User talk:Peter/Archive6

This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, you are welcome to bring it up on my active talk page.

Full archive index

Ken Masters/Chun-Li

Please do not add the sprotect template to the article yourself, as only admins can actually carry out the protection (the template is simply a notice of the protection, it doesn't actually protect the article). I've have now semi protected the article, as it is hard to block dynamic IPs without causing a lot of collateral damage. In future if you need an article protected you can put a request in here, and if an IP needs blocking after warning see WP:AIV. Thanks for helping out! Cheers, Petros471 10:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, alright. I didn't know that. Thanks :) Danny Lilithborne 10:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Petros471 10:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After an apology on the Ken Masters talk page, this guy seems to be doing it again with E. Honda. Checking his history, his edits seem to be all alterations of statistics on SF, Mortal Kombat and wrestling pages. I don't know enough about the last two to do anything about it, but all the stats on the SF character pages are taken from Capcom of Japan canon, so they're as accurate as possible. Danny Lilithborne 12:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Thanks for the note. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrecting an old case on RFI (Joestieg, Jake Scorpio et al)

Hello. A while back Choess left a complaint about Jake Scorpio (a Joestieg sockpuppet) on WP:RFI. I am asking your opinion about it, now that you're an admin and you seem to pay attention to RFI. You may remember the complaint, since you commented on it at the time. It is archived somewhere on this page. The complaint was pretty much ignored. I thought perhaps that wouldn't matter, since Joestieg seemed to disappear for a while. But he recently reappeared with an impostor account, Veyklaver (talk • contribs) (see checkuser), to harass me . That particular account has been banned, but no action has ever been taken against any of his other accounts despite months of abuse. I would just like to know where I should complain to get some administrator attention. If RFI isn't the right place, where is? Your advice would be appreciated. (It's OK to reply on this page.) —Veyklevar 06:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try and take a look at this later today. RFI is probably the right place, however because it doesn't get much admin attention WP:AN/I would be the place to go if I can't help or if it needs multiple people to review the situation. Petros471 09:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so to get this straight we have:

Joestieg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Last edit 25 February 2006, not blocked.
Veyklaver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Edited only on 26 April 2006, blocked as a checkuser confirmed sock of Joestieg.
Ukiemob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Last edit 25 April 2006, not previously blocked, checkuser confirmed sock of Joestieg. - just blocked.
Jake_Scorpio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Last edit 13 March 2006, not blocked, suspected but not confirmed sock of Joestieg.

So to summarise we now have all confirmed socks blocked, Jake is not confirmed but hasn't recently edited, and the puppet master Joestieg is not blocked but hasn't edited recently (under that account). I think that will do for now, unless you have anything more to add? Joestieg can be blocked for disruption if he creates any more sock accounts, but I'll leave it for now. Petros471 20:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's all the known socks, unless ip addresses count as socks. The only thing I don't understand is why Jake Scorpio isn't blocked. Given his edits, the only possibilities are (1) that he's a malicious sockpuppet of Joestieg, or (2) that he's an impostor pretending to be such a sockpuppet. Either way, I don't know why we would want him around. Anyway, that's not terribly important. Thank you for your efforts, I know it must have been a chore to sort through the history of the whole sordid business. —Veyklevar 00:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't forget about 24.61.27.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (especially as it's checkuser confirmed) but I thought as no edits have been made from it since the final warning I'd leave it for now. Same with Jake really, especially as it wasn't definitively confirmed. If the account is used again for disruptive edits I'd be happy to block, but I'll leave it for now. Feel free to let me know in future if any of these re-appear. Cheers, Petros471 20:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, just to show Veyklaver was right to be blocked for impersonation- I just thought I'd posted this message on the wrong talk page until I double checked! (too many tabs open...) Petros471 20:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the first person to be confused. When I first saw the impostor's posts, I didn't even notice the spelling difference. For a moment I thought there was some sort of database glitch causing some other person's posts to be attributed to me. —Veyklevar 00:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for spotting my note on WP:AIAV. Never had to use it before. Wow, that was fast. Telsa (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Way to go on blocking User:BlackKn1ght!! Man, that was fast. Grand master ka 10:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP 207.195.51.94 Vandal Back Again

