Jump to content

User talk:SGGH/Archive 2010/June

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Richard Norton

This is like being in a bad dream [1] – how can we stop him from badmouthing me at every opportunity? ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 19:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So I see – thanks anyway!! ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 20:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And more – how in God's name can we put a stop to this? ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 21:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but I've blocked him at this time. S.G.(GH) ping! 23:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to be certain you noticed that was an off-Wiki action. I'm not going to raise a fuss, but you probably are going to catch hell for that and you shouldn't be going down that path accidentally.—Kww(talk) 23:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why, it is Commons - and both users are active there and are aware that each other can and will such comments. I have raised the issue at ANI for a block review, and am happy to have it reviewed critically (as long as it is civil). S.G.(GH) ping! 23:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The fact that Treasury Tag can be here complaining about another editor badmouthing him, on the same day he was trying to have me banned for complaining about a far worse personal attack is hypocrisy beyond belief! That any Admin could then have banned for a comparativly mild comment [2] on another project confounds reasoning. The pair of you should be answering for this.  Giacomo  13:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have explained my reasoning. I do not view RANs actions as being at all conducive to a harmonious editing environment, regardless of where he posts them. ANI has overturned the block, I am fine with that, that is ANIs purpose. If you have a related problem with TT I suggest you take it up there. S.G.(GH) ping! 13:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Category: XXXX deaths

Just stumbled across the discussion of your death graph, in which you suggested the slight bulge between 1968-73 may be due to the Vietnam War. I think that's unlikely as most of the deaths in the Vietnam would have been (in Wiki terms) non-notable.

Rather than thinking of extra deaths 1968-73 I suggest there's a lack of deaths in the period running up to 1968 caused by the premature deaths in WWI of young people who would otherwise have gone on to be notable.

Cheers, Bazj (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly a thought. That never occurred to me. SGGH ping! 11:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Further thought ~ extra deaths would occur in the gender proportions prevalent in the late sixties, a lack of deaths due to WWI would impact the proportion so as to make it more female. Proving this would require breaking down the deaths by gender ~ more work than either of us would care to try I suspect, and likely (partially?) masked by the social changes at that time making more women wiki-notable. Bazj (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
So you're saying that deaths in WWI, WWII etc. cause an absence of deaths in the later periods, for obvious reasons? the wars, of course, influence the graph in two ways. Firstly, people notable before the war died in it, and secondly, people are notable for having served in it, and might otherwise not had articles (and thus not registered on the graph). S.G.(GH) ping! 14:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your question

My sig's set to rotate randomly amongst (I think) five colours and about thirty phrases, the code's all in User:TreasuryTag/sig – it comes out in a different combination each time I use it. Except some spooky times when it appears identical in consecutive edits. That's weird ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 19:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That's crazy. Cool. SGGH ping! 19:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

RAN

Hi. I don't understand your block of Richard Arthur Norton, which appears to be based on this edit, which you describe as "sniping". I've been following this matter, and I don't understand how this comment is "sniping". It appears to be a reasonably accurate and, in the circumstances, remarkably civil comment. Even were it not accurate, it's still an opinion that he honestly holds, that impartial editors could also reasonably arrive at, and if true it's intensely relevant to the discussion. Would you be able to explain the logic here? - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The block for WP:BATTLE for responding to a mass deletion request on Commons is absurd. Also removed the pretty pictures here - please keep such decorations on your user page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The block would have been fitting if the comment had been made here on en.WP but as I said to TT when he told me about it (before you made the block), it had to be dealt with over at commons, not here. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. No problem. Has already been overturned. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The worst comment here I can see is this:
"Someone nominated every image with my name attached as a punitive measure after I opposed them in an article for deletion debate, just to harass and see which ones would stick."
Given that editors regularly tell other editors to fuck off with no retribution, and that RAN is in fact being harassed (an anon recently was blocked indefinitely for nominating 17 articles for deletion) this was an incredibly poor block and extremely bad judgment on your part. Okip 13:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • You were not notified, but there is a thread open at WP:ANI which, among other things, attacks your block of Richard and the fact that you gave in to "soliciting" – I feel that you should be informed of this. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 14:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed. I don't particularly feel a need to comment there unless specifically requested. Cheers for the heads up, though. S.G.(GH) ping! 14:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Red Gown squeak at me! (quietly) 11:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SGGH. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
Message added 13:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Immunize (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks

