User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

RFC on Pename[edit]

As Pename has been attacking both Alberuni, myself, OneGuy and RickK, I was wondering if you would like to certify Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pename? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would you be willing to certify the RFC? Please, I'm not asking to pressure you. I won't be upset if you don't :) - Ta bu shi da yu 03:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think I did. Check again, under Outside Views.iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:26, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, was confused. Now I have. BTW, I still don't understand the difference between "Certifying" and "Endorsing the summary." You might want to check with Zora; I think she also signed only in the first place I put my name. iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:28, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I've only dealt with Pename on the Jihad page, so I don't think I'll participate for now. If we cross swords elsewhere, I might step in, though as far as I'm concerned, the RfC process is broken. RickK 05:45, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Gah! I got this wrong! The first section has the comment: Please note: If you did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, but agree with the summary's presentation of events, please sign in the next section, and the section section (others) has the comment "If you agree with the summary's presentation of events but did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, please sign in this section.". Sorry if I mislead you... that was entirely unintentional. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yeah. Though I don't think the same people can sign up in "Endorsing the summary" and in the "Outside View" thing.iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 08:25, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

MacDonald White Paper[edit]

I started a stub rewrite of the copyright-violating entry on the MacDonald White Paper, but discovered there is already an entry on the subject called White Paper of 1939. I've shelved the stub and replaced it with a redirect, but I'll take a closer look at the existing article and see if there's anything in my stub that can be merged in. --Minority Report (entropy rim riot) 19:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Improving Abington School District v. Schempp[edit]

In my opinion, the entire article should be re-written in accordance with the outline proposed by the Supreme Court case WikiProject. Some of the information in the essay is valuable, but no one paragraph or sentence should remain as it is now. In addition to the fact that it expresses a clear POV (though I admit that I have not read it in its entirety as of yet), it is in a very grey area with regard to federal copyright laws.

The author has stated that he has released it, but he may feel differently if it were changed and did not reflect his original POV. This would be the use of part of a work under Title 17 statutes, which the author has not expressly consented to. Even one paragraph used could be considered infringement and we do not know the author actually retains the rights or if it has been published in some manner or that he is really the author even. Ignorance is not a great defense.

From what I know about Schempp it is a pretty cut and dry decision. The Establishment Clause made the Pennsylvania statutes regarding prayer in school unconstitutional. To tell the truth, I think the extent of the article is a bit of overkill for a Wikipedia article anyway.

Feel free to start working the "reformed" article. When I get a chance to read over the complete decision, I will do some editing of my own and we can make a good article. I will also add it to the "Intensive Care" section of the WikiProject to-do list. Hopefully some of the other contributors will jump in.

Skyler1534 02:38, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Article[edit]

Article of Puerto Rico Referenda is not copied from elsewhere. The data can be obtained from the cited websites.

Totally inappropriate?[edit]

I don't agree. Jguk (a) erased my entire rewrite of the seriously broken new history section (which I think few would stand for), and (b) redid the previously negotiated intro without discussion. I think that this was totally inappropriate. He did not even seem to look at the edits I made, whereas I repeatedly go through and compare paragraph by paragraph. As evidence I note his claim that my re-revert was just "reorganisation" - a claim either deceptive or ignorant. VeryVerily 06:26, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To say the lead section needs work is an understatement. It needs to be replaced with a real intro. VeryVerily 07:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The one we had was fine, indeed carefully assembled long ago. Your concerns about length are not overpowering given the subject matter. What is not acceptable is having the intro read like what follows is a history article. VeryVerily 10:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have explained my concerns multiple times, and the two of you continue to erase all the edits I make, which you can't expect me to stand for. Why are you not posting on jguk's page about his reversions? And I restore the relevant subsequent edits each time, unlike the two of you. VeryVerily 20:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I rewrote the history section which was a bunch of false and misleading claims strung together, and I rewrote the death penalty section replacing innuendo with facts and elaboration. True to form, you reverted all these edits. And then you have the gall to tell me on my user page that I'm reverting too much. Either you didn't even bother to look at what you were reverting, or, well, I won't speculate further. I don't know why you think I or any editor would take this lying down. VeryVerily 03:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand the communication disconnect. The overhaul proposed by jguk is unacceptable for reasons I gave. The erasure (repeatedly, by you) of my attempt to fix up the new sections is also unacceptable. You constantly reverting me in an attempt to force these changes, well, you see where this is going, but none of your comments to me seem to acknowledge that this is the issue. I've made my points on the Talk pages and in the edit summaries. I realize your words are polite and constructive, but your actions - reverting me repeatedly without rhyme or reason - are taken by me as very rude. And keep the "temporary" injunction out of this, thank you much; the ArbCom and their bizarre rulings are another can of worms.
I have been working on this article for over a year. I have prevented it from getting trashed several times in the past, and I intend to do so again. VeryVerily 08:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You don't own the article either. I am allowed to make changes if I feel they are needed, and you can't just revert me numerous times. VeryVerily 10:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you still refuse to acknowledge that you have been reverting my changes too, then this conversation is not going to go anywhere. The same goes if you make obviously incorrect assertions such as implying that I am not allowing changes, which even a casual glance at the page history will disprove. And please keep my other disagreements out of this; I work on a lot of controversial articles and inevitably have to deal with people like "Ruy Lopez". VeryVerily 18:16, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You analyzed the edit history of the previous dispute, not this one, and your descriptions continue to belie your claims that you have paid attention to my edits. Spare me your lame threats; the October conflict was raised at ArbCom, and if you raise another, they'll ask you to try mediation. VeryVerily 01:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you continue to post false claims on my user talk page that I'm not allowing you to make changes, I will start erasing your comments on sight. As I said, there is no point in conversing if you continue to deny that (a) you have been reverting substantial edits by me and (b) I have left numerous changes unaffected. My "old tricks" are protecting this article from aggressive POV editing. VeryVerily 01:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily[edit]

Regarding VeryVerily reversions, which I saw you mention on his user talk page, you may be unaware that this user has a temporary injunction against making reversions in many cases - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gzornenplatz,_Kevin_Baas,_Shorne,_VeryVerily#Temporary_injunction.

