User talk:PeterSymonds/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 25

Signpost Interview

Please could you answer the questions before tomorrow? Sorry to bother you but there is very little time before publication. Thanks,  PUBLIC GARDEN  19:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I would if I knew where they were. ;) I asked you yesterday but I forgot whether you gave me an answer or not. Sorry. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Morbid Fairy aka Satanoid

Hi, I noticed the sock puppetry investigation has been closed but I am concerned that this same editor who ran away because of an WPOuting violation has returned to create more havoc.--Sikh-history (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I promise that I took that into consideration, and I will be keeping a very close eye on the situation. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Peter, and here is the link to the WPOuting violation. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I'll call in a few of my admin slaveshelpers to keep a vigilant eye as well. If anything is suspicious with the account, feel free to report it to me or WP:ANI. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I have a further interesting issue. Apparently Satanoids account was continously vandalised by:

and

  • 24.129.79.213

The account 24.129.79.213 was continously vandalised by the IP's below:

My question is how I would check these vandal IP's against Morbid Fairy/Satanoid?--Sikh-history (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll look into it. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.--Sikh-history (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

MusicInTheHouse

Hi Peter...any thoughts on unblocking this user? This one touched a nerve with me; my only block (several years ago) was for reverting a blatant SPA/sock editor (an editor which was weeks later blocked after a CU investigation). I don't like to unblock without consent from the original blocking admin. Let me know what you think. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at his explanation, that's okay with me. If he thought he was genuinely reverting vandalism, I'm willing to AGF, and with his promise to be more careful, I'm fine with you unblocking him. Thanks for the note. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL

LOL I just noticed you created Peter Symonds. Looks like you did something right ;) XD Cheers. I'mperator 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I was in the middle of a reesponse to radek when I was edit-conflicted by Adjust shift and then your closure. I took the liberty of adding my response to the archived discussion, as it chronologically belonged there. I hope you don't mind. -- Avi (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course I don't. I think the drama just needed to stop. :) Sorry for e/c'ing you. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk Question

Hey Peter, I'm interested in becoming a trainee clerk at SPI. I noticed that you all have enough clerks right now, but I wanted to express my interest for the next time you are looking for one. Also wanted to thank you for granting me account creator rights earlier today. :) Thanks, again. t'shael mindmeld 01:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall pass your interest onto the other clerks and inform you if a position arises. Thanks for your interest! PeterSymonds (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Splendid. Thank you again. t'shael mindmeld 03:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

More Quacking

Looks like the duck, AKA Jakesnake13, is still quacking, with two more socks popping up: Dthoward64 and XRubbahxDuckayx. I suspect more will be forthcoming. Thoughts on dealing with it? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm, it is certainly odd, but see the thread below. I'll give it some thought. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Rokushobey0001

Rokushobey0001 asked me to review his block by email, I left my reply on his talk page (the CU results are  Unlikely). -- Luk talk 08:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. That's certainly odd, but ah well. ;) I shall unblock him. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioforce (Omni Books). If not socks, these are all obvious meatpuppets at the request of the book's author. They are disrupting the AfD to ridiculous extremes. :( He also apparently mentioned me by name and may have fully identified me (post has since been friends locked). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree it is meatpupettry, I am just releasing the technical results here. I think the SPA comments should be tagged as such and discounted, but if the users wish to otherwise contribute, block may not be the best solution here. -- Luk talk 15:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Things are getting worse. Since he's been unblocked, he keeps posting to my talk page, and more of the meats are posting identifying info on the AfD page (had to have one oversighted). *sigh* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Peter Symonds

Updated DYK query On June 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter Symonds, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 15:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Love the section header. So appropriate. XD Jamie☆S93 16:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
When I saw Peter Symonds on the mainpage, I suspected that it must have been created by you. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hehe. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Nympho wiki

Hi Peter. You were the admin who blocked this user for edit warring and going against consensus on Lady Gaga discography. I'm afraid the user is back again and doing the same thing again, adding the spanish charts which are not supposed to be added according to WP:GOODCHARTS and a possible edit warring is about to start. Please will you look into this. I just reverted his changes. --Legolas (talk2me) 12:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am only adding the Spanish Charts to the page, and giving a good source for it. Since January 2009, that link is completely valid. Plus, there has not been a consensus about that. It's only YOU who doesn't want Spain to be in the table charts. So stop reverting my edits. (Nympho wiki (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).

