User talk:Enigmaman/Archives/2009/July
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Re: User:BTRUIIU
Sure thing. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Marco747, who you blocked for 72 hours, is an abusive sock of the blocked accounts User talk:Prankboy743, User talk:Plucker678, User talk:Julian3676, and User talk:Julian.montes, who only visit Wikipedia to recreate the articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WPTX-FM which were deemed hoaxes (and now appear at User:Marco747). Should his block be ungraded to indefinite? 66.57.1.249 (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would, but I'd need some evidence of them being the same user. I could ask a checkuser, I suppose. How did you see the block so quickly? Enigmamsg 18:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am User:Sixtysixstar (who started the AfD linked above) and saw it on my watchlist, but I only edit as an IP if I can help it. I thought maybe duck test would be enough, but I'm happy to keep an eye on him and alert if he continues. 66.57.1.249 (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Just an observation
But I would say this guy here is a classic example of a genre-warrior. It appears to be a single purpose account who doesn't mind blanking references to push his point. What do you think? The Real Libs-speak politely 04:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- And looking at the edit history of his pet page... it may be that the above single purpose account is a sock created by this guy in order to war on that page while editing other pages as well. What do you think, part deux? The Real Libs-speak politely 04:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Going back even further... this account may also be tied to the 2 posted above. What are your thoughts part trois? The Real Libs-speak politely 04:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'll try to look at it tomorrow. Exhausted right now from running around in the sun. Enigmamsg 23:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's certainly possible, but I can't really act on the earlier two accounts. The Twentydevils one is actionable, but it stopped editing after you posted here. If it returns, I will strongly consider blocking. The trouble is with these cases that they're difficult to prove without checkuser... There's circumstantial evidence, but there needs to be more recent usage of the accounts editing to circumvent policy. Enigmamsg 05:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Going back even further... this account may also be tied to the 2 posted above. What are your thoughts part trois? The Real Libs-speak politely 04:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Happy Enigmaman/Archives/2009/July's Day!
 |
User:Enigmaman/Archives/2009/July has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.
- July 02 for you. Sorry for lateness, I had to take a wikibreak. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
user:Spongebobelmodude
Thanks for your quick assistance with this user, and protecting All I Ever Wanted (Kelly Clarkson Album) for the itme being. it's always messy when new swingles are announced, everyones quick to add info, but never do it properly, then things change last minute and the info is wrong. anyway to check if this user is a sockpuppet or not? I have a feeling they'll be back in no time with differant IP and new account. That's been happening alot recently with Kelly Clarkson articles. Alankc (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| For getting right on personal attacks and vandals before they strike again Alankc (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC) |
RfA Thanks
Hi Enigmaman. I just wanted to thank you for contributing to my RfA. It wasn't one of the best RfA's held, but I've learned a lot from the experience. Sorry for sending you the message today, and not last week when my RfA was closed. I've been very busy the last time. Thanks once again! Kind regards, LouriePieterse 10:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Any chance of removing the semi-protection on this article? Quite a few anon IPs contribute to this page. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- I unprotected this morning, but it's been vandalized something like 9 times since. Enigmamsg 22:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Stalker
81.155.114.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) The IP troll that whined like a baby over at ANI because you stopped his edit warring]] likes to stalk and undo me (and Elizabeth Bathrory and other users who try to clean up his little messes) Using multiple IPs he's 3RR on the pages that he has decided to ignore wp:3rr on lately. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Done He's being really obvious now. I wonder whether he'll use yet another sock to go to AN/I again? Enigmamsg 19:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- User has returned today using this IP and has re-added his favourite fanspam to the same set of pages he's edit warred with over the past few days. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I see that some of that user's previous IP addresses have been tagged as IP socks... but not for the account that I was thinking they would be (although the user having more than one login account would not surprise me at all at this point considering his blatant disregard for the Wiki community as a whole) If, in fact, these sock tags are correct than our IP should know very well about E_wars and the punishments resulting from seeing as how this is the block record of the account that this user's IP talk pages have been tagged with. Again, I thought it was a different account myself... but if these tags are accurate then it is likely this user has access to multiple static IP locations (a school or business) AND also has multiple user accounts already setup to circumvent IP blocks and protected pages. Time will tell. This latest edit war is baffling. The user makes strides to claim he is working towards the betterment of Wikipedia.. and yet ignores previous discussion and consensus and keeps re-adding a link to an amateur webpage that was blacklisted as source for reviews/references at the WP:RS discussion board. The album project reflects this by clearly stating that non-professional reviews may not be used. So he is fighting a losing battle on many fronts. Thanks for your assistance. Have a nice weekend... see you about the Wik on Monday. Libsy is now off to the cottage to fish, sleep, fish, sleep and fish (maybe not in that order) :-D The Real Libs-speak politely 18:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Another IP sock re-adding the same amateur fanspam. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid the protection you adopted on The John Fisher School page does nothing to resolve the current situation. We need permanent semi-protection without the precondition of discussion since those who were prepred to discuss have already done so. We have called time and time again for that particular IP (which operates under 149.4... and 69.116...) and who continues to make the same edit to engage in dialogue on the discussion page. I have requested Semi-protection in the past (twice I think) and it has been granted in order to prevent that IP from mass deletion of text. There have been numerous discussions on the talk page on the issue and editors saw fit to include the material he persists on removing. In practise the page will now be freezed with the version of the rogue IP for more than a month. He is not going to engage in discussion, he never did and never will. This is not the way forward. I suggest you revert to my edit which is the edition of the page agreed in talk and which other editors spent considerable time compiling and apply semi-protection. Thank you. Marlon232 (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's clearly a content dispute. I'm not protecting it on a preferred version. Please note that protection is not an endorsement of the current status. It was already fully protected by Xeno in the past over the same issue. In the case of an edit war between registered accounts and IPs, semi-protection would be against policy. It's either full protection or nothing. "In practise the page will now be freezed with the version of the rogue IP for more than a month." That is factually incorrect. User:Enigmaman (User talk:Enigmaman)
- Well, that is what will happen. The page will stay as it is for the period in question. Then after the time has expired, I or another editor who has worked on the page will revert to the agreed version of the text and the rogue IP will reappear and the reverts back and forth will continue as before. Marlon232 (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, not for "more than a month" but until 26 July. Marlon232 (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- So you're saying you're going to continue to edit war? Sorry, that's not acceptable. I've looked at your contributions, and it appears all you do is edit war over that page. Enigmamsg 19:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- What I am saying is I will continue to revert to the agreed version of the text as compiled by Sayerslle and Zzuuzz and as discussed extensively in the talk page. The rogue IP has refused multiple invitations by multiple editors, including myself, to discuss any issues he has with the text in talk but chooses not to. There is little more I can do to uphold wikipedia integrity but revert his disruptive edits to the page. Please take heed of the comments below by Sayerslle. As I said, freezing the page does nothing for this particular situation, however well intentioned your action may have been. Marlon232 (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- So you're saying you're going to continue to edit war? Sorry, that's not acceptable. I've looked at your contributions, and it appears all you do is edit war over that page. Enigmamsg 19:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- What is the point of padlocking the John Fisher school page, since there will be no further discussion of the issue, as that was all gone over , so all you've done is freeze the 'censored' version while absolutely no progress is made because the 'vanadilism' as ip sees it will continue to mean ip will delete a section that annoys the ip, and there's no reasoning with ip. Just leave it as it was. ip can't live forever and then the uncensored version can live in peace. Sayerslle (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- See the talk page of the article. The edit-warring needs to stop. Especially Marlon, who also appears to be calling good faith edits "vanadilism". Enigmamsg 21:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is rather unfair and it would seem you have just been irritated by my view that your action on the JFS page was unhelpful - a view which Sayerslle apparently shares. If you wish to discredit me by referring to incidents that occurred a year ago and that were fully discussed on the talk page, then so be it. It's only a pity you did not have the courtesy to respond to my comments above. Nevermind. Marlon232 (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- See the talk page of the article. The edit-warring needs to stop. Especially Marlon, who also appears to be calling good faith edits "vanadilism". Enigmamsg 21:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
For
MAJOR flagcrufter has run-amuck. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Beyond the Element
Hello Enigmaman, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Beyond the Element - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of notability, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Closedmouth (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't tag it. ;) Just reverted vandalism, which happened to restore it. If I felt it met the criteria, I would've deleted it myself. Enigmamsg 16:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
out-of-process semiprotection request
You popped up on my watchlist in the last 4 minutes, and WP:RFPP seems dead, so I'm wondering if you'd look at Emmanuel Adebayor and see if semi-protection is in order. 100 edits in the last 5 hours, approx. 49% IP and new account vandalism and 49% reverts of vandalism. a few days would probably do it. If this is out of process, sorry, but the four hour wait at RFPP is starting to be annoying, it's taking a lot of editor attention to maintain the article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Funny you mention it. I was just about to go to RfPP to check if there was a backlog, and up comes the new messages bar. :) I'll take a look. Enigmamsg 20:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
talk page of deleted page
Hello--You speedy-deleted the article AI WU. The same user has since created Talk:AI WU. I'm still awkward at this deletion stuff, so I'm not sure what procedure should handle this. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
dissatisfied pizza-lover
Please see [1] You may be next. DGG (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Noted, thanks. Can't wait to see the deletion review he promised. Also, regarding the pizza challenge, it seems to me a rather easy challenge to complete. I personally could not eat that much pizza, but I know a lot of people who could. Enigmamsg 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Powerpunk Girls
Why did you delete my page it was too important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HannahMontana2999 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- It did not meet the notability guideline for bands. See WP:BAND. Enigmamsg 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Poorman's Talkback Notice