Specifically, he is banned from editing articles having to do with communism or the Cold War. He is also banned from reverting an article more than twice (yes, twice, not three times) in a 24 hour period. And he is almost certainly going to be banned for at least two months for abuse of reversion once the arbitration case is finalized.

This user has been abusing the reversion capability for a while, and I'm happy to see the Wikipedia arbitrators are finally beginning to deal with the problem. Ruy Lopez 23:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez is a troll. He is upset that I prevented him from ruining dozens of articles over the last year with his army of sockpuppets. The ArbCom is largely ignorant of the history and doesn't seem too interested in evidence, so God only knows what they'll do. VeryVerily 03:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vote on Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement[edit]

Hi Ta bu shi da yu. Anthony DiPierro is claiming you voted twice on the Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement page. Could you possibly go there and clarify? Thanks. Jayjg 01:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just look at the summary of recent edits on Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement and his summary; he insists that the summary has to count certain votes (like yours) twice, because you had a concern and you voted yes. Jayjg 01:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Wilhelm Imaging Research[edit]

Yes, I retreat. I got a wrong impression out of your original stub (just feels ad-like to me) and their About section of webpage. Glad that we have a democratic mechanism like this, so consensus can be reached. Ahh, I put part of this discussion on the bottom of your User page, sorry for that and any other inconvenience. Will you take care of vfd removal? Oneliner 08:07, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RfC against Quadell[edit]

Greetings. User:HistoryBuffEr and I are having a disagreement about the protocol of an RfC page here, and I wonder if you could lend your expertise.

HistoryBuffEr started an RfC against me, and I responded in the Response section. Several other users endorsed the Response. HistoryBuffer commented on the various users' endorsements in the same section. It seemed to me that the Response section wasn't the place for the complainant to make further accusations or other statements, so I moved these comments to talk. Was this an appropriate thing for me to do? HistoryBuffEr objected, and moved the comments back. So where should these comments go? Any help you could offer would be appreciated. Thanks. Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 20:26, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

cc: User talk:Ambi, User talk:Theresa knott, and User talk:Neutrality.

I think you dealt with it very well. HistoryBuffEr is a very difficult user to deal with. See here for a taste. Thanks for your help! Any further help would be appreciated as well. Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 13:48, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

...for your endorsement! Very much appreciated. :) Ambi 04:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words :)

Best regards,

Guy Montag

Welcome to the withdrawn candidacy club![edit]

I don't feel so alone now. ;)

On a more serious note, I hope your wiki vacation helps. I know you've gotten involved in a couple of stressful incidents lately which have been unfortunate. Hopefully some time away will prevent you from getting too jaded over them. Shane King 10:36, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Islamism[edit]

According to Pename, he checked the Oxford English Dictionary from Oxford University Press and it says that Islamism is as follows:

Islamism / 'zlmz()m/, / 's-/ → n. Islamic militancy or fundamentalism. - DERIVATIVES Islamist ( also Islamicist ) n. & adj.

SOURCE: "Islamism n." The Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Toronto Libraries. 2 December 2004 <http://www.oxfordreference.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t23.e29279>;

He also found the following:

Islamism Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims. Has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam. Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation. Became the favored state policy during the reign of Sultan Abdulhamid II (r. 1876–1909) and was adopted and promoted by members of the ruling bureaucratic and intellectual elites of the empire. With the rise of colonialism, became a defensive ideology, directed against European political, military, economic, and missionary penetration. Posed the sultan as a universal caliph to whom Muslims everywhere owed allegiance and obedience. Sought to offset military and economic weakness in the Muslim world by favoring central government over the periphery and Muslims over non-Muslims in education, office, and economic opportunities. Ultimately failed and collapsed after the defeat and dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Resurrected during the resurgence of Islam after World War II. Expressed via organizations such as the Muslim World League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which seek to coordinate Islamic solidarity through political and economic cooperation internationally. Has also served as an important political tool in recruiting all-Muslim support against foreign aggressions.

SOURCE: "Islamism" Oxford Dictionary of Islam. John L. Esposito, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Toronto Libraries. 2 December 2004 <http://www.oxfordreference.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t125.e1819>;

I'm confused. Our Islamism article says something totally different. The Oxford reference is relatively authoritative. Help! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Authoritative? How? It is basically one quote from one writer (John Esposito) with one POV. The POV of someone who thinks that something that lasted almost 1400 hundred years "failed". How long did the Roman Empire or Communism last? I am replying on the talk page for that entry. See you there!iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:46, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Copyvio rewritten:MacDonald White Paper[edit]

This is a reminder that one week ago you added MacDonald White Paper to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems. I rewrote it as a redirect to another entry on the same subject, White Paper of 1939, at MacDonald White Paper/Temp. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article[edit]

I've seen it. :-) Evercat 22:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You were mentioned.[edit]

And it wasn't flattering. See http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/12/02/41ae87066c10f

On the bright side, this may be the next phase of natural selection: Fvw's 874 posts per day, one imagines, are not exactly being sandwiched between booty calls. (Although it is eminently possible that they are being sandwiched between sandwich calls.)
But on the less-than-bright side ... these really are the best and brightest of humanity. They've got DSL. And grammar. And encyclopedic, albeit utterly useless, depths of knowledge. It's horrible, but true: when ekOeOfhOpe and dArK_RaVeN and Sparky and Evercat are found rotting in their apartments, it will be their inferiors who have repopulated the earth in their own sweaty image. Ooh. Not so chipper anymore.