Where is your consensus, Nympho? Talk:Lady Gaga discography#Spain is mostly against your additions, with one comment that can be considered neutral. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you PeterSymonds i am sorry i did not know about sock puppet investigation was not for innocence. I am taking it too personally, I went on break for a long time bc of this conflict, may be I should take more cooling time! RetroS1mone talk 22:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and no problem. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A little help please

Hi,

I am a little bewildered about your comment to Sam Weller. I would appreciate a little help trying to understand.

A little background, I am an involved editor in the articles concerned, and AFAIK RetroS1mone made a lot of changes [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14][15] [16] [17] from 04:47, to 05:30, 4 June 2009. Overview. Many or all of RetroS1mone's edits were reverted by at least 3 differnet editors including myself.

Just prior to this time RetroS1mone made this statement on the Chronic fatigue syndrome talk page. RetroS1mone said Tekaphor was uncivil. But Tekaphor was talking about a claim not an editor. RetroS1mone's statement also labeled an editor "a spa editor with coi" to disparage their views, and that said Sam Weller called him/her stupid. The statement by Sam Weller where he tried to explain to RetroS1mone the difference between reviews being discussed is here. He never called RetroS1mone stupid.

I later asked RetroS1mone not to attack other editors.[18]

Still later Sam left a message on my talk page, asking me about previous problems, and discussed edits saying, "A 'Guido' sockpuppet perhaps?" not mentioning RetroS1mone by name. I responded on his talk page not mentioning RetroS1mone by name. Then RetroS1mone accuses Sam and me on our talk pages of many things which are untrue including plotting off Wikipedia and accusing RetroS1mone of sockpuppetry. As far as I can see we didn't accuse RetroS1mone of sockpuppetry and only discussed possibilities (not drawing conclusions) on our own talk pages.

So I am not sure what statement Sam would retract since I don't believe he accused RetroS1mone of anything. We were certainly accused of many things by RetroS1mone on our own talk pages and in the Evidence submitted by RetroS1mone. I understand RetroS1mone is upset, but how could we have done this different than Sam asking me discretely on my page and then myself responding discretely on his talk page, not even mentioning RetroS1mone's user name. Are we not allowed to discretely discuss on our own talk pages what we perceive are editing problems or disruption? If you read over this section on the chronic fatigue syndrome talk page please note who is discussing the article and who is discussing editors, heck just scan the talk page anywhere to see. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I apologize for and withdraw without reservation anything I wrote that might have been construed as implying or stating that Retro is a sockpuppet for banned user Guido dB. Please note, however, that I wrote 'A "Guido" sockpuppet, perhaps?' with 'Guido' in inverted commas. I should have foreseen that 'Guido' could be read as implying the 'real' Guido, and I should have written 'Guido-style'. Guido's own purported explanation of his behaviour can be read here: [19] RetroS1mone's approach to consensus editing on CFS articles in the last day or two can be experienced here: [20]. This still seems to me, rightly or wrongly, to be rhetoric employed to prevent rational discussion - without of course being in any way connected to the 'real' Guido and his colleagues. Sam Weller (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem, it was a misunderstanding all-round I think. My apologies. Thanks for the note. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll looking for ya on IRC

If you're around, can you log on please? :)  iMatthew :  Chat  (Review Me) 15:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Signpost Interview

Have you forgotten this yet? ;) They're at User:Garden/int and the deadline is June 12... please can you get to them? Thanks... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Question on WP:RS

Hey Peter, hope you're doing well. Have a question for you. I read through the Susan Boyle article from time to time, and I was wondering about a particular source. I didn't go to WP:RS/N, but wanted an informal opinion. Is Times Online CO UK considered a reliable mainstream media resource .. or is it considered more of a tabloidish gossip type of publication? Nothing I'll hold you to, just was wondering and seeking an informal opinion. Thanks — Ched :  ?  13:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, The Times is a perfectly reliable source for this information. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


Your GA nomination of Oliver Cromwell's head

The article Oliver Cromwell's head you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Oliver Cromwell's head for things needed to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Majority of issues addressed, but a few queried. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I've addressed most of your queries on the review page and added a few of my own. Once those are dealt with, I'd be happy to promote the article. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I think all have been addressed. Let me know if I missed any. :) Thanks again. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

I've started a little infernal voting thing to get a clearer view of how people stand and if we've got consensus either way. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Blanche Parry