Please see here for more information on an RPP request. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I rechecked the articles and the level of vandalism is still insufficient for protection. Enigmamsg 17:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Nothing on the page is false. How do you reference podcasts? You are just taking the fun out of it and essentially deleted the whole page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychoscientist (talk • contribs) 18:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I added a header to make it clear what the discussion is about. See WP:BLP. If it cannot be referenced, then it cannot be included on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but that material is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Enigmamsg 18:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Then tell me what to take out You have not answer my question
How do you reference material that is said over the air? (Psychoscientist (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC))
- It's difficult to, unless a reliable source mentions it. It means that you can't take negative stuff about them from their podcasts and stick it on Wikipedia. Some of us take defamation very seriously around here and insist that it be sourced. Enigmamsg 20:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to follow your logic here. If it is printed then it is OK to post the "negative stuff about them." You cannot quote what is said on the air or on podcasts? (Psychoscientist (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC))
I added back some of the stuff without the "negative" or perceived as defamatory. If you have a problem, delete only the section that bothers you, and not the entire page. Thank you--Psychoscientist (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
New IP for an old troll
He has now switched from this one reported the other day and is now using this one. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Done Pretty clearly him. Enigmamsg 20:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Could you also blacklist that site? This has been going on for pretty long. Triplestop x3 21:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. Enigmamsg 21:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Could you also blacklist that site? This has been going on for pretty long. Triplestop x3 21:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
User talk:193.63.75.2
Not only did you not bother to place a block notice (some non-admin did that), but I disagree with your characterization of the IP's edits as spam. I know that you are by no means the first admin to object to links to reputable scientific bodies such as the Royal Society, but it is still very disappointing to see such behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- The links were indeed spam, the site was a publishing site that sells books and charges for access. Furthermore, I did a whois on the IP which revealed a possible conflict of interest. Triplestop x3 21:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- The links were to the biographical abstracts of Fellows of the Royal Society, which I believe to be entirely legitimate. The IP resolves to Imperial College, not to the Royal Society, and while Imps does have some Fellows on its staff, I do not see that as being indicative of a conflict of interest. Some attempt to engage in dialogue would have been much more appropriate in my opinion. You have not addressed your failure to add a block notice. DuncanHill (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Biographical abstracts that require money to be accessed. 100% spam. Triplestop x3 21:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- The abstract is free, it's the full article which requires a subscription or payment. And still no explanation of the failure to add a block notice. DuncanHill (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- The abstract is a sample given to the reader to entice them to give money to see the rest. What little information there was in the abstract is redundant and unneeded. Triplestop x3 21:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Why no block notice Enigmaman? And where the CoI that you allege? DuncanHill (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- The abstract is a sample given to the reader to entice them to give money to see the rest. What little information there was in the abstract is redundant and unneeded. Triplestop x3 21:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- The abstract is free, it's the full article which requires a subscription or payment. And still no explanation of the failure to add a block notice. DuncanHill (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Biographical abstracts that require money to be accessed. 100% spam. Triplestop x3 21:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- The links were to the biographical abstracts of Fellows of the Royal Society, which I believe to be entirely legitimate. The IP resolves to Imperial College, not to the Royal Society, and while Imps does have some Fellows on its staff, I do not see that as being indicative of a conflict of interest. Some attempt to engage in dialogue would have been much more appropriate in my opinion. You have not addressed your failure to add a block notice. DuncanHill (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't allege any COI. As for the block notice, I usually place one. After I place a block, I go to edit the talk. Not sure what happened. Must've gotten distracted. Please don't be so aggressive. Thanks, Enigmamsg 21:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, it was Triplestop that alleged a CoI, must have got you confused with him. DuncanHill (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
For the record, you did not have a problem with me adding the block notice, right? Block notices are important for tracking spammers. Triplestop x3 21:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Block notices are important for many reasons, including the ability of the community to see what admins are doing. DuncanHill (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
No, there was no deletion discussion. I made the decision personally on the basis that the article was very clearly not an appropriate wikipedia article. Neologisms have no place here. If you are unhappy about this, you are entirely welcome to take the case to WP:DRV. Happy wikying. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Replied at your talk. It's not that I have any opinion on the page. Enigmamsg 21:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- The page was deleted previously via AfD. I deleted it as a re-creation of a page deleted after AfD dicussion. What is your problem? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Link fix