Thanks. Just doing my job (one of Wikipedia's less glamourous ones, but necessary nonetheless). Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

s'alright, I think you're what they call 'an active user' :P S.G.(GH) ping! 20:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Jardine

Hi. In the reference section of the Jardine article, your added "begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 0-413-77216-0 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              0-413-77216-0      end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              0-413-77216-0      end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              0-413-77216-0      end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              0-413-77216-0      end_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting" to the Douglas biography. I've no idea what it means! :) I removed it for now as it was showing up on the page and looked a bit ... odd. Happy to put it back if it's important! Any comments at the FAC would be much appreciated as well! Cheers. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I did what now? *investigates* S.G.(GH) ping! 20:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Ohhhh. I reinstalled Mozilla firefox and it's readded that blasted thing where Skype changes all numbers into phone numbers. Bloody things. Sorry! S.G.(GH) ping! 20:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thought you might want to know...

You deleted the username from a revision on HJ Mitchell's talk page. However, it shows the username of that editor in the edit summary for the next revision. Just thought you might want to know. Hi878 (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, got it. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Why did you hide the username anyway? There's no reason to hide the username; it's not disruptive, and in fact it was necessary to not hide that username, because hiding a username removes the edit from contributions (instead of showing up as a crossed out entry, it just doesn't show up at all). This would have been of vital importance in an SPI case if it weren't an admin clerk reviewing the case. Fortunately, it was, but still, please try to keep username deletions to cases where the username itself has a reason to be deleted. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For your help with the spammer. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, that same editor - now from a new IP - is mucking with Ian.thomson's user page, see here; is there a mechanism for obtaining quick blocks of new IP addresses that he hops to and abuses in this fashion? JohnInDC (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a WP:RANGEBLOCK but I'm not too familiar with them in terms of knowing if the range is too huge for collateral damage. S.G.(GH) ping! 22:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Page has been protected anyway. S.G.(GH) ping! 23:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Minho Kim

Don’t worry about yourself doubt :-) I reported this user this morning at WP:AIV along with the IP, but you can read all about it in my comment at WP:SPI. I had strong suspicions then before the new account was created but I was unsure myself as I am useless at spotting socks.

Indeed, that is where I spotted it. I think I just need time out to get my head switched back on :) S.G.(GH) ping! 20:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't request the CSD so I'll leave it up to them or whoever to AfD it. If it was a new article without the CSD's then I wouldn't have even though about deleting it, I was just a little surprised to see it survive with them, but I understand the thinking behind keeping it. I don't think it was CSD material in its self (of course previous deletions don't really enter into it), but what do I know I'm still new. --Wintonian (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding ANI

I apologise, I didn´t ment to discuss with you, I just wanted to clarify. I apologise once more and hope you didn´t understood my unswers as disrespect. Please. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, but I don't want to get drawn into debating my viewpoint with you on ANI, partly because it will look bad for you in the middle of your mediation. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Beleave me that I wouldn´t bother to make the report if I didn´t finded the situation really unfair, or insulting, as in this case. Honestly, it is not about the mediation, I don´t mind "loosing" the mediation, but I do mind being acused of any kind of racism, when that didn´t ever happend from my side, and when that is of the worste possible acusations that can be atributed to anybody. I gave the oportunity for the user to explain himself, he refused, the oportunity to apologise, and when he didn´t, I don´t see any other alternatives. I am a person of several ancestres, I lived in several countries, I´ve studied in several "international" schools, and finally I have worked/working in sevaralcountries, all this time getting along with people from all sides of the world. I apologise, but a phalse acusation that was directed several times to me by that user is very insultive to me, specially when dealing this "sensitive" issues... I´m not asking much, just to prevent further behavior of this kind. Anyway, I apologise for further bothering you with this. Thank you once again. FkpCascais (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

I've left some specific policy pointers on his talk page and am hopeful he'll use his block time to read them. — e. ripley\talk 23:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