I AM NEW TO WIKIPEDIA Dear Peter Symonds, I see you have said more citations are needed on Blanche Parry site. They are there now - would it help if I put original documents first before 'Richardson 2007' please? Please note that this is the very first biography of this lady to be produced, that I have spent eight years on accurate research and my sole aim is to make knowledge of the new evidence available to anyone interested. (Her entry is being changed to take account of the new information in the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and the Welsh Biography Online - changes accepted and will be made in due course.) Therefore, I should like this site sealed (not sure of the term used, or how to achieve this) as no-one else knows anything about her so I don't want unwarranted changes made. I am very happy to discuss with people on the discussion page and on the Contact page on www.blancheparry.com Thank you.REHopkins (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, primary sources are discouraged unless they are published in reliable secondary sources. See Wikipedia:Primary sources for more information. If the entry is changed in the ODNB/WBO, cite it from there once it is updated, but use care. The difference between Wikipedia and an academic publication is that it's an encyclopedia: We stay neutral, and in terms of history, report and cite other historians in a balanced way. An academic publication uses primary/secondary sources to argue a point of view. I hope that helps. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

92.11.192.0/18

Hello. Would you explain to me the problem with the IP address as I have listed in the paragraph title? It just happens that I am unable to edit whilst logged out and a message appears stating that certain messages have been posted despite warnings. I do not believe that I am the author of these edits. I know that on the various occasions I have made edits whilst logged out, the IP changed on every occasion; and I see within my own IP history that I am supposed to have made some edits which infact I didn't. It has never been clear to me how IP addresses jump from one terminal to another, but all I can say is that I am a real user who does not not submit edits indended to be vandalism, and that whilst logged in - such as now - I am still able to edit articles. Be that as it may, I feel uncomfortable that logged out, I have a poisonous IP address; it shouldn't be the case for me, for you, or for any established user. Can you enlighten me on this, and even lift the ban with immediate effect on account of this terminal being at my address and used by no other person for which I can vouch? Thanks. Evlekis (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The range was being used to vandalise Wikipedia articles and userpages with private (and now oversighted) information. Because it was a large range, I fully understand that it is shared by (potentially) many people, and therefore it is nothing to worry about (the /18 range affects potentially thousands of IP addresses, yours being only one, so the address isn't poisonous). Hope that helps. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes thank you Peter, that helps a lot. I confess to not having previously been aware of the IP movements but I had long suspected something. Now that you've told me that this affects numerous addresses which are used by other Wikipedians, I have no concerns; just so long as we are all free to edit once logging on. Thanks for the information. Evlekis (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Snowded

Sorry, dozy of me... Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no harm done. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

ok.

Just Concerned AndrewrpTally-ho! 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I assure you there's no need to be, but thanks for the note. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

semi-protection

thanks we were kinda hoping until the movie came out but this will keep the people without accounts off us for a while thanks Baller449 (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
i told Baller449 to submit these earilier today will they get ignored if hes under 4 days of membership here on wiki AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
No. Protection requests are scrutinised based on thee page's history, not the reporter. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

ok thanks i was worried it would be ignored for a sec all those pages get info deleted and have anonymous users take away info and since he was under 4 days and making edits i thought they might get ignored. cheers! AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

i got mixed hes at my house i was on his laptop and my computer sorry-i accidentally used his laptop and left his name AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

REPLY TO YOUR COMMENT

Hi PeterSymonds. you sent me a message about sockpuppetry and vandalism asking me to get back to you and explain myself. I am sorry about the sockpuppetry. i had no idea what i was doing was wrong. Perhaps i should have read wiki policy rather than rushing into editing. once again i am sorry and i hope you will disregard my ignorance this once.

i have a complaint against the user who notified you against me; a certain "Ogress smash!". this complaint does not regard my accidental sockpuppetry. instead it regards my indicted vandalism. he seems to delete my edits for no substantially good reason. i read the vandalism policy and i believe i have not transgressed it. although the facts i raise in my edits may be a little threatening for those who oppose them (such as "Ogress smash!"), i see no real reason why they should be deleted. i find my edits to be like so many other wiki contributions, i.e. hard-hitting facts with actual sources and evidences, yet within limits of established policy. i find the actions of "Ogress smash!" to be a form of deliberate censorship with the aim of denying people the ability to decide what they want to believe based upon what they read and accept or reject. hope to hear for your decision and views, thanks. Histiryian4all (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

She deleted your edits when they were incindiary anti-Shi'ah screeds, and wasn't the only person to do so. Please take it to the appropriate talk pages; this is no place for sectarian conflict. Ogress smash! 08:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ogress. I've warned Histiryian to stick to one account or fully declare the other one per WP:SOCK#LEGIT, and closed the case. Hopefully we'll see no more socking, at least. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