Thanks for catching that. Yes, this problem has been brewing for a while. Will Beback talk 22:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Sock Block
RE: WP:RPP Thanks for blocking the socks. Where do I request that further socks be blocked? They have been appearing on this page and another one for over a month and it takes a lot of effort to open up cases at SPI just to deal with the obvious. Is it appropriate to take these socks to AIV? If not, how would I go about handling them? ThemFromSpace 00:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that it's too much trouble to open a new SPI case each time, although a new one will be needed every so often. I want a checkuser to see if a rangeblock can be applied. AIV is not the right forum, as the admins there will not be familiar. Report them to me or another admin who is familiar with the socking background. Enigmamsg 00:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Premature close at Kaasalan ANI
Admin User:Rd232 closed the ANI claiming immediate issue is over. I'd argue this is quite premature since Kaasalan never faced his accusations outside of continuing to defend them, almost maliciously. I don't know, it seems other users were about to comment and there wasn't much of a consensus to close. Comments? Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- I quite agree. It's far from over. Enigmamsg 14:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- As said before, an WP:RFC/U would be a far more productive and appropriate format than continuing that WP:ANI discussion. (Apparent from anything else, ANI is so hard to read and edit!) Rd232 talk 14:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also, the specific issue raised at ANI was over. If there other issues about the same user, it would be better to raise them separately, clearly and specifically, either at ANI or via RFC, rather than effectively allow a specific issue become a general unfocussed and unpleasant he-said she-said free-for-all. Rd232 talk 14:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- The trouble is that an RFC/U is not going to be filed, and Kasaalan continues to rationalize his WP:TE, while blaming everyone else for any problems that arise. The thread didn't really accomplish anything. jpgordon removed the subheader, but Kasaalan soldiers on with his disruption. I also have a personal reason for not wanting it closed: I didn't get to respond to his latest outrageous accusations.
- If a RFC/U is filed, it would make the AN/I thread redundant, but until then... Enigmamsg 14:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well the ANI thread has been re-opened by User:IronDuke. [2] I still think a RFC is a far more appropriate forum for a serious discussion about this general sort of behaviour issue, when it requires extensive discussion which is hard to read and edit on ANI (and isn't properly structured). I'm not familiar with the user before seeing that ANI thread, but it feels more like a pile-on than an attempt to identify problems and find solutions. As a somewhat involved admin, you might consider starting that RFC yourself. Rd232 talk 00:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- As said before, an WP:RFC/U would be a far more productive and appropriate format than continuing that WP:ANI discussion. (Apparent from anything else, ANI is so hard to read and edit!) Rd232 talk 14:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Kasaalan is at it again and has since warred out all my edits from last night. He continues to tag enumerate everything slightly Jewish by over-stating their Jewishness (i.e, Goldberg is a journalist for the Jerusalem Post, a magazine based in Israel that is known for its support for Israel). Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can see from the history, Kasaalan has not in fact reverted (never mind "warred") Wikifan's most recent reversion to his preferred version (WRMEA history), focussing instead on the summary of Contributors, which ended up with a useful user subpage (see the article talk page). By the by, I've edited that page quite a bit now, based on Wikifan's version. Rd232 talk 00:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Those were minor edits, he totally removed the criticism edit and it replaced it with his original stuff. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- R2 recently restored Kaasalan's edits. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not true. Yawn. See the history, if you care. Rd232 talk 10:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- At the time of my posting you restored Kaasalan's edit. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not true. Yawn. See the history, if you care. Rd232 talk 10:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- R2 recently restored Kaasalan's edits. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:RfPP
Would you consider please taking a look at my request at RFPP? Kusma (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) no longer appears to be active as his last edit was when he asked about my original requested date to unprotect. Thanks! Bmg916Speak 15:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
New day, new IP
New IP, same ol' troll. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Laughing Buddha (Musician)
May I suggest locking the recently speedily deleted Laughing Bhudda page? Your deletion of it is not the first in the last day. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Right, but the author didn't seem to be saying he'd create it again. A third time, and it'll be salted. Enigmamsg 22:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- What does that mean? I am threatening zilch. I have left another reply on my talk page, and I am also wondering if I can re-create the article from the link to the musician's real name on Cosmosis (band) or if you would prefer his name remain a 'red link' arbitrarily and permanently.--Dchmelik (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:NODRAMA reminder
Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 22:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Will do, although I'm not sure how much article work I'll be able to get in. I'm pledging to avoid drama, and I will try to work on some articles if we can actually clear the admin backlogs for once. Enigmamsg 22:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Yet another troll
User talk:86.146.14.100. All reverted. Triplestop x3 00:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
I requested semi-protection for this page yesterday. The IP doing the vandalism was blocked but he seems to be back today with a new block. I'm new at this so I'm not sure if I should make a new request for semi-protection or ask for a IP range block or what. --Sophitessa (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Same deal.