IP user 69.110.12.49 continued personal attacks

The warning issued to IP user 69.110.12.49 by Todd in response to my complaint filed here has not had its desired effect as evidenced by this edit where IP user 69.110.12.49 again calls me a vandal on my talk page. I Respectfully request stronger action as the issued warning has had no effect.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: It has just come to my attention that the above-referenced IP account has very recently called good faith edits by other editors, "vandalism," as evidenced by this diff. It also appears that he is using multiple IP accounts to circumvent edit warring rules. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It is difficult to warn a fluctuating IP so I'll put the comment on the article talk. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you block the IP?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that is appropriate just yet, personally, though I appreciate it is a pain for you. I've put the warn on the article and I'll leave another on the IP that left you the specific message, but at the end of the day it isn't a brutal one it's just stubborn. I can protect your talk page for a bit if you would like. If you aren't satisfied with that, WP:ANI will get another admin opinion for you.
Honestly, I don't care too much about personal attacks. What is of greater concern is the fact that this IP user is fluctuating between different IPs. Now he's using IP 67.180.26.60 and left me this beauty. He left a similar message on Hertz1888 talk page. It is very frustrating when you are trying to edit productively and have to deal with a user having multiple IP accounts. What is there to do?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll run it by ANI. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I've also filed a sock investigation here--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Two more IPs (in addition to the ones you noted on ANI) have popped up and I believe they are connected to the ones noted above. They are 69.110.8.85 and 99.132.106.62. He's using so many, it's difficult to track. Obviously, a man on a mission with lots of time on his hands. Do you want me to add them to the ANI?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Might as well, be sure to include a diff that evidences why they appear connected. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
What happened to the ANI? Seems to have disappeared from the boards. Perplexed,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Never mind. It was archived and I restored it. Sorry to bother. Respectfully--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Chester Cathedral

Enormous thanks for your efforts there - sanity restored. phew. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't do much, but glad it is sorted S.G.(GH) ping! 16:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

AN/I 10 June 2010

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. Thank you. Anthony (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? What did I do? S.G.(GH) ping! 21:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is formally requested

A proposal has been raised to create a project or task force related to weaponry. When the proposer was made aware of the existence of the military history project's weaponry task force he cited the absence of coverage for weaponry related to law enforcement as possible grounds to move forward with an independent weaponry project. As law enforcement weaponry is far enough outside my project's purview I thought I would seek your input in the matter. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 02:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

MonkeyEvil

as an involved admin I thought I would give you a heads up of a new ANI. After your warning the user then again contacted me on facebook

[[3]] ZacharyLassiter (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR notice on User:Taztouzi

Hi. I posted this information at WP:AN3#User:Taztouzi reported by User:JamesBWatson (Result: ) , too. Taztouzi has once again replaced the sourced information with the unsourced information, an hour after you protected the page (Mister World 2010). I'm pretty confused about what the increased level of protection was supposed to achieve, and unsure whether I should try to re-enter the sourced information. --Susfele (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. There appeared to be three accounts going at once, two of which were not confirmed, one which was. My protection was only a temporary measure while someone dealt with the 3RR report, it was not meant to be the only solution. S.G.(GH) ping! 06:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I see that Taztouzi has now been indefinitely blocked. However, if my understanding of the log for Mister World 2010 is correct, then what you did was change a page protection due to expire on 4 July 2010 by a similar one due to expire on 14 June 2010, i.e. a significant reduction in the length of the protection. Have I misunderstood? If I haven't then was this what you intended, or a mistake? If it was a mistake then I should like to suggest changing it back. Since the editor in question has been repeating the same disruption for nearly two months, using several accounts and numerous IPs, a 3-day page protection is fairly unlikely to be effective. There have also previously been two week-long page protections, which have failed to stop the problem, so anything less than that seems pointless. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
From what I can see, I changed one expiring on the 4th for one on the 14th, which is what you said... could you clarify? 22:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not JamesBWatson, but maybe I can clarify. Two different months are involved here. Before you modified the protection, the semi-protection was scheduled to expire in 22 days (from today) on 4 July. After you modified the protection, the semi-protection is scheduled to expire in two days. Twenty-two more days may be enough to calm the behavior down; two more days is unlikely to modify his behavior given his past persistence. Susfele (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, I'm getting my months confused. I'll ramp it back up. S.G.(GH) ping! 08:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
And from me, too. Thank you. Susfele (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Falls of Cruachan