Re List of languages by writing system: see Talk: List of languages by writing system. As an uninvolved editor, I agree with the majority of others already working on the article that this was completely premature protection over a trivial dispute. I'm sure it was good faith, as mediation had been invoked: but the mediation itself looks premature and more than a little tendentious, as options such as Third Opinion and topic RFC haven't been tried. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested whether the dispute is trivial or not. The page was protected per an RFPP request: What I want to know before unprotection is whether the warring will continue or not? If not, then fine. Otherwise it should stay protected. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was going by the instruction at WP:RFUP: "If you do want a page that exists unprotected, please try to ask the protecting admin first before making a request here". I saw the WP:RFPP and think it's overstated; there's nothing I'd call an edit war. One tendentious editor is being reverted for adding a category against consensus. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well if you're handling it, and you're sure it's fine, Unprotected. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Brilliant: thanks! Looking at the overall pattern, on reflection it looks rooted in simple misunderstanding. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least it got resolved efficiently. :) Thanks again. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

for giving you so much work lately, and thanks for dealing with it! Verbal chat 15:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, no problem, and you're welcome. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your note on [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SgtAvestrand1956], I couldn't help but wonder if you didn't see this edit? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, completely missed that...Sorry! PeterSymonds (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
No worries, mate. Keep up the good work at SPI! :) Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Derdev789

The editors are claiming that they are not the same person, just both users of the MovieCodec Forums‎. From this lengthy thread there[21], it seems possible that they are different people (the forum admin came here and posted to note that they have different IPs[22]. I've never been clear if meatpuppetry is bannable under the same guidelines as sockpuppetry, or they should all just get smacked for coordinated efforts, encouraged to stop promoting themselves, and given another shot. It would be good to read all the way through that thread, though, as they are actively encouraging their few members to come and attempt to current AfD. Maybe unblock but semi-protect the AfD if it gets disruptive? Thoughts? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry is blockable as sockpuppetry if the two editors are coordinating to promote their own ends, an impression I got when looking through the contributions. I suspected meatpuppetry but they don't appear to be doing much unrelated to the forum. If they informally agree to avoid promotional edits to the page, or stay away from the article altogether, I'd be much more comfortable with an unblock. Those are my thoughts. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to bed. If a reviewing comes here and wishes to unblock, they have my full permission, and don't need to check in here first. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I suspect neither will do that, as the only other edits by either account was silly stuff or vandalizing articles. And they have the other meatpuppets coming out and spamming my talk page. Wee-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the timestamps, it's two separate people editing the same article. Since meatpuppetry is aimed more at swaying discussions, I don't think that's quite in play. My thought is to unblock one of them—Omegakingboo, since he's the more involved in creating the article—to allow participation in the AfD, and with the caveat that he not revert any edits on the MCF article but should discuss those items in talk. —C.Fred (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
That is okay with me. As I say, if they both plan to contribute constructively away from the MCF article, then unblocking both would be okay. However the editing patterns suggest a collaborative involvement (see here) on at least one separate article, so I'm sceptical. However, AGF and all that, so yes, I will consent to anyone unblocking. Now I'm really off to bed. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Hello, I am a Moderator for the website MovieCodec.com. It has come to my attention that you banned two members of this site (who are also members of MovieCodec) for the false assumption they are the same member. I am NOT here for their claim for the Wiki Page created for MovieCodec. I am only here to clarify they are in fact two different people, and it's only right that further investigation goes into the situation concerning both of these two members. Hopefully this will be enough to bring some attention to you (or whoever may have been the one that banned the two members). My apologies if you are not the one who did the dirty deed.

One final thing, Derdev and King Boo (the two members that were banned) both have different IP addresses, joined years apart back on MovieCodec, and have completely different posting styles and personalities. If you have read this far, you have my personal thanks for reading all of this. Hopefully something can be done about this unjust ban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NEREVAR117 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

OTRS ticket 2009041610052721

Hi PeterSymonds, this image is also covered by ticket:2009041610052721 but was apparently missed. Would you please take a look at this again? The uploader of these images asked for this case here. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed; sorry about that. Must've missed it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Signpost again.