It seems Kaasalan's editing approach was not unique. Admin User:Rd232 continually restores Kaasalan's edits while endorsing his POV.
Anyways, the ANI hasn't changed anything and the article is even worse than before. Assuming you're still interested and this isn't all in my head (as implied by Rd), what is the next step? Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest an immediate topic ban for anyone who disagrees with Wikifan.... Or maybe instead of treating content disputes as ANI issues, he could revisit WP:DR and check out things like WP:RFC. Or even occasionally admit being on the wrong side of an argument (happens to the best of us). Rd232 talk 10:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Anyways, the new criticism section takes Kaasalan's approach to whole new level. old. R2 simply re-worded the Jewish parties headings and moved it into the criticism lead similar to "All critics come from pro-Israel/pro-Jew lobbyist groups who are dedicated to attacking anything they perceive to be slander of the Jewish state." Seeing as you are an uninvolved party and me an Rd go way back I'd say your recommendation is rather valued. Let me know what you think. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- You try to misinterpret "pro-Israel media watchdog group" CAMERA which committed CAMERA Israeli lobby campaign in Wikipedia as "Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA)" which covertly organized categorical deletion-addition attempts to violate accuracy in wikipedia in the past[resulted 5 bans] as accurate (in any way) or RS without any note. I won't further contribute this conversation in another user's talk page, if not become essential. And if any issue is available with the title, you may always discuss per article talk pages. You should stop calling "fellow" "uninvolved" editor's help privately, like you committed before ANI, and ask 3rd view or RFC for your agenda driven account. I even posted discussion titles under Wiki Israel, Wiki Palestine and Wiki Israel Palestine Collaboration Projects for finding consensus over ADL case and I informed you, yet you seek help per talk pages of individuals. Kasaalan (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Are you done? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- You try to misinterpret "pro-Israel media watchdog group" CAMERA which committed CAMERA Israeli lobby campaign in Wikipedia as "Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA)" which covertly organized categorical deletion-addition attempts to violate accuracy in wikipedia in the past[resulted 5 bans] as accurate (in any way) or RS without any note. I won't further contribute this conversation in another user's talk page, if not become essential. And if any issue is available with the title, you may always discuss per article talk pages. You should stop calling "fellow" "uninvolved" editor's help privately, like you committed before ANI, and ask 3rd view or RFC for your agenda driven account. I even posted discussion titles under Wiki Israel, Wiki Palestine and Wiki Israel Palestine Collaboration Projects for finding consensus over ADL case and I informed you, yet you seek help per talk pages of individuals. Kasaalan (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Anyways, the new criticism section takes Kaasalan's approach to whole new level. old. R2 simply re-worded the Jewish parties headings and moved it into the criticism lead similar to "All critics come from pro-Israel/pro-Jew lobbyist groups who are dedicated to attacking anything they perceive to be slander of the Jewish state." Seeing as you are an uninvolved party and me an Rd go way back I'd say your recommendation is rather valued. Let me know what you think. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Late Show with David Letterman
Thank you for stepping in to help restore some civility and calm to our discussion about the Palin incident and the Late Show article. The fact that the article has been temporarily protected has definitely helped to cool things down a bit and allow for some more reasoned discussion and debate. There's even a straw poll going on right now as to whether the material should be included or not. Which, BTW, you should vote in since you agreed it should be included. :) In any event, thank you again for your help! Ithizar (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Luke Pilkington
Gday, just wondering why you deleted the Luke Pilkington page, after the need for this article being important after he won an A-League contract with Melbourne Victory on Football Superstar. If, in your own eyes, this article dosent have a place on wiki, why is there a place for Adam Hett? thanks user:dingyv03
- The entire contents of the article was "He is a footballer that plays for Melbourne Victory youth team. He was signed after he won football superstar. He was signed on a year contract." It's possible Hett should be deleted too. I haven't seen it. I saw Pilkington because it was tagged for speedy deletion. Enigmamsg 14:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Finally!