Enjoy the libel while it lasts! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Haha, richly comic. I wondered if we'd hear any more from the Paul Eastlund people. I don't remember being called a fart-face, but funnily enough I do remember googling quite a bit on mealworms to verify the good luck story mentioned, and I found enough stories about them being baked into bread that it seemed credible. Thanks for the heads up! --fvw* 23:13, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

User:Lucky 6.9[edit]

Heya, User:Lucky 6.9 insists that untrue articles and vanity are speedy deletion candidates, and won't stop listing them as such even after I pointed out WP:CSD disagrees [1]. Since you're a respected admin and appear to be a wikifriend of his, could you have a word with him about it? I'd rather avoid an RFC or anything else as unpleasant. Thanks --fvw* 00:31, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Actually, in this case I agree with Lucky 6.9. It appears to be a hoax. I beleive it should be listed on CAT:CSD. It appears that it is a hoax along with "Canadian Town", the rock band "Arrowhead" (can't find any reference to this band!), "super star" Jessica Paquette or Augustine's Child. Do you have any information that this is not a hoax? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The matter is not whether it's a hoax or not (I'm sure it is), the matter is that hoaxes aren't candidates for speedy deletion. See the list at WP:CSD --fvw* 01:04, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
Er, hoaxes are part of WP:CSD. Patent nonsense is a criteria for speedy deletion, and hoaxes are listed under patent nonsense. It's valid to delete these articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You might want to reread WP:PN, hoaxes are in fact listed under Not to be confused with (fat lot of good that section did :-)). --fvw* 01:09, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Need Admin help[edit]

You're an admin, right?

There's a revert/edit war going on at Islamist terrorism. An anonymous, unregistered user is reverting to add some text that most editors don't agree should be there.iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:55, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I see the problem. I'm watching the page very closely. If User:68.107.102.129 does it again I'll block for 24 hours. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
He has. Take a look at the history of that page. Unless you want me to go in and put myself in danger of violating the 3RR myself.iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:04, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

==Australian Aboriginal art== You voted for Australian Aboriginal art, this week's Australian Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. Thanks.

(If you're not still on vacation --ZayZayEM 06:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Criterion 4 of Candidates for Speedy Deletion[edit]

It states: "Very short articles with little or no context". I contend that since the subject matter is unverifiable (through mutltiple google searches and imdb searches) that it is impossible to expand on the stubs. The fact that they're hoaxes/vanity pages is, of course, the REASON that they are short and have no context, but they still qualify under the rule. I'm not going to delete them again, no point in warring over them, but I ask you to consider my rationale and revert yourself. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:06, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

As I'm looking at it again, I can't tell if context is the right word or if it's a typo for content. Either way, same reasoning applies. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:07, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr on Ariel Sharon[edit]

  1. cur) (last) 06:46, 3 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (The NPOV version with no objections to it replaces the POV hagiography)
  2. (cur) (last) 06:35, 3 Dec 2004 Viriditas m (Revert edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Ferkelparade. We arenot required to fallaciously "prove" a negative. You are, however, required to discuss your proposed changes on talk.)
  3. (cur) (last) 06:15, 3 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Updated neutral bio (still no objections in Talk))
  4. (cur) (last) 12:34, 2 Dec 2004 Ferkelparade m (rv)
  5. (cur) (last) 12:30, 2 Dec 2004 130.37.20.20 (Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War)
  6. (cur) (last) 09:06, 2 Dec 2004 MPerel (HistoryBuffEr, stop replacing article with your personal version)
  7. (cur) (last) 08:59, 2 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Restore the neutral version, to which NO objections have been made)
  8. (cur) (last) 08:43, 2 Dec 2004 Viriditas m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Wk muriithi. Please propose major changes in talk.)
  9. (cur) (last) 08:35, 2 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (The more neutral bio is back, post objections in Talk (haven't seen any yet))

While his previous blocking appears to have been a mistake, this looks to me like 4 reverts in 24 hours, and is quite provocative given the recent RfC against Quadell. What do you think? Jayjg 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocking of HistoryBuffEr[edit]

Greetings. HistoryBuffEr has violated the 3RR (again), and I have just blocked him. I left a detailed note on his talk page here explaining my action.

The last time I blocked him, he was very upset. I was mistaken in my time frame in that instance, thinking he had reverted four times in 24 hours when he had only reverted four times in 26 hours, and I had to back down and apologize. Still, he launched an invalid RfC against me, which was, in my opinion, an attempt to punish me. He then disendorsed many of the Arbitor candidates who endorsed my summary on the RfC, which seemed to me as a way of punishing them as well.

I am quite sure the blocking this time was appropriate – I dotted all my i's and crossed all my t's. But I suspect he will be no less upset. I'm asking you to keep an eye on the situation. If he acts in a vindictive way, I ask that you support me, if you feel this is deserved. Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 16:56, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


Clit Wars Episode CLXVIII[edit]

Hi, I hope you and violetriga can agree amicably on what kind of protection this is going to be. It's somewhat disturbing to me to see this kind of argument going on. What on earth is it about the images on the Clitoris page that arouse so much disagreement? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request for Assistance[edit]

Hello again. HistoryBuffer is under a 24 hour block for violating the 3RR. He has continued to edit while not logged on, signing his name to these edits.[2]

According to User:UninvitedCompany: "The usual procedure regarding blocks in general in the past, has been that evading the block results in: the time period for the block beginning anew, any contributions made in evasion of the block being reverted, blocking any IPs used to evade the block, blocking any new identities used to evade the block."

HistoryBuffEr has now filed a Request for Arbitration against me, while still under this block. I feel it would be inappropriate of me to roll back this change, since it involves me, but I would appreciate it if another sysop would do this for me.