This IP is up to the same old tricks at Martin Luther. I've reverted the second time today. Didn't bother with a new warning. He's been blocked once more since you blocked him. --CTSWyneken 16:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

207.195.51.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), let's take a look... Petros471 19:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I'm in a generous mood (to the vandal that is), and as it was one quick burst of vandalism I've given a test4. Next vandal edit that looks like it's from the same user let me know (if it's another quick one-off) or report to WP:AIV if an urgent block is needed. Be sure to note that it looks like the same user or the report will probably just get removed off that page with little action. Petros471 20:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my user page while I was on holiday - appreciated Stephenb (Talk) 12:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Petros471 20:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question (User talk:ChaplineRVine/hello-alt)

Hi Petros,

A user, ChaplineRVine, posted this script into my talk page: {{User talk:ChaplineRVine/hello-alt}} . Do you know why they might have done that? I thought it may have been an attempt to get me to vote in an AfD since he seemed to have done something sneaky like that a few days ago when he put messages on talk pages to say hello but when you clicked on part of his signature it sent you to an AfD vote. This tag did something similar. Thanks, --Strothra 19:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm that is weird... That's a page being transcluded onto a load of talk pages, and would from the title appear to be a standard welcome message or something. No problem with that (although it should be subst:) if that is what is was, but it seems like a strange extract from a talk page or something... I'll go and ask him about it and see what happens. Petros471 19:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a vote stacking effort since it does link to a hot topic afd. Please see the section of his talk page titled "Those talk-page messages you've been leaving." There's an accusation there where he did a similar thing in a previous afd discussion. I don't think it's against Wiki rules though but just annoying. --Strothra 19:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(second attempt at posting this) Could you please post this on WP:ANI as I think it could do with a few more experienced admins to decide what needs to be done. Thanks, Petros471 20:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure --Strothra 20:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May the Force be with you.

Dear Peter/Archive6,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your faith in me, and was overwhelmed by the positive response to my RFA; for it shows that at least I'm doing something right. :) I've started working to improve myself already, and I hope that next time, things run better, and maybe, just maybe, one day we can bask on the shores of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 21:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal User:86.16.102.3

Hi Cobaltbluetony. Please note that I've archived or removed your recent request for investigation. That page is only for very specific cases, as described by the page's guidelines. Your alert would be better placed on Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV), where it will usually be processed within minutes. Many alerts that are incorrectly placed on Requests for investigation are never dealt with, simply because they become old before an administrator gets to them. Thanks for your efforts. :) Petros471 08:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I haven't blocked for now as no edits since your final warning. Have you checked that all info added changed has been reverted? Petros471 08:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning 86.16.102.3 (talk · contribs) was moved by Deskana here, not by me. Vandal continued since my addition of the IP to the WP:AIV page. I do have to review ALL of the edits, because some I let slip by due to not knowing at first the nature of the "trivia". - CobaltBlueTony 13:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok I didn't realise you hadn't reported it. I wouldn't mind if more admins actually paid any attention to RFI, but as very few do, AIV is the best way to get a quick block on a vandal. Thanks for helping out, keep it up :) Petros471 13:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please, please, please consider a block on this person? They're at it again, and they're getting sly-er! *grinds teeth* - CobaltBlueTony 14:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Now blocked for 24 hours, will extend if continues on return. User:Petros471 14:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! - CobaltBlueTony 14:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I like your italicized method of recording both sides of a conversation. I may adopt it! - CobaltBlueTony

Aska 4

Mind if I extend your block to indefinite, as that user doesn't seem to have any intention of contributing usefully? Petros471 08:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I was thinking about extending the block myself but wasn't sure if that would be a good idea because I have been the most involved with him. By the way, I'm glad that you are becoming an active admin. From what I have seen you are doing a great job. Academic Challenger 08:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Yeh, that's why I suggested doing it. I was going to block in response to the AIV report, thought your block was a bit on the short side and then after all the disruption on the talk page afterwards... Thanks. Petros471 09:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Americans and Egyptians