Someone takes action. Please block 69.124.93.87 while you're at it. This IP is getting on my nerves. Thanks, ZooFari 06:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Done Anything else? I was surprised to see AIV backlogged. It's rare that I actually get to make any blocks based on AIV reports. Enigmamsg 06:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Question
Hi. Quick question ... does repeated blanking of material such as [3] constitute vandalism (I noticed that one warning template is for blanking of material), or some other offence? Thanks.--Ethelh (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Content dispute. It's an established editor. While he should explain more in his edit summaries, his edits are not vandalism. Enigmamsg 06:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, Enigmaman! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.
MOTD Needs Your Help!
Delivered By –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've participated on and off in the past. I'll see if I can vote on new mottos. I haven't had much time for anything aside from doing administrator tasks lately. Enigmamsg 19:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Drags you down, doesn't it? Makes you exhausted, doesn't it? Yeah... tough being an admin. 86.3.61.125 (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- It really is. I heard from some admins similar sentiments, but the message doesn't really sink in until you're in the position. You're under more scrutiny, and while most admins don't feel responsibility, I feel pressure to get rid of backlogs. Since things are constantly backlogged, I pretty much can't do anything but clear backlogs. Enigmamsg 00:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Can u lock up..
..the Deathgrind page? There is a IP troll with a dynamic @!^.X range that is pilfering with the page. 10-Q The Real Libs-speak politely 18:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Laird Vandalism (again)
It looks like the vandals are back removing the same content from Laird could you have a look and see if it warrants semi-protection? RP459 (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- 2 actually one right after the semi-protect ended and one today, but no problem I will continue to patrol this article. The IPs look very similar to those used previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RP459 (talk • contribs)
Could you have a look at Laird there are 2 users that seem to be making similar edits... I am more looking for input from an experienced wikipedian that requesting anything at the moment, as I have never dealt with this sort of situation before.... RP459 (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Done Semi-protected again. Enigmamsg 05:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! If you don't mind me asking why until the 10th Is 7 days the normal time for semi-protecting? RP459 (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for protecting the article yesterday. Since you commented, "he is dead though", I though I'd let you know that he in fact isn't, as it was, as initially suspected, a trolljob originating at the MMA.tv-forums. Cheers, --aktsu (t / c) 03:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Gotcha. It wasn't being reported by reliable sources, but several websites stuck it up on their front pages. They should've known better than to report it. I should've known better than to believe them. :) Enigmamsg 04:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm editing for myself. The Fox and the Hound is my particular interest. You can see my contributions as IP en:Special:Contributions/82.199.102.55. Please stop this speculations/accusations. OckhamTheFox (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I reinstated edits of banned user only twice: now deleted article The Seventh Brother and this edit. For that time I didn't knew that reinstating edits of banned user is forbidden in English Wikipedia (it is allowed in Russian Wikipedia). Before making such claims and threatening me please prove that my last contributions was reinstating edits of a banned user. Could you? OckhamTheFox (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- You said that I'm reinstating edits by a banned user. According to a dictionary: "reinstating" is "To restore to a previous condition". So you accusing me of restoring The Fox and the Hound to condition of a banned user. It is wrong and your accusations and alienation of my contributions is pointless and unconstructive in this case. OckhamTheFox (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Does it mean that it is forbidden to me to edit Disney articles in English Wikipedia at all? OckhamTheFox (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I know MoS and I can edit using it. See this: After the reversion of my edits they were later reinstated[4] by User:Collectonian. Compare Introduction section, Voice cast additions, renamed Recetion section for both revisions. OckhamTheFox (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, can I add to The Fox and the Hound a Characters section? This section is usually included in articles about Motion pictures (The Lion King) and Anime (Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust). OckhamTheFox (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please discuss your proposed changes with Collectonian on the article talk page. Enigmamsg 23:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed she is biased against me, but you're not. So I prefered to speak with you. But I will try to speak with her regarding The Fox and the Hound too as you recommend. P.S. Can I add to Attila Dargay article a 1995 title called A hetedik testvér[5]? OckhamTheFox (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please discuss your proposed changes with Collectonian on the article talk page. Enigmamsg 23:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Does it mean that it is forbidden to me to edit Disney articles in English Wikipedia at all? OckhamTheFox (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- You said that I'm reinstating edits by a banned user. According to a dictionary: "reinstating" is "To restore to a previous condition". So you accusing me of restoring The Fox and the Hound to condition of a banned user. It is wrong and your accusations and alienation of my contributions is pointless and unconstructive in this case. OckhamTheFox (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Piling on Bias to Mike Milken's page