User:Garden/int ... is this ever going to get done? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oof, sorry, been a bit busy. Done. Sorry for the delay. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
No, no, it's absolutely fine :) I'm just revelling in the irony is all... :P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
O RLY. Go revel here instead. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

OTRS ticket 2009051010000428

I draw your attention to the Boze Hadleigh entry Talk page which has a post from one 'Monkeyzpop' questioning your recent deletion, to which they have received no reply. Given the facts cited in the deleted section, I too am puzzled, and request that you illuminate us on your reasoning at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boze_Hadleigh. Engleham (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've inserted only text from the published sources. Without contravening Wikipedia's policy of no original research, is there a way to mention strange factual discrepancies in the author's work that haven't been cited in published sources...e.g. 'in his book Broadway Babylon Hadleigh has Madeline Kahn say: "Nathan Lane has a wonderful sensibility for comedy...It does rather surprise me that as a gay man he participates in that degree of homophobic humor in The Producers. They couldn't have known ahead of time that it would be a hit." [1] However, Kahn died in 1999 while Nathan Lane first appeared in The Producers in 2001. Similarly, in his book Leading Ladies, Sir Noel Coward is 'quoted' regarded the 1974 remake of the film Brief Encounter: a remarkable feat given that Coward died in 1973.' This seems a simple listing of dates. Engleham (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry. The point of an encyclopedia is to present facts from secondary sources in a neutral way. It is not an encyclopedia's job to point out inconsistencies in an author's text if they haven't been reliably supported elsewhere. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, ta. I'll just add it to the Discussion page then to flag it, given his works are now being used as secondary sources by other biographers. Other contributors may be able to located some published sources that have detailed the issue. Engleham (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A wise solution. Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

The users Slp1 and WLU have decided to dominate the article on the Canadian Children's Rights Council. They even cite statements made from none existant newspaper articles or from articles that can't be verified. They appear to be radical feminists who hate any group which says anything good about fathers. They cite a couple of radical feminist authors who are of the opinion that the Canadian Children's Rights Council isn't about child rights. The content about the Canadian Children's Rights Council is defamation. A review of the notability on the discussion page will show that these 2 wouldn't even agree on the legal name of the organisation.

WLU, in particular has written in regard to others editing that page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WLU "Please try to be civil in your edit summaries, especially with new users. That really wasn't necessary. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC) That's not a new user, that's a sockpuppet of the community-banned editor ResearchEditor, who has a history of editing pages related to satanic ritual abuse, dissociative identity disorder and child abuse in an unacceptably POV manner. Note his sockpuppeting history. His latest habit is to create throw-away accounts like this one and this one. Note that the comment and reversion are exactly the same. If the editor edits any other page, I will report them as a suspected sockpuppet to confirm. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize. But I really like telling him to fuck off 'cause he's a douche. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Well, then the WP:BITE references is moot then and retracted, but the point still stands. Telling people to "fuck off", sockpuppet or not, is exceedingly rude. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC) " WLU then destroyed all links on Wikipedia to the Canadian Children's Rights Council Virtual Library as a hate measure and stated falsely that they were all spam and blacklisted their website url. Any help to correct the damage done by such people would be appreciated. No one that made any entries swore or was abusive to WLU or Slp1 as far as I can see. Do the lawyers for the Canadian Children's Rights Council have to sue the Wiki foundation for defamation? No person or organisation should have defamation published on Wikipedia. What can be done? MSLTT (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing Race Wikipedia

Hello, PeterSymonds. Welcome to the Amazing Race Wikipedia. In your travels, you will encounter two types of tasks. In a Detour, you have a choice between two tasks. Both of you must work together on this. In a Roadblock, one team member must work on a task alone. Your Amazing Race Wikipedia submissions page is located here. Enjoy the competition! Best, Shappy (talk · contribs) and Firestorm (talk · contribs). 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

More IP-hopping

User:58.111.174.230 by User:Histiryian4all Ogress smash! 18:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Such good news you bring me! :P Never mind. Done and thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Total Drama Action

I am sorry to bring this up again.... but there is still vandalism from registered users on the above article. Thank you for all your help in this, but it still seems to not be working. TDI19 (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Best thing is to just revert and report vandal-only accounts to AIV. Fully protecting the page isn't an option at the moment, sorry. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Spreadin' Sum Luv!! ^_^

Warpath (talk) has smiled at you and showered you with WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:User:Cometstyles/smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Heh, thanks. The same to you. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you read my edit summary for the earlier message :P ..--Warpath (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, well, he's Australian so what do I care? ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Idolrecords Sockpuppetry