Thanks, Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 21:27, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Update: Someone else already did this. Thanks anyway! Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 21:43, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

FamilyFord car4less, Goldberg, 131.107.71.94[edit]

Aloha. User:FamilyFord car4less, an alleged sock puppet of HistoryBuffEr, has reverted the Yasser Arafat page to HistoryBuffEr's version at least five times in 24 hours. He is also posting from User:Goldberg, and User:131.107.71.94. Thank you in advance for any help you can offer. I have posted a warning on the users talk page. The page has been reverted a total of nine times in 24 hours by HistoryBuffEr's sock puppets. Evidence follows this sig. --Viriditas 02:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  1. 02:45, 4 Dec 2004 131.107.71.94 (rv sock puppet vandal Slimey/Viriditas/Jewbacca=same jerk, different alias) [3]
  2. 00:53, 4 Dec 2004 FamilyFord car4less (rv sock puppet vandal Slimey/Viriditas/Jewbacca=same jerk, different alias) [4]
  3. 00:47, 4 Dec 2004 FamilyFord car4less (rv sock puppet vandal Slimey/Viriditas) [5]
  4. 00:33, 4 Dec 2004 FamilyFord car4less (Viriditas vandalism) [6]
  5. 00:09, 4 Dec 2004 FamilyFord car4less (rv Slimey vandalism) [7]
  6. 00:00, 4 Dec 2004 FamilyFord car4less (this is one is more neutral) [8]
  7. 18:31, 3 Dec 2004 Goldberg (rm jewbacca's wholesale vandalism) [9]
  8. 17:46, 3 Dec 2004 Goldberg (npov version - remove anti-semitic version) [10]
  9. 06:41, 3 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Even better; a real NPOV version (with no objections about it)) [11]
Thank you for your prompt attention. --Viriditas 07:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, I could use your informed opinion on Talk:Quadell right now. Ambi unblocked HistoryBuffEr. See my response on Quadell's talk page. HistoryBuffEr should still be blocked. --Viriditas 08:05, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I noted this on Quadell's talk page as well, but I thought I'd better apologise here as well - on a second glance, it appears that the mistake was mine. I don't know how I missed this. Ambi 08:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New admin here, please keep me informed. Can admins check for sockpuppetry or is that solely a developer thingy? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 19:46, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Note about your recent actions[edit]

Hello, Ta bu shi da yu. I used to consider you evenhanded, but your actions lately have become clearly biased:

  • You supported Quadell's unjustified block and even blocked HistoryBuffEr without a valid cause. Your opinion that a revert+edit is a revert is just your unsubstantiated opinion, see:
  • A few days ago, you also supported the previous invalid block by Quadell, which even Quadell admitted was wrong.
  • And, you have now joined another drive against HistoryBuffEr, by adding evidence to RFAr, which you claim shows HistoryBuffEr's violation of 3RR. But the case you cited is actually already listed there as evidence of a clear violation of 3RR by Jayjg [13]. Interestingly, you also failed to characterize the much more numerous reverts by Jayjg [14] as violations of 3RR.

It is evident that your actions are biased. I understand your displeasure since my disendorsement of you (and anyone else who supported rule breaking) for the AC, but the cause of your animosity before that is unclear. I would welcome your explanation. Also, I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from questionable actions until further discussion.

Thanks, HistoryBuffEr 04:04, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

Response by Ta bu shi da yu[edit]

Firstly, you did violate the 3RR. You may not edit an old copy of a page and then add new material and expect that we won't call it a revert. Second, I have readded your material. Evidently those who reverted you didn't see the changes to the biography. I can see why, because you'd been reverting them continuously over a period of several days. Thirdly, whether you disendorsed me or not I couldn't give a damn as I've withdrawn from the arbitration vote anyway. Fourthy, provide evidence of Ambi and Mirv not supporting the second block please. Ambi did actually did finally support the block. See [15] on Quadell's page. So that's two admins who agree with Quadell's second decision. Fifthly, I have provided evidence on your arbcom evidence page that details how you do use the edit summary to engage in discussion. This needs to stop immediately and you need to immediately start using the talk pages to justify your edits. Sixthly, the edit [16] you gave me is for 15:56, 24 Oct 2004, however the edits that caused you to be blocked are:

  • 18:35, 2 Dec 2004
    • You revert. You lose Wk murithi's wikifications. You do not put them back. [17]
  • 18:43, 2 Dec 2004
    • Viriditas reverts to Wk murithi's changes. Edit summary: "Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Wk muriithi. Please propose major changes in talk." [18]
  • 18:59, 2 Dec 2004
    • You revert again. You again lose wikification changes by Wk muriithi. Your edit summary is "Restore the neutral version, to which NO objections have been made". [19]
  • 16:15, 3 Dec 2004
    • You do a simultaneous revert and update of the section "early years". (see the following comparison of his old revert and his new revert/edit: [20]) This is most certainly still a revert. I posit that the edit summary is misleading as it says "Updated neutral bio (still no objections in Talk)". There is no mention that you have edited the page from an old copy of the page. [21]
  • 16:46, 3 Dec 2004
    • You revert to your bio change version. Your edit summary is "The NPOV version with no objections to it replaces the POV hagiography" yet it still contains the non-neutral sentence "even though Israel was ultimately defeated and its image of invincibility was destroyed forever by this war" [22] You have not discussed this edit!

This is 4 reverts under 24 hours. You get blocked for violation of the 3RR.

With regards to Jayjg, some of the reverts I see aren't good, very true. However, some of the reverts I saw were reverts where several users were reverting yourself because you refused to use the talk page correctly. I can't see why it was so hard to use it to detail the reasons your edits should stay! But it's a good point that Jayjg has been reverting too much also. You'll note I didn't block your originally, I simply enforced the block that is already in place.

I am going to place a note on Jayjg's page asking him to pursue a different course of action next time he feels the urge to revert more than three times. I suggest you also to also take a different course of action next time you feel like reverting. My advise for you is to: use the talk page to explain detailed changes. Don't rely on the edit summary to explain changes. That's not the purpose of this. Try to come a compromise on contentious issues. Put up an RFC or request for page protection if revert wars are ongoing. Stop making personal attacks and giving warnings (I've seen you do this a few times). Stop reverting!!!!

HTH. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, P.S. The edit you gave me (""When is a revert not a revert? When it is: A revert+edit.") for the 3RR page is part of "Arguments in opposition" of a proposed amendment by Eloquence, added on March 14. This is not part of the 3RR policy. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Response by HistoryBuffEr[edit]

Hi Ta bu shi da yu, glad to hear that you will try to be evenhanded as you were in the past.