Seeing your edit and subsequent revert from Zerida here would you mind adding to the discussion on Category talk:Egyptian Americans to help form a consensus there? Petros471 08:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation to discuss this issue, but I have no factual information on the subject. I was just working to fix up categories and one item looked out of place--based only on my general knowledge of what makes up Arab countries. Thanks Hmains 15:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uberac 9

Please reinstate the uberac 9 article, they have an audience of well over a thousand - up to 2000, and are an up and coming band - you better have a very good reason!!! oooh yes! Benjaminstewart05 17:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(btw I started writing this before receiving your message on my talk page) I deleted that article as it doesn't meet Wikipedia notability criteria for bands. I've noticed that you seem to be one of the few editors of Portsmouth Grammar School that actually wants to improve that article, so I wanted to thank you for that. However there are still parts of that article that aren't really that notable for anyone outside of the school. Please remember that whilst Wikipedia is is not a paper encyclopedia, not everything is considered suitable for inclusion. Please feel free to ask me any further questions. Petros471 18:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from the critera for groups and ensembles:

"Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. An article that fails to even claim that the subject of the article is notable can be speedy deleted under criterion A7, however. A mere claim of notability, even if contested, may avoid deletion under A7 and require a full Article for Deletion process to determine if the subject of the article is notable."

I claim that they are notable and that they will one day achieve success, so really I am doing wikipedia a favour by actually creating an article on them, so that in the future (if it isn't destroyed by people like you), it will be here.

Please reinstate or I will continue creating the article and we wouldn't want an edit war would we now.

A very angry - Benjaminstewart05 18:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal: I knew perfectly well before I deleted the article that you wouldn't be happy, however as an administrator on Wikipedia I've signed up to help keep it tidy, do some janitorial type work etc. That article did not assert notability, and to be honest I'm not sure it can at this point in time. Remember that official policy states that original research is not allowed, so just writing about something you know about isn't enough for it to stay on Wikipedia. Now I could undelete the article and list it on AfD, but I advice you that it probably won't be pleasant for you. If you still aren't satisfied then feel free to request a Deletion review. Petros471 18:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An edit war it shall be. Benjaminstewart05 18:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that edit warring disruptive, and is a blockable offence. Petros was perfectly justified in deleting the article, as it does not meet our notability criteria for bands, but meets our speedy deletion criteria for articles. As Petros says above, you can always request undeletion if you disagree.--Shanel ^§ 18:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right get a friend in - well, a good way to end this, and keep a perfectly good wikipedian, is by not deleting the article. And if you must block me, it will be the most stupid thing you have ever done - apart from deleting the article in the first place. Sometimes I wonder about the sanity of some people - Just keep it and stop being a pedant. Benjaminstewart05 18:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking you is the last thing I want you to do- I really do want you to contribute to Wikipedia, but it's already been explained why that article can't stay (and if you disagree with that how to dispute it properly). As for bringing my friends in - all I did was point the situation out to some other admins to check that I was doing the right thing, and they agreed with me. Petros471 19:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I'm going to have to delete the page again. As I said before if you dispute the deletion take it up at deletion review. Alternatively, if you ask me to, I'd be happy to undelete it and list it at WP:AfD to allow the community to decide (you can have your say there as well). I'd even be happy if you wanted the article in your userpage. Now before do anything else about this, please review your options: you can go ranting at me on my talk page, but I'm not quite sure what that would achieve; you can take up one of the options I've given you above, if you believe Wikipedia should have this article; or you can simply get on with welcoming new users, and doing good solid article/talk page edits like I know you're capable of doing (hint: I'd pick that one). So what will it be? Petros471 15:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really are a very big geekopedant - Ok, it won't go on wikipedia proper, and it won't go to a vote because you and your friends will try and block it. So, could you tell me how to create a seperate area on my user page for it. Therefore it will still be accesible on wikipedia to those who may want to know more about it, i.e it's audience.

But tell me if you put it on WP:AfD - If you do, I want to defend it.