First, thanks for closing. Second, I disagree with your closure based on the various statements made in the Afd. Third, after reading those, are you remotely likely to reconsider this keep outcome after discussion, or am I free to just go to DRV right now, having fulfilled the necessary pre-requesites? MickMacNee (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You may do as you wish at DRV :) S.G.(GH) ping! 19:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
As I must, and as I now have. Be you so noted. MickMacNee (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sea Breeze

Hi -- Sea Breeze leads to a disambiguation page, so there seems to be no need for the disambiguation link at the top of Gaza flotilla raid.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is for people searching "Operation Sea Breeze" which is a Sri Lankan military Op also, as opposed to for people searching "Sea Breeze" S.G.(GH) ping! 13:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Lahore Press Club

Hi..I would have liked a premature notice on the talk page before the page was going to be deleted. I was intending to work on it. Mar4d (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your page. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Crosby Marketing

Since you've given due attention to the folks involved with this article, can you deal with the article itself now? Thanks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

hey

Both of the issues you deleted here were from this same user Abr r raheem i have problems with. I hope you can leave a warning on his website, as he seems to heavily rewrite articles he knows nothing about. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried to look back into the history to find where they were added, but couldn't. S.G.(GH) ping! 22:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a list of my complaints about him 5 days ago. He has since reverted your Quran alone edits. He has only been on wikipedia for a few days but has already had numerous edit conflicts. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sugar Bear

Thanks for helping with the situation, but shouldn't the block be longer? His last block for 3RR was a full week and as evidenced by his recent edits, that block didn't change his mind on edit-warring. RG (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. Hang on. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I popped it on ANI for a quick consultation. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for putting it up on ANI. It will be great to have a whole month without edit wars. RG (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment

I would like your help in resolving this conflict on WWE#TV-PG rating.

Please understand I am working against editors that are not being upfront or even civil with me. I have had my material reverted again and again, each time without any rational reason. I would like you to know I have had an edit war with JustaPunk months prior over a similar issue, which finally got through to the page. This is again an issue which he is taking with a lot of resistance but not a lot of rationality. I absolutely know I am 1000% right on this issue, and JustaPunk is just here to enjoy the edit wars and flaming. I would like your help in resolving this issue, because the communication style I am up against here is not helpful. --Screwball23 talk 06:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. S.G.(GH) ping! 12:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
SG, if you look at the history of the editing of the WWE article, you will see that I am not the only one removing Screwball's material. There are a number of editors who agree that what Screwball is doing is wrong, and even after coming back from his 24 hour ban he reverted again. I didn't reverse that even though I would have. Screwball is the one outside the rules and once you see this edit dispute defined on the WWE talk page you may see what is really going on. !! Justa Punk !! 04:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I am up against illogical arguments here. I have referenced the topic, and I have people coming at me with every nonsense argument out there. The reason is because there are a lot of WWE fans who do not want to admit that it has become more child-oriented in recent years, and this has been a hot debate among wrestling fans. I want people to be able to read this material because it is valuable and it reflects a large change in the WWE. I see no reason why my material is reverted again and again so no one can read about WWE's change in entertainment. There should be no bias in this article. Please check the history of the article, because JustaPunk and 3BulletProof16 came at me with the same nonsense when I added the first paragraph. --Screwball23 talk 03:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
SGGH, I've placed some advice on the talk page of Screwball23. I am of the view that this editor is not going to listen to reason. The arguments being placed on the talk page are quite logical and the editor has been challenged to provide sources to back up his claims. Two dozen in fact given that the editor claims to know of many articles and reports. His claim to bias in the article without his edit is laughable and I just wonder if action should be taken against him if he continues this line of conduct. That's what I have told him on his talk page. I sense a troublemaking editor here and if you look at his talk page further up this is not the first time he has engaged in this sort of conduct (see the section on "Warrior"). RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 07:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

