensical escalation.FasterPussycatWooHoo 12:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep an eye on Real96 who appeared mid January and immediately immersed in editing the black fraternities and of course Sigma Pi Phi. User also seems quite familiar with wiki policies, creating templates and categories, etc. a great feat for a new user.--Ccson 18:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: No personal attacks

You warned me to make personal attacks yet ignored [this] edit by Chuprynka which made unfounded personal attacks such as claiming I am an avid viewer of pornography, how is this fair? --Yarillastremenog 19:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

I left you a comment on AN/I regarding User:Sarenne, explaining the issue a bit more. Thanks. -/- Warren 00:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knowpedia

You blocked Knowpedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely as a "vandalism-only account," but looking through the contribs that doesn't seem to be the case. Would you object if I shortened the block? Thanks. Chick Bowen 15:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I've shortened it to one week; if he goes back to good contributions, fine--if not, it will of course be indefinite next time. Chick Bowen 01:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC deletion request

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SteveWolfer

Quoting the standard instructions at the top of the RfC page: "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)."

Because User:Simoes has rescinded his certification of this dispute, which leaves this dispute with only one endorser, and because time has passed the 48-hour deadline cited above, this RfC needs to be deleted. Please correct me if I am mistaken. The Transhumanist 15:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help

Hello MrDarcy,

Re: [20] thanks for your comments.

Any suggestions you may have in this checkuser case?

After looking over the evidence, your opinion on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01 is welcome. Travb (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resp

Hi, thank you for your feedback on my usertalkpage, and the civil tone used which doesn't seem to make sweeping prejudicial judgments. Please note my response on my userpage. If you would like to give constructive criticism about my userpage (beyond what you've already said) please use specifics, and try show how your comments relate to wikipolicy (e.g. saying "WP:USER" for example. Rfwoolf 07:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

del rev

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Assburger syndrome. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

May I ask what your justification was for salting it in a speedy deletion? I thought articles had to pass a full AfD debate for that. Anyway, it doesn't seem as "clear" an "attack page" as you thought. --Random832(t c) 13:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayyavazhi

Sir, Pls read the discussions carefully. There are definilely a large numberof Ayyavazhi's than jews and Zoroastrians in India. And hence Ayyavazhi is notable there. Also the sources used are not evn histirian views but university papers, one from University of Madras, one of the (one among the three oldest universities) most credible universities in India. Another from Madurai Kamaraj University a leading university in Tamil Nadu. Aren't they valid? If so, what is the value of third party citations in wikipedia? - _Д |Ж|_Д 20:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, Thanks and Okey. - _Д |Ж|_Д 20:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, now please see into the edit history of India Article. I just cited (with inline citation) the source. And've just posted a message in the discussion page about it. They are reverting continiously without discussing. No one is here to ask? If I edit once more I will be blocked for violating 3rr. What shall I do now? It's pity If wikipedia find some other way to handle such undiscussed edits. I request, Please help - _Д |Ж|_Д 21:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Charles_C._Poindexter. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MrDouglass 01:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for the support. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MKF

Just a warning that the sockpuppet attacks are back. I've detailed his travels here.-Robotam 17:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. It's not the worst idea in the world to file a checkuser, if only to make sure that we don't have hard evidence that they are different users. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mr. Darcy. I am 100% positive that I am not Mykungfu. This is turning out to be funny drama. Real96 01:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore him. He's bitter because he's banned, and no matter how hard he tries, he never gets anywhere with his childish behavior. He was given many, many chances to reform, and he blew it. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reduce indent) Why did you revert my edits if the user is clearly making a NPA attack and violating "no original research"? For the second time, I am not MyKungFu! Real96 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's MKF, he's actually engaged in a conversation with himself on wikipedia.--Ccson 05:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As expected, the case user came back negative on me. I wish people would apologize for their actions and move along. Real96 01:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it wasn't negative - it was inconclusive. I have no idea who you want an apology from, but then again, I still have no idea where you think I reverted one of your edits. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reduce indent) Please see my talk page for a response. Also, please assume good faith. Thanks. Real96 02:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block question

User:Redstormman has posted a request for unblock on an indef-block on which you were the blocking admin. I'm sure the block is fine but was wondering if there was a link to the sockpuppetry case or abuse history of the prior account that I or whoever winds up reviewing the unblock could take a look at, since I'm not familiar with it. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 18:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, the link to the sockpuppet case was actually on his user page. I'm pretty conservative with Mykungfu socks, but this one was extremely blatant (not least because St. John's University is one of his favorite targets). Let me know if you have any other questions. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, thats the first thing I thought of too...that it was MKF. Syrthiss 18:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd never encounted Mykungfu before. I should have thought to check his userpage as well as talk. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mykungfu's a long-term abuser who hasn't gotten the message that he's banned. I try to keep an eye on his favorite targets to find new socks. He primarily goes after African-American fraternities and sororities. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I reading the userpage notice correctly that this is the SIXTY-FOURTH sockpuppet relating to this user? In any event, I see that Yamla has denied the unblock request. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a typo~- I only remember two previous suspected-sockpuppet pages - but the user has definitely used at least a dozen named sockpuppets, as well as forty or fifty anonymous addresses (the result of AOL's usage of proxy addresses that change every 15 minutes). | Mr. Darcy talk 21:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR BLOCK