Clearly, there has been a host of inaccurate information and "piling on" to Mike Milken's page. Steven Mitchell says Milken is known for his conviction, not his indictment, yet includes both in the lead of the biography. "Binarybits" has made a number of accurate changes to this biography page in the past, but it's clearly getting out of hand. And now, having made a number of accuracy changes myself, I seem to be unable to save changes to a biography that is increasingly becoming more biased. Previous versions dating back before the July 17 and forward assault was far more accurate.
How can a clear, concise and accurate portrait be reached? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50withaBullet (talk • contribs) 20:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
- T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
- WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
- WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
- WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
- WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations
Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Elanco deletion
Do you recall any details from the Elanco article, specifically the nature of the copyrighted content? It appears the history has been deleted too, correct? thanks, MatthewBurton (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. It was a copy of this. Enigmamsg 17:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ha, nice. Thank you. MatthewBurton (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Message from Jeremjay24
I'm currently in charge of the roblox article because gordonrox24 is camping. I need you to reprotect Roblox. Jeremjay24 (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Huh? I protected it on the 23rd. It's been semi-protected. Unless you're asking for full protection, ;) Enigmamsg 03:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I'm so bad at these stuff, lol. Jeremjay24 (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Some time no speak
Hey Enigma - some short time no speak and I can see you have been a little busy with your new tools. In the meantime a friend has just come to my talk page to remind me that Sid Luckman was a reasonable quarterback - thought you'd be interested for old time's sake.--VS talk 04:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Protection of Left 4 Dead 2
Hello there, I think the dispute has been settled since protection was requested at WP:RFPP; see the newest comments at Talk:Left 4 Dead 2#Clean up attempt of Left_4_Dead_2#Announcement_and_boycott. Thanks. —LOL T/C 06:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Will unprotect. My mistake. I saw the request at RfPP and the edit-warring over the weekend, and I protected. Enigmamsg 06:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Abar
Hello
Concerning deletion of Abar, A7 does not apply to albums.
The band article in its current state doesn't do much asserting of importance, but there is some stuff out there which should be enough for an AfD at least, so the album also can't be deleted as WP:CSD#A9
If you think the album fails WP:MUSIC, I suggest you restore it and redirect it to the band instead.
Cheers, Amalthea 08:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Requests
I sent you a message yesterday but you were not present so I reverted myself.
As for the articles, well I think protection is very necessary because this person's IP address is changing everytime he comes. I have a long history with this guy. He had many accounts (most of which were blocked by YellowMonkey.)
I'm quite disheartened. Shahid • Talk2me 09:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not necessary to self-revert just because I'm not around. :) I semi-protected Aamir Khan on Friday. Aishwarya Rai has not been edited in a day. If it becomes a problem again, I'll be here. Enigmamsg 09:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman (originally) vandalism
As you've probably noticed, there's a vandal that keeps posting the same things, originally (as far as I know) to Wizardman's talk page, and to article space, and after his page was protected to mine, and now to user:Kotiwalo's page. I've counted at least 10 IPs this user has used, and they're all geographically diverse. I'm curious your thoughts on how to proceed. Shadowjams (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Protected the userpage. All the IPs have been blocked. I'd rather avoid protecting user talk, for obvious reasons. The userpages being hit can all be semi'd for various lengths of time. Enigmamsg 10:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
He's back again now that the semi-prots have ended
IP troll back at it right after your semi-prots ended. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- A persistent one. Blocked the IP and restored semi-prots. Enigmamsg 21:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- WOW! - you are some-kinda-fast! The Real Libs-speak politely 21:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
An AfD compromised by sockpuppet accounts
Hey E_man. If you have time could you look at this AfD. It has a couple of "new account/vote only" entries which should be deleted. Thanks. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- The article probably should be deleted. About the SPAs: general practice is just to note that they're SPAs, which has been done. Removing entries is frowned upon. Enigmamsg 14:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Question.