Hello Peter, I wanted to drop you a note to explain my reasoning behind this report. I understand your decision and do not question it, but I'd like to clarify a little: I wasn't concerned with the user's edits per se, but with the use of the alternate account to edit while the primary account was blocked and to make an edit on a page related to the concerns that lead to the block. I didn't intend to make it seem like persecution, and have apologized and explained myself to the user [23]. Thanks and regards, Vicenarian (T · C) 16:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no it's fine, Vicenarian. The report ultimately revealed the connection between the account, so that's something. Talk page might be better in future as a first step, but ultimately no harm done. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Roger wilco! Thanks, Vicenarian (T · C) 18:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much Peter for taking the time to review and support my recent RfA. I consider it an honor to have the support of an editor and an administrator that I think so highly of. I'll do my best to never abuse the faith and trust you've shown .. Thank you. ;) — Ched :  ?  20:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Quite possibly the nicest thankspam I've had. :) It was a pleasure to support, and I'm sure you'll do excellent work with the new buttons. Congrats. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Peter, I remember you had a list of some of the "Stupid things new admins do" a while back. I was copying over the !votes to a temp page, and striking the ones I had already dropped a thank you note to. I ended up editing in the wrong tab ..... you are gonna 'LOVE this one. geesh ... talk about your facepalm moments huh? — Ched :  ?  03:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • *but I fixed it. ;) (see previous revs.) Hey, I wonder - If I would have struck enough of the support !votes, would a bot have removed my bit? lol — Ched :  ?  03:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hahahaha. :D I've seen people act a bit strangely after their RfA, but that's the first time I've ever seen someone deliberately striking their support votes! The stewards will take the hint and desysop you in time, no worries. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Denisefortune

Denisefortune was removing incorrect information – when I noticed the dispute I checked the sources and they appeared to have been misinterpreted. The lack of communication on talk pages or in edit summaries may have been a problem but the user's edits have been constructive. snigbrook (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your taking the time to add the rollbacker function to my account. Sorry about the mess I made of the request page there for a minute! :) Unitanode 15:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Very welcome good sir. Keep up the good work! PeterSymonds (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind being on my "speed-dial" if I have any issues I need assistance in handling? I don't yet know that many administrators, so that might be helpful to me. Regards, Unitanode 15:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course. :) No problem at all. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Meat pupp

Thanks Peter, We have decided to work on different articles than punching on same article, i hope that should resolve most of the things :). Thanks for your kind gesture. Vertical.limit (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the note, and happy editing. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, little note

Thanks for enforcing the 1RR for the Macedonia case. One little thing: in your note on the IP talk page, you linked to WP:ARBMAC, but the case you enforced is actually WP:ARBMAC2, so that could be a bit confusing to the reader. Still, thanks for helping out. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, of course, apologies. I've done that before too. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Believe me, having been involved in the second case on that topic was one too many. Perhaps you were just trying to spare me the pain? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes! Yes, that was it. And I totally succeeded, no? ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It's the thought that counts. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

More Thanks

Everyone else is thanking you for something, and I feel left out... so thanks! :-) Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, too kind. ;) Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Account creator request

Hello sir, I registered last night on the ACC site and I haven’t gotten a response. I thought you might be able to help. Thanks! --ilamb94 (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, I'm not an account creation administrator. Please be patient and someone will respond soon. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

SPI

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for sticking around at SPI even though the bot is down. It's more work, with suddenly less clerks and CUs, so thanks! Nathan T 19:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. :) The same to you. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Request protection

Please semi-protect the article Princess Protection Program so that no unregistered users can edit the article until the movie premeres in the US. Thanks, --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 23:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC) P.S. please type your reply in my talk page or leave me a talkback.

There's not much to type, so  Done 1 month. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"Autoreviewing"

Hello, I noticed on my Watchlist (5040, -ulp- trying to keep them under 5000) that you've credited me with the added responsibilities of autoreviewer (will I need a hand mirror?) Is there a page I could open that gives the current status of the Flagged Revisions procedural test? Though I don't yet know how I can help, I must say, I was gladdened to see I've been whitelisted! My own secret quality checking involves looking over the diffs since my last edit (after several months often), and discreetly vetting the intervening edits: many marginal edits need only a tweak to be good. Would you respond at User_talk:Wetman. Thanks!--Wetman (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewing #2

Thanks for nominating me or adding me to the autoreviewer listing. I have only one request for assistance at the present time. I researched and wrote a small credited (unfinished) article on Canada Post for the London Mail Processing Plant which as you can see i had to move over to a talk page on Commons because several (I felt) ignorant users wanted the dirty nitty gritty information about the strikes and Union negativity that was going on and they put my article up for deletion because it was too clean. Can I now update this and put it back on Wikipedia and attach it to the main Canada Post article without fighting to keep it, under this new autoreviewer listing? Thanks Oh PS most of my work has been on Commons but I will be working here more now. WayneRay (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It just overrides the need for another user to mark your new pages as patrolled. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Scream/Childhood