Benjaminstewart05 16:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To create a user subpage for the article just go to User:Benjaminstewart05/Uberac 9 and edit away. As you've re-created the article before I assume you have a local copy of it, so is there any need for me to restore a version and move it there for you? Also please note despite you calling me a "a very big geekopedant" (never heard of a geekopedant before- far more original than most words chucked in my direction!), I am 'bending' this part of the WP:NOT policy, so don't say I didn't do anything for you... As long as you don't re-create the article in the main namespace (i.e. where all articles go) I won't put it up on AfD, but if I did, then I would have let you know. And btw, thanks for re-wording the message heading- will look a lot more boring in my archive but shows you're willing to take a step back :) Petros471 16:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding a good solution to a difficult problem - appeasement does work even if it caused WW2.

Benjaminstewart05 16:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Fantastic, so now you are an administrator! I would have come earlier, but could not on account of my sickness from 3rd April to 24th April 2006 resulting into my wiki-absence. I convey my congratulations to you on your elevation as an administrator, and wish you all the best! Have you ever seen me around? I am just curious! --Bhadani 15:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) It means I've now pretty well always got something to do! Yes, I have seen you around various places. Cheers, Petros471 15:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book

Heya, thanks for letting me know! I hope you enjoy it. What part of the world are you in? If I'm passing through that way, I'll let you know so I can stop by and autograph, if you want! Oh, and for a hint on the metapuzzle: be sure to examine page 16 very carefully. :) --Elonka 18:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar - But I don't know where to put it

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		I award this barnstar for diffusing a situation with an editor (me) in a rage, and making it work Benjaminstewart05 08:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3

Administrator Coaching
The Administrator Coaching program is a program aimed at preparing Wikipedians for Adminship or helping them understand the intricacies of Wikipedia better. Recently, changes have been made to the requirements of coachees. Please review them before requesting this service. This would be something like the Welcoming Committee, but for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. Some might like suggestions about how to learn vandal patrol, or mentoring on taking an article to featured status, or guidance with a proposal they plan to make at the Village Pump, for example. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.
Stressbusters
The Stressbusters are a subset of Esperanza aiming to investigate the causes of stress. New eyes on the situation are always welcome!
Note from the editor
As always, MiszaBot handled this delivery. Thank you! Also, congratulations go to Pschemp, Titoxd and Freakofnurture for being elected in the last elections! An Esperanzial May to all of the readership!

The last AC meeting (full log)
Posting logs of the Esperanza IRC channel are explicitly banned anywhere. Violation of this rule results in deletion and a ban from the channel. A disclaimer is going to be added to the Esperanza main page. We are humans and, as such, are imperfect. Various revisions have been made to the Code of Conduct. Please see them, as the proposal is ready to be ratified by the community and enacted. All members will members to have to re-confirm their membership after accepting the Code of Conduct. Referendums are to be held on whether terms of AC members should be lengthened and whether we should abolish votes full stop. Admin Coaching reform is agreed upon.
Signed...
Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, Pschemp and Freakofnurture 20:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trading spaces

Hello, Petros471, thank you for signing up to participate in Esperanza's trading spaces program. As you requsted to have your user page renovated by another user, Whopper will be renovating your userpage. Please contact Whopper on their talk page about the renovating. The renovating will be listed at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs#Undergoing_Renovation, please feel free to update the status as it changes. Enjoy!

Hello Petros471

So I'm going to renovate your userpage. Can you give me an idea of what you would like, (organization, colors, etc)! Whopper 00:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finish it tommorow morning. Whopper 01:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Whopper, thanks for starting work on my userpage, it's looking good so far. Just a few things in response to your question to guide your completion:

* I'd rather have my userboxes outside of one of those 'show' sections.

* You can put the 'What I do on Wikipedia' and 'To-do' sections into one of those 'show/hide' things, as they are more for my reference.

* I like the coloured Intro, Admin stuff, RFA, About, Contact boxes as you've done them :)

* Maybe make the 'What I do on Wikipedia' section colour scheme the same as the 'About me' box, as the lighter shade is easier on the eye.

* Oh and a final bit of vanity- now I've got my second barnstar could you create a new 'show/hide' section for 'Awards'?