Sir you blocked me for 24 hrs as violating 3rr. Please see does the 4 reverts comes within 24 hrs [21]. The fourth revert is made after 10 minutes after the duration exceeded. The guideline says "An editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24 hour period. Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing." Then on what conscience you blocked me. - _Д |Ж|_Д 19:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars, Episode II

Hi, I strongly suspect that User:DonaldEvans is the infamous Starwars1955. He registered recently, waited the allotted time until he could edit Brett Favre, and then started changing around references again. His edit summaries are strongly reminiscent in style of the aforementioned blocked user, and just for an added bonus, this IP, very familiar to those who know of Starwars1955, has blanked DonaldEvans's talk page. Please address this matter at your convenience. Thanks. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 22:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DonaldEvans

Thanks for taking care of that block so quickly... I wasn't sure what I could do as far as reporting it since he had only made a couple of edits, but I definitely agree with your conclusion that he was a sockpuppet of our good friend starwars. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 23:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about the user justanother, i was just saying like any ol user.Johnpedia 18:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bookishreader45

It looks like the sockpuppet has returned: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mr Bullockx

I'm not seeing the connection. What made you suspicious? | Mr. Darcy talk 02:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I have forgotten to add the link. I have done so now. -WarthogDemon 02:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Men's rights and Afp2258 (talk · contribs)

While I don't disagree with your revert to "Men's rights", maybe you could add a note to the talk page explaining? That would help the collaborative process :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing

It seems that someone has said I've been fishing for the lastest checkuser . . . since it seemed like a sockpuppet to you, should you unblock him? As I don't want to cause a problem for you if I did not provide sufficient information. -WarthogDemon 04:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mlkjr (talk · contribs) and MKF

You indefinitely blocked this user upon his recreating Gamma Phi, and he requested unblock; I declined in view of his editing's having been plainly similar to that of MKF. In my {{unblock reviewed}} I suggested, perhaps ill-advisedly, that if he was interested in continuing to edit, he might once more request {{unblock}} and append a note requesting that he be added to the omnibus MKF RfCu; he has now made such request. I readily recognize that a checkuser might not be dispositive here, and so if you think it clear that this is an MKF sock and that we ought not to waste any additional time on him, you should feel free to ignore my dalliances with the user (for which I should probably apologize; I appreciate that I might well have fed, rather than denied, MKF, but I'm a grand process wonk) and decline his {{unblock}}. Sorry for any inconvenience... Cheers, Joe 04:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your reply. I only learned of his having before being principally an AOLer upon my reading a post a few threads up—I clearly ought to have read up on MKF before involving myself—and wouldn't have suggested RfCu to him had I known (although, as you say, he may simply now have a new ISP). Kudos, in any event, for your yeomanly work relative to sundry sockpuppeting vandals. :) Joe 08:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work getting ahead of Mykungfu this week. I'd say this was his most concerted effort to mess with the wiki yet, and it failed largely because of your efforts. Thank you. BTW, there's a new editor moving through some of the same pages - looks innocuous so far, but let me know if you see any suspicious edits. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- thanks-Robotam 15:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Calliste Jr.

Just touching base with you to gain some clarification on your recent comment on the mediapr Talk page. Thanks.--mediapr 06:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hashim Music

Please re-post the Hashim Music article information you DELETED when adding the re-direct. It should not have been ENTIRELY DELETED without first posting a clean-up or other tag to gain my attention to fix something that was not correct. Their are other members of Hashim Music as an artist. The artists Hashim Music is not solely Jerry Calliste Jr. That's why it's good to ask before deleting. In addition the Hashim Music accomplishments influences and contributions as an artists are not the same as the accomplishments, influences and major contributions as executive. More information was forthcoming in regards to the Hashim Music article. Thank you. --mediapr 06:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's work together on cleaning up both articles to clearly define its neutrality and separate identity. It also must be noted that Hashim Music is a music publishing company and certainly a separate entity other than Jerry Calliste Jr. Redirecting Hashim Music to point to Jerry Calliste Jr. is like redirecting an article on Trump Plaza to the Donald Trump article. Sure the two are associated but separate entities and separate accomplishments and influences. --mediapr 06:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, both articles indicated that Hashim Music is the current name of Jerry Calliste Jr. As such, they get one article. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As we have stated if the Hashim Music article warrants "Cleaning Up" then let's clean it up. But DELETING the information without a) first asking the members to help clean it up and make the proper changes and b) properly nominate the article for deletion and allow members to vote on weather or not it should be deleted. But to take matters into your own hands when I am certain you are not even familiar with the subject and the article contents is not the proper action to take.* * *

I haven't deleted anything. The two names refer to the same person, so all information should be in a single article. While I have your attention, you need to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest carefully. If you're handling PR for Bassmint (as you state here), then you shouldn't be editing articles on Calliste/Hashim at all. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted the Hashim Music information, references and external links that were made a part of that article. The information is gone. Before taking matters into your own hands this would have been the proper way to handle the conflict of interests. By posting links to my talk page and allowing ample time for me or someone else on Wiki to correct the mistake.