Hey Peter, I'm currently working on this article and would like to take it to FAC soon. Would it be possible for you to read through it, and give it a copy edit? — Please comment R2 17:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll just do some SPI backlogs then I'll be happy to take a look. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks in advance. :) — Please comment R2 19:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

IP block

I think it might be best to reconsider the block you made on the TDC case. Avi said that there are unrelated users on the range and that a hard block wouldn't be appropriate. The range that you blocked 75.57.208.0/20 is actually greater than the one I suggested, 75.57.208.0/21 . Maybe it would be best to change it to a softblock instead and keep account creation blocked as well. Thanks, Icestorm815 • Talk 16:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also request not templating this case for closure just yet, pending a response from Icestorm and Avi on additional information, per discussion here. Much appreciated! Xenophrenic (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread Avi's comment completely. Reversed. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm.Syn 18:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Cancels arbitration request.

Declined Rfa

Please re-delete Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ukexpat - I am flattered by the nomination, and have thanked the nominator but I am declining at this time. I have told the nominator - do I have to formally decline the nomination? – ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Being a good talk page stalker, I took care of it. :-) Regards SoWhy 19:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Whatever would I do without you, SoWhy. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hey PeterSaymonds...I didn't mean to be encouraging the vandal with that post...is that why it was deleted? Should it be reposted if I add more to it saying clearly to him to not vandalize(though I already gave hime 2 warnings.)I was telling him that it was disturbing what he wrote to me and i wasn't intrested. I was actually hoping to get the barnstar of good humor for that for i saw something similar before with that .SchnitzelMannGreek. 16:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What the vandal wrote was blatant trolling not worth responding to. Please refrain from doing so, as it unnecessarily feeds the trolls. Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Bob from Mars

Technically, he made that edit before I warned him. Now, I 100% believe he should be blocked for trolling, but I want to make sure you know, in case for some reason you feel ethically bound to give him another chance. A quick look at his userpage, fake RFA, and that suspicious edit to an old SSP page make me think this decision is correct, even if based on a slight misunderstanding. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? My time stamps are different, but I'm forgetting GMT. Damn. Well, we'll see what he says if he requests an unblock. Thanks for informing me, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi, I saw that you closed today the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deucalionite‎ case. But, some minuts ago, the same editor, vandalised again Markos Botsaris page, possibly not blocked the right IP range. By the way, can you semi that page?Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Account Creation

Hey, you added Rollback to my permissions, and I wanna expand my roll on Wikipedia. What do I need to do to obtain Request an account permission? I noticed you are very active at WP:PERM so I thought I'd ask you. CTJF83Talk 04:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey CTJ. The account creator permission overrides the 6-a-day limit on account creation, and also overrides the spoofing filters in place. Therefore it's only granted to active members of the account creation team, who work to create accounts for people unable to create their own for whatever reason. That page also lists details on how to become a member if you're interested. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Request with helping Users with disabilities

Hello. I wanted to speak with regarding Christian Weston Chandler. This internet celebrity needs some help and general backup regarding his nobility here on Wikipedia. Was hoping maybe you could find time in your busy schedule to assist this person. As this person requires further assistance, due to the fact he falls under the Autism spectrum, Category:Living people, Category:Internet personalities, Category:Video bloggers, and well as Category:YouTube video producers and YouTube celebrities. Thank you kindly. Apelike (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're asking. Are you asking how the article could satisfy the notability guideline? Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
To Apelike: No, Wikipedia is not going to allow the creation of an article on Chandler, so please stop asking us. (To anyone else reading this page: you can ask me if you're not sure what this is about. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_Weston_Chandler and the talkpage thereof.) -- Soap Talk/Contributions 11:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Check my work?

So, I patrolled my first SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/69.118.241.91. Any feedback? (watchlisting)--Aervanath (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellently done. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Cool. I thought it would be more complicated than that. I'll keep patrolling. If I screw up, let me know. :) --Aervanath (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Heh. Yeah, as long as you know the signs to look for, and you can take the initiative to make a judgement call on the case, it's pretty easy work. They aren't all easy but most are manageable. I'll stalk your contributions in any case. ;-) PeterSymonds (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

As a trainee clerk, am I allowed to mark RFCU templates as "endorsed", and move it to the "waiting for checkuser" section? The procedures aren't clear on that. I've already done it a couple of times before I realized I should probably ask you if that's permissible.--Aervanath (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A little confused about the sockpuppetry

I have an office in which many employees work part time and others full time. Some individuals share the same computer. In the case of [[24]] I have two part time individuals who share the same computer (laptop) which works out of the same office and occasionally out of another office. When you blocked the IP address it prevented me from creating an account to respond to the block. I appealed to another administrator Fred Bauder who contacted me via email and help me set up this account. Currently I am not in the office and I assume there is a different IP address but I do also use this laptop from the Same office whose IP you blocked.