SGGH, Screwball has copped a 31 hour ban for edit warring. It might not be the first time. When the ban is concluded don't be surprised if he tries again. Suggest a watch be kept on him, and maybe a long term ban may need to be considered given his ignorance of clear direction in editing re 3RR and other issues. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 02:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal

I closed the RfC on removing autoconfirmed per WP:SNOW. I didn't think there was much mileage in keeping it open for more pile on and ridicule. I thought it was a good idea, but the community hath spoken. Fences&Windows 16:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh, thanks FnW. Was just an idea, doesn't actually hurt my feelings. Cheers S.G.(GH) ping! 18:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to say, I'm sorry I missed this RfC - it looked like a good idea to me, and still does. It's sad that the Wikipedia community (or at least the most vocal parts of it) tends to be so kneejerk reactionary when it comes to new ideas: it seems like any remotely radical proposal gets shot down in flames, and when something new is eventually adopted, it's only after its opponents have fought it every step of the way. Thanks for trying anyway, and maybe someday this idea will receive a fairer consideration. Robofish (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Robofish, it is true what you say. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopeless case

FYI, your input was ignored here. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 10:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Meh, it just goes to show. A shame, but difficult to AGF with something that brazen. Cheers Dave. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Glad that you understand how I felt when I left her a note about gaining a consensus before moving the article page, fact is she won't own up to her problem or try her best to acknowledge that she has got a problem in effective inter-personal communications. As the saying goes, Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves... why are we not surprised? Probably because we've seen editors like her/him come and go like flies. Oh well... Cheers and regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 10:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I did wonder for a second if she took "give you enough rope" to be a personal threat, but that seemed like a stretch even given her previous. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
She has more or less always done this, removing posts from her talk page when she doesn't like what she's being told, this makes it way hard for anyone to follow such a thread and is why I haven't bothered to have a go at helping her understand why this has happened and, I should say, what she might do to get herself unblocked long before a month is up (which would be to agree straightforwardly that endlessly attacking other editors with claims of policy violations when they don't agree with her as to content is not only boring, it's not on here and leads to blocks because it's wholly disruptive, as I tried to tell her many times before). Gwen Gale (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I suspected you would be watching, Gwen. I thought about dragging you into the ANI thread when I first saw it :) S.G.(GH) ping! 10:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of World Wrestling Entertainment

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to World Wrestling Entertainment was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 11:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please revisit this user's contributions again

Please see Special:Contributions/Mundilfari and note that he is still ripping out popular culture sections Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave him another warning, but feel free to raise an ANI if you feel necessary. It may be if he continues. It is not always a problem as he does remove a lot of content that fails WP:TRIVIA, but his wholesale, discussionless changes also remove good content, and he doesn't appear to make any attempt to relocate such content into appropriate places. It's creeping out of the protective cover of WP:BOLD, so to speak. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm somewhat afraid that your warning will not be heeded. I shall raise it at ANI anyway, I think. The behaviour is not being bold at all, it is making a point. Trimming trivia is fine, but that is pruning. He fells the tree. Fiddle Faddle (talk)
Please see the ANI. Your contribution to the discussion would be welcome. I am not seeking to influence what you might say in any way. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I love how careful people are to avoid WP:CANVASS. I'll head over there now. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I know that we have an absolute right to disagree with each other. And I do not wish, either, to give this user any grounds for any form of complaint. :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Very wise. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was exciting. At least more folk have noticed him now. But I fear the conversation will get diverted into the rights and wrongs of trivia removal, and the warning shot will not get fired. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I duno, we like to think we are pretty on the ball. His 3RR block might give him notice. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I've always thought I was pretty as well. Ah wait, that isn;t quite what you meant, is it? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You are in Serious Violation of Wik policy

Do not blank out my comments as this is also a violation. You have FAILED to assume good faith. Your utterly false claims to wit "The next time you add defamatory content, make personal attacks, or exhibit a nonsense agenda" is in fact defamatory. By what standard do you judge my agenda nonsense? The Communist Manifesto? What gives you the authority to determine who's agenda is proper or not? Your vicious personal attack is being documented. Thanks for your contributions. Remember what I said - Be nice, assume good faith. All rules you know and should know but have promiscuously and selectively violated.68.41.55.171 (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious. S.G.(GH) ping! 15:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks :D