Thank you again for your work, I look forward to seeing the final result! Cheers, Petros471 09:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good, I'll make a drawing at work today, and try it 9out :) Cheers. Whopper 11:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.144.84.178. report on WP:RFI

Despite my slowness in getting back to you I did actually act on that report pretty quickly... I don't know if you noticed but as I suspected something fishy I posted on WP:ANI for confirmation, and the account (yes it's a registered user, not an IP) has been blocked indefinitely for impersonating Jimbo's IP address. And yes the report was to the right place- it was "complicated, deceptive vandalism". The main problem with that page is getting enough admins to watch it/do something about things there, hence the need to push some things to ANI to get some attention. Cheers, Petros471 19:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Yes, I did notice your report on ANI- good job! I'm glad that we got that sorted out and got the proper blocks in place. I should have noticed that it was a registered account and not an IP (I knew that period at the end was fishy...) Anyway, good job, and I'm glad my report did some good. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you in the future. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome job.

Hey. I just want to say, great job in catching the edits on the User talk:82.32.39.101 page, followed by your semiprotection of it. That should prevent further self vandalisation. And, you managed to revert while I was added a warning that was overwritten with the next edits. The S-Protect is much more effective than a warning.

Amazing, man. Keep up the good work. Logical2u 20:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New userpage

Hey there Petros471! I'm done with the userpage, and I have to say, Im impressed. If you want to know how to do-it-yourself, feel free to tell me, or if you want any changes. Take a minute to look at the before [1] and what it is now. Happy editing! Whopper 21:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ufviper/MoonLand report on WP:RFI

Is this still an issue, or have they all stopped now? If not can you please let me know of any account that need blocking etc. Cheers, Petros471 09:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I think that situation was handled long ago so you could probably go ahead and remove it from the list. I didn't realize it was still up there. :p --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 12:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great. Just shows up the backlog that has formed there again! Petros471 13:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage dispute

A certain user known to me outside of wikipedia in the real world has set up a user account (another to his own -i.e sockpuppetry), however my query is this, the page is User:benjaminstewartO5 - compared to mine User:benjaminstewart05; as you can see, very similar. Could you please delete this userpage and account as he already has another one, it has been done simply to annoy me, and it is very annoying. Thanks. Benjaminstewart05 20:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, wouldn't call that a 'dispute', that was blatant vandalism... Anyway I've deleted the userpage and blocked. Petros471 21:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh by the way, what account is the 'other one'? Petros471 21:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is User:Benedictwest. Have you blocked the IP address or just the userpage? - because I think that he should be able to use User:Benedictwest, as I know that he needs another chance to prove that he wants to do good to wikipedia (and this can be seen on the PGS article where he revamped it considerably) and would be very angry at me if his IP was blocked.

Benjaminstewart05 21:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on second looks, that doesn't look like him, but it could be. I wouldn't do anything to it, because it may not be him. Please don't block the IP address for User:benjaminstewartO5, because I know that that person does actually want to make some constructive edits.

Benjaminstewart05 21:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the account (as well as delete the userpage, but that's a different thing). There is an autoblocker, which I have no control over, that does block IPs used by blocked accounts in certain situations (I think, but not totally sure, doing things like trying to register new accounts etc.) so as long as Benedictwest behaves, he should be ok. Tell him to email me if he has a problem with it. Looks like 195.93.21.36 (an AOL IP) is involved as well...

Oh and could you slow down how fast you archive your talk page- it's usual to wait while after a conversation is over before archiving. But well done on archiving at all- a lot better than deleting comments straight off! Petros471 21:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Benedictwest - this is his alternative username.

Benjaminstewart05 05:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not allowing the investigation process to proceed shows bad faith

Talk in italics copied from User talk:Hollow are the Ori, heading Kimberley Strassel report on WP:RFI

That is a content dispute. Note that doesn't mean I think you are wrong (or right for that matter) in the dispute, but that is not the place for reporting content disputes. See Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Help, which includes the lines:

# Make sure that the alert doesn't belong on one of the following pages: #* Wikipedia:Resolving disputes: content and user disputes must go through the appropriate dispute resolution process. This particularly includes edit wars, incivility, and trolling.