  • As shown in my examples, a number of sysops (Martin, Mirv, Jayjg ...) disagree that a revert+edit is a revert, so there is no consensus that a revert+edit is a revert.
  • The example from the 3RR Policy discussion is the only one I found that specifically talks about it.
  • The evidence that Mirv disagreed is here
  • The evidence that Ambi disagreed is here. Ambi did change position on this, but only because Viriditas caused confusion by wild interpretations and claims of sock-puppetry.
  • I've shown one example (which you seem to have misunderstood under your "sixthly" above) of Jayjg claiming that his revert+edit posts were not reverts. There are more examples, let me know if you need them.
  • It would be a good idea to discuss and clear up this issue on the 3RR policy page.
  • Until then, it would be probably best to avoid broad interpretations like yours, because if the consensus reached contradicts your view, many users could have been unjustly blocked in the meantime.
  • I agree that users should not be able to avoid 3RR by "sneaky" edits. See [23] for examples of Jayjg doing just that.
However, that is not what happened in my case! I edited after 2 posts, not after 3, which is what Jayjg usually does to avoid the 3RR vio. Besides, I did not even intend to make the 4th post (see [24]). All this suggests that I was not playing games around 3RR, and that is why your block was doubly unfair.
  • As for justifying edits, if you check articles I edited you'll find plenty of my posts in Talk initiating discussion of objections and posting info, and very few by Jayjg, possibly none -- he usually only replies and rarely posts anything other than "post your objections". Yet, somehow, you never criticized Jayjg, or any of his POV troops who behave identically, for that.
  • Lastly, Wolfman's opinion from Quadell's RfC sounds very reasonable to me:
"While blocking for the 3 RR rule is now policy, I would be glad to see considerable restraint used. There's not much harm caused by an extra revert now and then, Wikipedia's not going to fall apart. There is however considerable potential harm in overzealous blocking.... Wolfman 01:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)"

I believe that you can be fair and agree that your decision was not the best solution considering the evidence.

HistoryBuffEr 20:58, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

P.S: Can I ask you for a favor? SlimVirgin placed on user page of User:FamilyFord_car4less this text:

"Presumed sockpuppet for HistoryBuffEr"

This statement is false and a personal attack. I asked SlimVirgin to remove it, but SlimVirgin simply deleted my request 3 times (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), without removing that offensive comment. I know I can edit the page myself but would prefer not to as it may be interpreted that I want to hide something. Could you please ask SlimVirgin to remove that unwarranted smear from User:FamilyFord_car4less? Thanks.

Abdel Qadir on Binational solution[edit]

  1. (cur) (last) 04:56, 5 Dec 2004 Abdel Qadir (Arabs demography is a crises only for Jews)
  2. (cur) (last) 04:50, 5 Dec 2004 Jayjg (Abdel Qadir, you have already violated the 3 Revert rule, please do not revert again)
  3. (cur) (last) 04:44, 5 Dec 2004 Abdel Qadir (Jews groups are already killing Arabs to make Israel. Please see Talk)
  4. (cur) (last) 04:25, 5 Dec 2004 Jayjg (No Israeli group has proposed this; please see Talk:)
  5. (cur) (last) 04:23, 5 Dec 2004 Abdel Qadir (Balance correction)
  6. (cur) (last) 00:06, 5 Dec 2004 128.120.185.31
  7. (cur) (last) 23:46, 4 Dec 2004 Abdel Qadir ("One man" is spiritual leader of Israel Shas Party. Many Israelis call for "Kill the Arabs" and everyday they do.)
  8. (cur) (last) 23:20, 4 Dec 2004 128.120.185.31 (one man's dubious statements vs, wide spread statements about genocide on the Arab side does not constitute proof that the "extreme" Right seriously considers genocide.)
  9. (cur) (last) 23:05, 4 Dec 2004 128.120.185.31 (POV of Arab World territories occupied. Disputed NPOV this is a compromise)
  10. (cur) (last) 17:24, 4 Dec 2004 Abdel Qadir (Evidence is on Discussion page "Kill the Arabs")

How about this case? Also, can an admin involved in the dispute enforce the block? Jayjg 05:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A plea and a warning[edit]

Ta bu shi da yu, I hope you don't mind me butting in regarding the message you left for Jayjg. While I agree that asking for page protection is almost always preferable to a revert war, the reverts made by HistoryBuffEr are, in many instances, acts of vandalism where, as I understand it, the 3RR rule does not apply. For example, in Yasser Arafat, HistoryBuffEr, in reverting, was deleting large amounts of perfectly factual, well-referenced material. In placing a lock on such pages because of vandalism, it means the article cannot be developed by genuine editors. While I would agree with what you wrote 99 per cent of the time, HistoryBuffEr is, in my view, a vandal pure and simple, and reverting his vandalism should therefore not count against any other editor. Just my opinion, and I hope you don't mind me expressing it. Slim 08:17, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it does address my concerns. Thank you for the reply. Slim 08:28, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Ta bu shi da yu, you wrote that I wouldn't see you disagree with the concerns I expressed regarding HistoryBuffEr, and now I've seen you do precisely that. :-) You wrote to Fred that HistorBuffEr has valuable contributions to make and that his POV disputes have not been vandalism. Regarding Yasser Arafat, I have to tell you that you are quite wrong, in my view. In the time I have been editing this article, HistoryBuffEr has not made a single encyclopedic contribution, POV or NPOV. What I mean by that is that he has not provided a single piece of information. All he has done is delete large sections of facts, which were properly referenced to academic books and explained in historical context. He has been personally abusive to at least four other editors, and has used several sockpuppets. I have yet to see a single factual contribution from him, whether it's one I agree with or disagree with. Jayjg has been extremely patient and civil in the face of it. It's absurd to draw any kind of comparison between these two editors. Slim 23:54, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse/pictures suppressed[edit]