Thank you SGGH, for all your help and I sincerely apologize for any slight I may have caused you in not recognizing your help earlier. I did find your comments and suggestions from before quite useful and I did look over them again today. Thanks again. [4]Malke2010 23:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, Malke. I wish you a happy career editing. S.G.(GH) ping! 12:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. And feel free to stop by my mentor page.Malke2010 23:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I think that you would think differently if you were attacked so much that you had to create a new account. I had to go through a lot of it and when I expected an admin to give a helping hand, they basically blew me off. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but their attitude showed that they were. Joe Chill (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Now he said that all regular contributors are attracted to feces. Joe Chill (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Drork on ANI

Ummm...he's back with a new sock. Might be rangeblock time. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone already got there. I collapsed thew pump thread again too. I'm none too clued up on range-blocks, might want to suggest it at ANI. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and follow-up on AN/I posting

Thanks for responding to my posting earlier this week on AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive620#COI and COPYVIO issues with User:Hkettani?.
It seems that the file which was giving me copy vio worries, File:IJESD2010.pdf, has been tagged for deletion in any case for lack of relevant licensing (and that was my major worry). I've also been advised by Moonriddengirl of better ways to handle this than to post on AN/I, so I'll follow her suggestion in any future case.
All best wishes. –Syncategoremata (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the gentleman uploaded a self published article. No worries, glad to see it worked out. S.G.(GH) ping! 23:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi there!

What is the problem? Yes the article is peer reviewed and appears at the mentioned journal available at http://www.ijesd.org/

And yes, it is mine and wanted Wikipedia and its users to benefit from its content. So what are you complaining about MR.?

HK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkettani (talk • contribs) 16:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Razorback216 disruptive sock and multiple IPs

Hi SGGH. As you may recall, a few weeks ago, there was a surge of multiple, fluctuating IP edits on three articles that included the Gaza War, Six Day War and someone named Caroline Glick. Two ANIs Curious IP disruption from multiple addresses andpersonal attacks were filed and it resulted in Semi for the above-noted articles. The IP's were all from San Jose California. I am now certain beyond any doubt that it was Razorback216 (talk) . Within minutes of making several edits on the Gaza war[5] [6] [7], IP 69.110.29.179 from San Jose made identical edits on my talk page [8] [9] [10]. Those edits were the same as those made on my talk page some two weeks ago. Same thing with Caroline Glick. However, being the this article has been semi'd, the IP confined his comments to the discussion while near simultaneously, Razoback216 made edits to the article's text. Also Razorback216 is a recent account that opened in June. The IP's also began editing in June and Both Razorback and the IP's are SPA's making identical edits to the same articles - past, as well as present. Now that it looks as though we've identified a face with the IP's, is this actionable against Razorback216? Your assistance would be greatly appreciated.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The the sake of clarity we're dealing with

--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It does seem highly likely that the IP the diffs for whom you linked is Razorback, however that doesn't mean it is illegitimate. As Cptnono said, they may have just not logged in, or so on. Does the activity consist of one or more of the activities listed at WP:ILLEGIT? If so, you can compile an WP:SPI provided you evidence that one of these activities is taking place. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through the diffs of the subject IPs linked to Razorback216 (talk) and there are four that are particularly troubling. These three [11] [12] [13] made by 67.180.26.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) point to a battleground mentality. This Diff [14] by 69.110.8.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) points to an outright admission of using multiple accounts. For a recent editor, Razorback seems to have excellent command of wiki syntax making it likely that he may be a previously banned user, hence his extensive use of IPs. I think there is sufficient basis to move forward with some sort of sanction. Your thoughts--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I filed the ANI[15] Since you have some level of familiarity, your input is appreciated--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

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 Ban of Sugar Bear/Ibaranoff24. Thank you.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Gracias

I've sent you an email about your ANI question, thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SGGH/Archive_2010/June&oldid=1145847962"