Appropriate parts of the dispute resolution process might include a request for comment on the issue. Please feel free to get back to me if you have any further questions, but do not re-add the report to RFI. Thanks, Petros471 17:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you didn't have chance to read the above before your second revert so I'll say it again- reverting an admin's decision can be seen as disruption, which is a blockable offense. As I'd be the person investigating the report (which I have done, and determined that it is a content dispute, not vandalism), reverting me isn't going to help. Petros471 17:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow the investigation process to proceed rather than making a unliteral decision. I and perhaps others disagree with your interpretation that the Kimberley Strassel and Wikipedia:Quotations should not contain wikilinks matter is a content dispute. An investigation should take more time. Hollow are the Ori 18:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(in a message box:)disrupting the requests for investigation page is bad form and may well lead to a block for diruption, i strongly suggest you cease your actions unless you wish to add information to the disucssionBenon 18:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it another way: This is your last warning. Do not revert WP:RFI again or you will be blocked for breaking the WP:3RR and for disruption. Petros471 18:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you didn't take the hint: {Block template} Petros471 18:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reference Hollow_are_the_Ori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Reply about WP:RFA (Isn't it time... EWS23)

...that you were on WP:RFA? I'm not sure how your admin coaching is getting on as your AC page says it's taking place on IRC, but I keep on thinking the above question. If you would like I could take a proper look at your contributions to double check you are ready and then give you a nomination? Or would you rather wait for your admin coaches to do the work? (I certainly don't mind if you'd rather they did it, but on the other hand if you think you are ready I'd be delighted to nominate you!) Petros471 19:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your kind words. I've been thinking about asking my coaches that for a little while, but unfortunately I haven't had a chance to talk to them with all the craziness going on in Esperanza. Please, I would love it if you could take a look at my contributions- I need as many second opinions as I can get. I'd probably not want to start a nomination without talking with them first, however. I'll do my best to keep you up-to-date about this, and thanks again for all your help and support. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 20:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, of course I understand you wanting to talk with your coaches first (if I was your coach, I'd probably want to be asked :-) I'll take a good look though, and let you know if there is anything that seems missing. Cheers, Petros471 20:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone back to the start of 2006 and I'm finding it extremely difficult to find a single contribution that could be considered bad. The worst I've found so far is the edit summary "revert newbie test", as it uses the word 'newbie' (some people may find that slightly offensive). I stress, that is not a horrendous thing by any stretch of the imagination- and I'm sure you were only using that summary to avoid using the word 'vandalism' to avoid BITE in the first place!

What I've found good so far: Always civil, always assuming good faith, great use of edit summaries, enough edits to satisfy 'those who count', enough distribution of edits to satisfy the same, good familiarity with policy and process, good understanding of consensus, erm do you want me to go on or is this embarrassing you ;)

Things that might possibly be brought up in an RfA (I don't actually think you'll fail on any of these but it'd be nice to know the answers): Have you done much reporting of vandalism (e.g. to WP:AIV) to 'prove' that you would use the block button? Have you made many significant article edits in terms of expansion or creation? Personally, if you've read my RfA, or some of the ones I've contributed to, you would know that I don't believe this one to be vital to becoming an admin. However some people do oppose based on this, although not enough to make an RfA fail (in my case at least). Petros471 21:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your responses. :o) Yes, I've always thought about that too...I often use "revert newbie test" if it isn't 100%, no doubt vandalism, especially if it's the user's first edit, to avoid WP:BITE as you said. Perhaps I should change my typical wording to "newcomer" (which I use in everything except edit summaries anyway). Thanks again for all your help and supportive comments. If my coaches don't feel like nominating me, I would be honored if you would nominate me (or, you are always welcome to add on a co-nomination if you feel so inclined). I'll try to keep you up to date with the situation, and hopefully something will get worked out in the next week or two. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2] ;o) E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP:ESP/UPA templates

As you did the spamming last time, do you know what/where all the templates are? I know about Template:Upajudge, as you put it on my talk page last time :) The contest is starting again tommorrow, so feel free to sign up again, but either way it would be nice to know what the templates all are (and then we can link to them from the UPA page so we don't have this problem every time!) Petros471 08:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petros471,

Sorry about that. I placed the code on my personal sandbox; when I made the templates I had been on Wikipedia for less than a month, and I didn't know how to make templates.