Hey, I was just wondering how you found the roblox article. I am just kinda wondering why you took an interest in editing it as you are the only editor other than me that works on that page as well as other pages. Most of the other editors editing there are single purpose acounts. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Your request at WP:RFPP. Enigmamsg 22:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- To expand: there were actually three requests for protection of that article, all handled by me. Enigmamsg 22:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Easily the most retarded thing I have seen in many a day on the en-Wik.
Foolish... just plain foolish. Since I have no idea who this newbie is... my AGF is that he has confused me with someone else. Because if he did know me he would know that after 80000 edits to this little experiment... I don't make mistakes. :-) The Real Libs-speak politely 23:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Never heard of either one. The response by the third party was just plain rude, of course, but what I'm more interested in is the reply of the editor you warned. His reply is saying that it wasn't a test, because it was a joke? Or is he asking if the warning is a joke? It seems he struggles with English, so it's hard to tell. Enigmamsg 00:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Semi-p on Rakhi Sawant
...thanks for the quick response to the request. Have added a semi-p template to the article. Right action, I hope? prashanthns (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Dingbat2007 socks/Rebafan
Luna Santin did a checkuser on the IP the Rebafan socks were using and came up with a TON of other socks. YOu can see part of the report here. If you want, you could block those as well and take out their talk page use (so they don't do what they were doing on the other accounts). It would make life ALOT easier for us over at WP:TVS, where most of the damage occurs. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- OK, will reblock them all. They're likely already blocked. Enigmamsg 01:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks very much :) Much appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c) All done. All but two were already blocked. Most of the blocks were from November 2007. I doubt they'd come back and edit their talk pages now, but I did them anyway. If he comes back with IPs and edits those talk pages, they can be protected, but I don't see why he'd target the talk pages as opposed to other stuff. Enigmamsg 01:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Dingbat (the original user's name) is a strange bird. He "plays" with the television station templates on the talk pages after blocked for some reason. He makes his accounts easy to find (Jesse, Fran, Rebafan, or Word and then a number)....just an odd bird. But with him blocked all over and that IP blocked, hopefully he will get the point that he is blocked and will find some other site to frequent. Thanks for your help :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c) All done. All but two were already blocked. Most of the blocks were from November 2007. I doubt they'd come back and edit their talk pages now, but I did them anyway. If he comes back with IPs and edits those talk pages, they can be protected, but I don't see why he'd target the talk pages as opposed to other stuff. Enigmamsg 01:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks very much :) Much appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- While cleaning out my watchlist, I found another unblocked sock. It goes along the same "Rebafan" username line. This one is User:Rebafan49. I tagged it with a {{sock}} template a couple days ago and it got buried on my watchlist and I forgot about it today. If you have time tonight or tomorrow, would you mind blocking that one as well. Many thanks on all the work you have done today. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Done Wow, this is a new sock, too. Enigmamsg 05:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Yeah, that is one of his new ones. He was just using the others that hadn't been blocked (the ones from earlier) and the IP address. I figure he will pop some more up soon, probably with the same username combinations :) Thanks again...NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
sock unblock?
You were the blocking admin on User talk:StJohnTheBaptist. The SPI results have come back unconclusive, and the user has posted a second request to be unblocked. I propose unblocking the user and monitoring closely- how do you feel about that? tedder (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Same city, same article? That's inconclusive? I would block the hell out of that. At minimum: It's a meatpuppet. 86.3.61.125 (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Do whatever you feel is right. I won't stand in the way. It was clearly reinstating the edits of a blocked user, so whether it's same person or someone else editing for him... Adding: the checkuser shows the two accounts editing from the same city. Could easily be one person, if not, it shows the possibility of a relationship. Enigmamsg 17:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- My personal feeling is to indef block them forever. There's definitely a relationship and obvious meatpuppetry- the user admitted to such. On the other hand, the user has apologized, and promised to not edit the same articles. I think I'll give him/her a chance to be a productive editor. tedder (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)