Do you disagree with this? It uses the real article as a template and censors images by inserting "-5px" into image tags marked with the parameter {{{suppress image}}}. This causes images in the censored version to error out. Without parameters set this does nothing in the real article: red-link templates for "suppress image" are thrown out by the image tag parser. The censored version therefore has the same content as Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse and does not fork the article. Cool Hand Luke 09:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, you're telling me that these people exist? If so, I'd reinstate them and change my vote. Cool Hand Luke 09:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As far as I know, it's never been done before, which is why I'm rather proud of it. It's kinda tenuous because it relies on an apparent bug in image tag parsing. Perhaps we should just ask them to develop this kind of thing as a general (and less hacker-like) solution. I don't think this should be done for all (or even many) such pages, but this one is uniques for the volume of pictures involved. Cool Hand Luke 09:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have only gone on the IRC channel once when the Wikipedia was down. I think something like this would actually help resolve (or at least bring to a simmer) a lot of our silly wars. We could create a new image tag option that, when present, would make the server generate a header saying something like "some readers might find images in this article offensive and may prefer _". Maybe make the message and prominence thereof customizable on subpages of the article. Perhaps even offer a way to comment out passages or offer alternative passages. In all cases though, the uncensored version should be the default. I really ought to be going to bed now though. It's much much too late. Cool Hand Luke 10:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Martin Kramer[edit]

Hi. Like many others, I sometimes spot check new articles. That one read like text written for a non-Wikipedia context, and a quick google found the source, so I listed it on WP:CP. Thanks for taking care of it. Best wishes, -- Infrogmation 19:29, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: 30 day block[edit]

Hi, I've responded on my page. Jayjg 23:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've responded again. Jayjg 01:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding sock puppets and HistoryBuffEr[edit]

Aloha. I just wanted to respond to your comment on my talk page regarding HistoryBuffEr. Are you aware that he has lied about his identity in the past? For evidence of this lying, please see this link. Let me know what you think. Is his word still "good enough for you" after reading that? Personally, when I discover that someone has been lying, I have trouble trusting them after that point, unless they have apologized and they have expressed sincere remorse. HistoryBuffEr has never apologized for his policy-violating behavior at any time, nor does he seem capable of doing so in the future. Read his responses to his arbitration case. According to HistoryBuffEr, everyone except him has a problem. However, I'm sure that you and I would agree that nobody is perfect, and everybody makes mistakes. Yet, according to HistoryBuffEr, he has never done anything wrong, even when he lied about his identity. With that said, how can you trust him when he denies using a sock puppet? The only way we can know with any certainty (and even not then) is if we have a developer check the IP's of the socks in question. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe him, however, I am willing to admit that it may not be him. --Viriditas 01:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In response to your reply, I have a question: Is it reasonable to assume good faith about a user's identity when that user may have lied about their identity in the past? I cannot see the answer being yes, in any case. Skepticism is certainly called for here, and it does appear that HistoryBuffEr lied about his identity when he claimed he was not a registered user while posting using his IP address, when in fact, he was a registered user. I think it's hardly coincidental (see occam's razor) that this "unregistered user" happened to be editing the same pages and topics as HistoryBuffEr. --Viriditas 01:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request for page protection[edit]

As you were saying editors should ask for page protection before getting into a revert war, could I ask you to protect Schiller Institute? A Lyndon LaRouche activist has just reverted to a previous edit, thereby removing large amounts of information and references. This article had been stable for some time after a previous revert war, which I would not like to see started up again. I would appreciate it if you could protect my (SlimVirgin) last edit. Many thanks, Slim 02:02, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Re Viriditas repeated slander[edit]

Hi Ta bu shi da yu.

Thanks, I've replied to your Arb proposal on my page.

Another issue is the Viriditas post above. I have promised not to reply to Viriditas because of his previous smears in the RFAr page, see [25], [26] and [27].

His new charges are more of the same, and he is asking for sanctions because he is again lying while accusing me of all sorts of things.

Just to see how far Viriditas has gone, check his claim of "proven" sock-puppets. You'll see, for example, that I made posts without logging on yesterday, only to object to the block, because I could not post while logged on. I signed all those posts with my user-id. A signed post is, of course, not "sock puppet" because there is no hiding involved, contrary to what Viriditas dishonestly claims. HistoryBuffEr 02:39, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Update:

I have removed the slander posted by SlimVirgin on the User:FamilyFord_car4less page. Your temp fix was OK, but because there is no evidence it makes no sense to keep my user-id there at all. Just like with any other edit, posting my user-id needs to be substantiated by those who would like to put it there. HistoryBuffEr 04:42, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Contrary to what you claim, I have asked others to see this link where you claim not to be a registered user on Wikipedia. Are you still maintaining that you were not already a registered user on Wikipedia when you wrote that comment? If so, then you were posting as a sock puppet since you had already been registered for more than two weeks. Of course, I notice that you have avoided addressing this issue. --Viriditas 04:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
FYI...I have changed the arbitration page to reflect HB's contention that 4.232.123.136 was not a sock puppet. He is correct on that point, and I have moved it to the section Other IP Addresses. However, the original claim still stands. 66.93.166.174 was used as a sock puppet and is classified as such. --Viriditas 06:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Per your excellent suggestion, I have begun to add evidence for sock puppetry by HistoryBuffEr. Note, this is a work in progress. --Viriditas 07:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ariel Sharon article[edit]

When you have a chance, do you think you could address my comments of a couple of days ago on Talk:Ariel Sharon? Thanks. Jayjg 04:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Schiller Institute[edit]

Thank you, Ta bu shi da yu. Regarding references, I have added them to the section of the article I have written, and I've asked the LaRouche supporters to supply references to the parts they have written. This is, in part, what the dispute is about. They don't want to add references, and they don't want to see my references in the article. Slim 07:24, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Your vi macros are broken :-)[edit]

Hi; I note you did Osama bin Laden Fatwa on Wikisource; but note that there were lots of cases where the first 2 letters of a link were missing. I've fixed some (see diff). Evercat 21:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The issue is just what I've noted above. I've not actually used your macros, it just seemed likely that it was they that were to blame... Evercat 22:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this, Ta bu shi da yu. Tim Ivorson 23:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Libertarianism in Australia[edit]

I don't know anything about it, not being Australian, but the best-informed comment I've found is this one, which actually cites sources. As to the anon, if Chuck has described the Liberal Democratic Party's politics correctly, it's completely accurate to describe them as capitalist. RadicalSubversiv E 22:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