If you are so aware of the rules, as an admin you should also know that just removing, deleting, replacing or redirecting (which deletes the content within the article) as the first option is not the correct action to take. If everyone decided that they would delete information and articles based on their own understanding without first requesting a change of information this Wiki would not work.

If it the article bothered you that much and you are one to operate within the rules, by pointing them out to others to justify your actions, why didn't you first ask for assistance to clean up the article?

Then after a period of time with no response to that initial request why not nominate the article for deletion or redirect? You took matters into your own hands as if you solely owned or were hired to do what you did. --mediapr 21:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're very confused about policies and procedures here. Converting an article into a redirect doesn't delete the content (it's here, for example). And you're conflating deletion with redirection - two totally separate topics. On a separate note, do you want Jerry Calliste Jr. to be deleted? Place {{db-author}} at the top of the article and another admin can delete it. I'm going to restore the content there, because despite its problems, blanking the article isn't the right procedure. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I will remain on Wiki yes I am going to remove the articles I started thank you (Hashim Music and Jerry Calliste Jr.). The information will be added to the company web sites. It's unfortunate that you decided to explain and point out procedure after the fact. Also NONE of the Hashim Music information was posted behind any of the Old Version, Current Version or New Version links you decided to add to the top of the page. The Jerry Calliste Jr. info is not the same info that was posted for Hashim Music. Like I said you DELETED or removed the Hashim Music information when you redirected the page.--mediapr 21:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We will also engage you in a mediation session about this matter. Not to restore the articles but to discuss your actions and non-actions.--mediapr 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, nothing was deleted. It was all there in the history. When an article is deleted, prior versions are no longer visible to non-admins. Anyway, I'm not sure what your complaint is, since you wrote the original article that identified Calliste and Hashim Music as the same person. That was my basis for changing one article into a redirect. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Sassy555

Hi- you blocked this user a while back for adding copyright images and edit warring. He is back again doing the same thing. He has done this for more months than I can remember - adds the same pictures over and over, edit wars, doesn't communicate, disappears for a while, returns again and repeats - same pictures, same articles, same behavior. I think this Sassy account is building a record of his activities so if he tries to use sock puppets it will be easy to track. Anyway, can you help with the current situation again? -- Stbalbach 16:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comments

you objected to my comments:

I would like Dino to document his claim that Jim Robinson is 'litigious'. is exactly the sort of comment that doesn't belong on AN/I. It has nothing to do with the matter at hand and is not something that requires admin attention at all.

I don't think you realise that this user [DeanHinnen] 'claimed' that an Admin who became an Admin in May 06, was "one of Wiki's most senior admins" and he convinced the Wiki bookkeeper (who isn't even an active editor) to edit the Free Republic article on his behalf, to his POV, based on his 'claims' that he spoke to a noted author who supposedly 'admitted' to him that he plagiarized (or worse) one of his own articles, under threats or implications of a lawsuit against Wiki from the org that he 'claims' to be an attorney for. I felt that his 'claim' that Jim Robinson was 'litigious' when I can only find two lawsuits from him needed to be challenged in light of his other 'claims'. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 01:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you realize what AN/I is for. That claim didn't belong on that board at all. You were just trying to make a point, and it was poor judgment on your part. I have to say, I'm not terribly impressed by the behavior of any of the parties to this ongoing dispute. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real96 Check User

Mr. Darcy, can you have the check user do an independent check user on me, per my request? This is to confirm that I am not MyKungFu. Thanks. Real96 04:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There already was such a checkuser performed, and the results were inconclusive. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Well, have a great day! Real96 16:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My utmost apologies, I really didn't mean to offend you, I was just saying about the check user, I really don't want this to turn in to an unfriendly situation as I would like to remain positive with other wikipedians. Anyway my apologies and I hope we can reamin friends and be civil - // Telly addict 16:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply and I hope we can remain civil, thanks for your civility and happy editing, sorry for any offence caused to you! // Telly addict 16:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking DieGuy, he/she vandalised Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service twice, however I do think that that account was an impersonator of Wateva100. Thanks for remaining civil, and thanks for (as it seems) forgiving me for the checkuser matter. Thanks....Telly addict 20:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help over at CAT:CSD

Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Oh and if you're already working away on CSD please disregard this message; it's not meant as a slight against any hard work you're already doing. Cheers! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars, Episode III

Take a look at this diff, which shows the IP address which is very reminiscent of the repeat offender that is Starwars1955. He has removed all of the line by line citations again. What can/should be done? –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 20:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the page is already protected, so there's nothing else to do. I think that's a lot safer than a range-block. Let me know if he returns, esp. as a new user (I see one new user with just one contrib, and it's to that page). | Mr. Darcy talk 21:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]