Can you help me to understand the sockpuppetry. I've read about responding and the checkuser content but that seems to apply to the same person using several accounts. In my case, it is several users using the same IP. How do I manage this? Does it require getting a different IP for my office. I am a bit confused and this is somewhat of an overwhelming process for the novice to understand. It is not layman language and extremely difficult to link to each new term when reviewing a talk page. I have attempted to follow the instructions but remain bewildered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto Placik (talk • contribs) 08:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The explanation is that someone filed a sockpuppet investigation against a number of editors who appeared to be editing the same things, with the same problems, and it looked like one person was using these accounts. Sock puppetry on Wikipedia is the abuse of multiple accounts for a particular purpose. Of course, sometimes they are in an office or workplace, which appears was the case here. The accounts are free to request an unblock, but I would ask that they refrain from editing the page in a promotional manner. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to post images that I believe are supplementary to the text descriptions of the procedures. Under the image information page, I have posted my username as the authour and my real name as the source. Is this what you consider "in a promotional manner"? How else would you suggest that I post this? I am a little bewildered by this. I am aware of other contributors whose images have direct links to professional websites (I no longer have any links whatsoever)and yet their images remain posted and their IPs unblocked. I need some help here and clear direction.Otto Placik (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MRDU08

Per Synergy's comment, is everything all set to close this case? Icestorm815 • Talk 13:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. Lar requested it be reopened from the archive as he believed more is needed, but he didn't give specifics. As such, please leave it open until a functionary requests closure. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing Race Wikipedia Starts!

Hello, Shappy. This is a reminder that Amazing Race Wikipedia will start very soon. At 00.00 (or whereabouts), our host Firestorm will place the first Detour on your submissions page. Again, the Detour is a choice between two tasks; both members of the team choose one task and work together to complete it. A Roadblock is a task only one team member must perform; he/she may not have any help from the other team member. Good luck and enjoy the Race! :-) Shappy (talk · contribs) and Firestorm (talk · contribs) --EdwardsBot (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

If you don't mind humoring an old dog... Regarding this reply:

  1. Would weblogs or analytic reports of the claimed DDoS be sufficient?
  2. The AfD was obviously canvassed -- someone with personal animus towards me (I fired him), who hasn't made substantial contributions in two years, appears out of nowhere to participate in the AFD.
  3. My biggest concern: the AFD discussion is chock full of blatant accusations of bad faith towards me -- not once, but probably ten-plus, including strawmen and red herrings.

Maybe there is nothing here that needs administrator intervention, but I actually just came to ask for advice. I did my dead-level best to handle the situation properly, and I am disappointed that the only admin response seems a "too bad so sad". Apparently this isn't the first time someone has had these sorts of problems with these two editors. I hope not to ever run across them again (was a random happenstance, it seems), however I feel sorry for the next well-intentioned editor who crosses into their garden of IRC-related articles. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Well I'll cease my small involvement with the issue then. I'm clearly not aware of the off-wiki remarks and any history with the editors here. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm terribly sorry to have run you off, it certainly wasn't my intent. Since our comments there have been some pretty damning revelations at the ANI thread -- one of the editors in question has now linked what he believes to be my personal information, along with an off-wiki attack... what's my best course of action here? Not your problem, I know, but I'm really just looking for some advice as to what's an appropriate expectation. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I see; it's no problem, you didn't run me off as such. I was concerned that my knowledge of the issue was preventing me from giving you the best advice possible. However, as for the off-wiki linking, I see no conceivable reason why this is continuing, so I have asked Eckstasy to stop it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Blaxthos, let's clear this up right now. I never claimed any responsibility for your DDoS troubles, I only pointed out the obvious. It is well known online that some of those affiliated with other sites and various image boards have targeted bash.org due to how you've treated people and in the past have run up your bandwidth bill. You certainly won't pin any of that on me, although after seeing how much trouble you've created for others, and in particular those affiliated with QDB.us, I can't say I feel the least bit sorry for you since from where I'm sitting it appears that you brought it all on yourself.
Now, if you want to talk about true case of defamation, in making false accusations against me for your DDoS troubles I believe you are getting pretty close to the line and may have in fact already crossed it.
--Tothwolf (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Broadway Babylon, Back Stage Books, 2007 ISBN-10: 0823088308 p289
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PeterSymonds/Archive_19&oldid=1190255697"