SirAglet[edit]

Since I mostly work on content but don't concern myself with fighting vandalism, but since you seem to do a lot of that, I thought I'd hand this one over to you. Read the notices on User:SirAglet and User talk:SirAglet and you'll see what the problem is. All this user's edits on December 7 have been vandalism (see for example [28], [29], and [30]) (which I've reverted), but because of the nature of this situation, we can always expect more vandalism from this account. Should this situation call for a permanent ban of this account? Also, earlier edits from this account need to be checked for accuracy. Let me know on my talk what ends up happening. Thanks. Lowellian (talk)[[]] 07:02, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the quick response. I've added a notice to User:SirAglet's user and talk page so that others will be made aware of this. Lowellian (talk)[[]] 07:23, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Despite being an sysop for over six months now, I have never blocked anyone, so I'm not really familiar with the details of the process, but surely the software must allow us to block a username without blocking the IP addresses behind it, right? Lowellian (talk)[[]] 07:45, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, great. Well done. Lowellian (talk)[[]] 08:01, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Sock-Puppet Ta Bu?[edit]

HistoryBuffEr, er Ta Bu, that was funny. It was lame of them to use speculations as proven evidence, it just shows they have no solid evidence.

I have posted some examples what Jayjg calls "lesser degree of incivility" of RK, at [31]. Then compare RK's 4 month ban to the 2 month ban for me.

HistoryBuffEr 07:50, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

P.S: I hope you don't mind me shortening your name to Ta Bu, I am getting used to a new keyboard.

It's not "speculation". You admitted posting as 66.93.166.174 when you wrote: You'll see, for example, that I made posts without logging on yesterday, only to object to the block, because I could not post while logged on. I signed all those posts with my user-id... [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] --Viriditas 10:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your proposed merge[edit]

Aloha. I noticed that you proposed merging Trivial objections with Fallacy of many questions. This is incorrect as they are two different fallacies. On November 28, User:KayEss asked you to explain your proposed merge on Talk:Fallacy of many questions, but you haven't responded. Assuming good faith, I suspected you did not add this page to your watchlist. I didn't even know about your proposed merge until today; perhaps you forgot to tell me about it? A little common courtesy can go a long way, especially when two editors are familiar with each other. --Viriditas 10:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I forgot to add it to my watchlist. I have now checked "Add pages you edit to your watchlist", although this function doesn't satisfy my needs as I don't want hundreds of pages on my watchlist. What I would like is an alternate setting like, Add pages you create to your watchlist. Do you think anyone else would appreciate that kind of feature? --Viriditas 10:54, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I now have approximately 700 pages on my watchlist, and it's hard to get any new work done. OTOH, I'm usually the first to find vandalism on many rarely read pages. Jayjg 17:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding arbitration policy[edit]

Once the hearing has begun, the Arbitrators will deliberate the case. If the deliberations are made public, then outside commentary on the deliberations is discouraged until such time after the hearing has ceased that the Arbitrators define as the period for public commentary on the deliberations. [37] I think this mean you should move your comments (and my replies) to the discussion page. What do you think? I've just reviewed the arbitration cases on the docket, and none of them allow discussions during deliberation. Discussion is allowed by arbitrators, however. I am going to move your comments to the discussion page under the appropriate title. If you think your comments belong on the proposed decision project page, could you please get permission from the arbitrators before adding them to the page? --Viriditas 12:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. I was worried that other people might start adding their comments to the project page, too. --Viriditas 12:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome on the talk pages of an arbitration case as your evidence is on the evidence page. You are not permitted to edit the proposed decision either before or after the case is decided. Fred Bauder 13:04, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat[edit]

Hi Ta bu shi da yu, just to let you know that the sockpuppets have started reverting Yasser Arafat again, which was unprotected yesterday. It might be possible for one of the developers to determine whether this is HistoryBuffEr. I've been told that Tim Starling is the person who handles that kind of query, or who would know who to direct you to. The sockpuppets are Goldberg, Family Ford car4less, and IP address 131.107.71.94, which is registered in Redmond, Washington to the Microsoft Corp. At least if you had some firm information, you'd know whether you were backing the right horse, if I can put it that way. Hope this helps. Slim 17:40, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)


hey. thats not me! I'm Irishpunktom in an alter ego --195.7.55.146 09:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


It is actually impossible to get consensus on YAssir Arafat. Everything Jayjg dislikes, regardless of it's factual content, is removed. It's a disgrace that someone like Jayjg, who has an extreme POV on a subject is allowed to dictate the course of an article at the expense of the truth. I will not revert it back, but I would encourage Jayjg to leave it alone. --195.7.55.146 09:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request for expansion[edit]

I haven't heard anything about the issue up until now, and I'm going to be away until Sunday. Still, once I get back I'll see what I can do to help. :) Ambi 21:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Human rights[edit]

Okay I'll take a look later today. Hopefully we can work this out. VeryVerily 01:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added comments on your comments on the draft on Talk. Do what you wish with that other Talk section; I suppose deleting Talk is generally bad form, but that section makes neither of us look good. Perhaps stuff it into an archive, or replace it with a diff link? Well, I don't really care. VeryVerily 08:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 18:26, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Block request?[edit]

Alberuni has reverted Yasser Arafat four times in under 25 hours (24 hours and 5 minutes). Does this qualify for blocking? Thanks for your help. --Viriditas 09:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • 04:37, 9 Dec 2004 Alberuni (rv, This version is much cleaner than the dirty Zionist POV version)
  • 02:18, 9 Dec 2004 Alberuni (rv sockpuppet vandal, go enjoy your holiday)
  • 01:17, 9 Dec 2004 Alberuni (revert to Goldberg NPOV version)
  • 04:32, 8 Dec 2004 Alberuni (rv to Goldberg version. Why should anyone listen to your demands to use Talk page Jayjg when you refuse to use Talk page to explain your redirect of Zionist Revisionism?)

Thanks[edit]

You know, on reflection I was a little ungracious when we first met and I didn't thank you for taking the time to dig out the policy on speedy deletions for me. I saw your name in passing and it reminded me that I hadn't apologised for my abruptness.Dr Zen 03:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: What the hell does silsor think he's doing[edit]

You were spamming and had been politely asked to stop by others. Spam is spam so I blocked you for five minutes. silsor 04:01, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

To Silsor: Ta bu made an innocent error that I am sure he will not repeat. He did it in good faith and it is good to see an admin at least making the effort to consult on the appropriateness of an action with other admins. However, your block (even for five minutes) was inappropriate. Ta bu was not engaging in vandalism and editors acting in good faith are not to be treated as bad little children to be put in "time out." To Ta bu: In the future I guess you will know to ask select other admins for an opinion, not everyone. You can ask me any time. The worst is I won't answer. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Select admins[edit]

By "select" admins, I don't mean that you ask people you think will agree with you. I mean you ask a rnadom selection of maybe a half-dozen admins that have been around for a while and likely to be able to answer your question. Asking everybody is just not practical or nice, especially since you might have a lot of questions. There are talk pages and the mailing list. -- Cecropia | explains it all ®

I'm sorry if you felt my comment above was overly harsh. However, a lot of people were offended by your actions and I don't apologize for pointing out that this was inappropriate. I don't understand why you think I am the only admin to comment on it considering the number of replies above, many of which are from admins. Asking for a comment on a VfD listing is completely suitable for the mailing list and I don't believe asking for comments on the matter is necessarily about policy-forming, which is, or perhaps was, done on the mailing list anyway. Angela. 04:47, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Administrator's bulletinboard[edit]

I should clarify that I wasn't that annoyed with it myself. I actually thought you were messaging me because I was involved in the talk discussion to keep these RfCs and added the box to one of them. Messaging people personally gives them a strong inclination to respond, so sending everyone a message is a bit manipulative.

At any rate, I imagine that announcement on the community pump and other means should be able to get the word out reasonably well. I'm not sure, however, that we have any special authority. Our voice is as valuable as anyone elses; we just have more privledges. I would certainly watch such a messageboard though. Cool Hand Luke 05:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your RfC on Yourself[edit]

I don't believe it is appropriate to bring an RfC against yourself. The appropriate RfC would be against User:Silsor for blocking you. However, unless he says he would do it again (or does it again) I would call the RfC bound to fail.

I understand there are a lot of ruffled feathers here, but you acted in good faith (IMO) but what you did was not a great idea. Just imagine if all admins did that every time they had a question. Silsor's action was inappropriate (also IMO) but I don't know he would be inclined to repeat it.

However, I think the appropriate thing right now is to remove your RfC, and let everyone cool off with a virtual hug in the spirit of Wikilove. This is a tempest in a teapot. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:24, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, since I said I thought you should drop the RfC, I think you should drop the RfC. ;-) As to publicizing your Administrator's notice board, you can put it in Wikipedia talk:Administrators and Wikipedia talk:Requests_for_adminship. You could also mention it at the village pump. I think another mass mailing would not get a nice reaction. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Seconded. You an silsor seem to be escalating hostilities. Just take a short break, please. Don't reply to the last comment on his talk page, just take a break. I look forward to the board. Cool Hand Luke 05:44, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Upsetness[edit]

Yes, I do think it's understandable. But try to see it from his pov. The mailout upset him and he reacted maybe a little too strongly. Everything got a bit heated. If you give it some air, it will quickly dwindle to nothing. That would be best for all. I know you want to feel vindicated. I understand the feeling and I sympathise, but it won't help to carry on a huge fight over it.Dr Zen 06:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

24.108.245.56[edit]

Anonymous user 24.108.245.56 with two edits (both edits to Alberuni contribs) just reverted to the version by anonymous user 195.7.55.146 and added a few minor changes, hence it was a revert and an update. Please block both users (as they are probably Alberuni sock puppets) and please protect Yasser Arafat. --Viriditas 12:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heh. Now that I think about it, who do we know that makes reverts and updates in the same edit? --Viriditas 12:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WP:AN[edit]

I stuck it on Village Pump (news), too. I never go near the mailing list, personally. Filiocht 13:34, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)


Question[edit]

Posted on User_talk:Netoholic

I've been meaning to ask somebody this, and I figure you may know: is there any for an admin to view the last active IP of a non-anon user? Many thanks. -- ClockworkSoul 23:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, only a system administrator (Tim Starling comes to mind) can find that out. -- Netoholic @ 00:38, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thanks. -- ClockworkSoul 22:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
CWS, why do you need to know? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In reading recent accusations of sockpupperty and watching recent vandals rotating usernames, it seemed to me that the ability to cross-reference IP addresses would render the former moot, and the latter somewhat easier to deal with. -- ClockworkSoul 22:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
tell me about it. I said the same to Viriditas! - Ta bu shi da yu 22:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
However, if the users in question are using anonymous proxies, I'm not sure how these utilities will help. I actually have a way of correlating such users (mostly as a heuristic), but I need to work on it a bit more. --Viriditas 22:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Do you think its worth it for us to propose that administrators get the ability to see the source IP address of an edit, in addition to the author? I can't think of any major security issues, especially if it's only admin that can see them. -- ClockworkSoul 22:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely! That would solve many sock-puppet issues. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Would you like to write survey, or shall I? :) -- ClockworkSoul 22:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately, such a proposal will not currently solve any sock-puppet issues if the users in question are editing from a secure browser (java disabled) and using an anon proxy. IIRC (and I could be mistaken), the only way to solve this problem is to ban open proxies. Many IRC servers have implemented this solution, but I believe there are ways around it, depending on the type of proxy. --Viriditas 22:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image copyrights[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:PDcapture2.jpg, Image:PDcapture3.jpg, Image:PDcapture5.jpg, Image:PDcapture6.jpg and Image:PDcapture4.jpg. I notice they currently don't have image copyright tags. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Edwin Stearns | Talk 22:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"All adminstrators"[edit]

Thought you might find that a bit amusing. ;) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 22:42, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)