Feel free to use them in the next round. Let me know if you want me to "template" them.

Thanks,

(^'-')^ Covington 13:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've now found some more (see Wikipedia_talk:Esperanza/User_Page_Award#Templates). Is the one at the bottom of your sandbox one that exists as a template or is that one you made? If so could you make that into a template as it would be nice to have one for runners up. Cheers, Petros471 13:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petros, I replied on the ESP:UPA talk page by accident. Let me know if you want me to move it here. (^'-')^ Covington 13:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the bottom one so that I could keep the runner ups informed about the contest. I'll make this into a template if you'd like. Thanks for valuing my work. (^'-')^ Covington 13:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the message for you (as it doesn't really make sense out of this conversation thread). Yes, please do create a template for that. I've probably got a couple of minor wording change suggestions but that can be done after the template is created. Petros471 13:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Got confused with all the windows on my screen. Thanks again. (^'-')^ Covington 02:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the template. Template:Upathanks I tested it and it works. This is my first actual template, so let me know what you think. (^'-')^ Covington 21:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a look at your sandbox UPA template, User:Haza-w/Sandbox, and was wondering if it would be best to just update the three existing ones (Template:Upajudge, Template:Upanudge, and Template:Upawinner) with the improvements (the subst:pagename, parameter for overseer, any others?) but keep them as three separate templates. I think having the templates separate is simpler, but your other improvements are well worth using. If that seems ok are you willing to do the updating? Cheers, Petros471 13:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I did make some modifications to the templates long ago, but the late KnowledgeOfSelf reverted them (I chose to ask forgiveness rather than seek approval, it would seem). I might go ahead and replace the subst: magic and will ask a few people about overseer implementation; it would seem far easier than changing the template every round. Thanks for your feedback. haz (us e r talk) 14:55, 11 May 2006

Tsar Bomba

I think you're gonna wanna block more than just the one IP address for that fiasco over at Tsar Bomba. Several users were using it as a discussion board. Matt Gies 15:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you got one more while I was writing that. I think there's just one more you missed: 168.169.91.17, thanks, Matt Gies 15:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid spelling (I never did get on with it...)

Be polite, please! See also this. Thanks. Petros471 15:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the etiquette, but I get annoyed about that a lot, and it wasn't actually directed at anyone, more at my screen. I had already read those quidelines, and well haematology developed in England and we can't have American spelling all over the place, it is simply bad English - I accept that for regional subjects that regional spellings should be used, but really!!!, for medicine related articles, America only developed in the last 200-300 years, and the bizarre spellings even later!!!!, so why should we all demean ourselves with American spellings.

Do you see everything???

Benjaminstewart05 16:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it wasn't directed at any one person (if it was I'd have pointed you to WP:NPA), it was directed at Americans in general. Calling a group of people stupid is rather insulting ("Treat others as you would have them treat you"). If you met me in person, you mind find me agreeing with your views, but here on Wikipedia we have to realise that it's an international project. Getting into disputes over this sort of thing doesn't really help develop an encyclopedia. If you think there is a good case for that article to be re-named (i.e. moved) then to be honest the way you wrote that message on the talk page isn't going to help the cause ("spelling it wrongly just makes you look stupid"). With this edit all you did was make the link point to the re-direct page rather than the actual article, which doesn't achieve anything. So please do tread (or type!) carefully, be mindful of other people's thoughts, and learn from feedback, don't get depressed by it. Also check your email. Petros471 17:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the constructive critisms. I will, in future try and be more accepting, and change things in a nicer more constructive way. The reason I am here is to help build a great encyclopedia, and I understand that by being nasty I am only hindering that, and I am sorry. Thank you again. Benjaminstewart05 19:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great :) Petros471 20:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Many thanks. Cheers. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 13:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:FlibbertyGibbert

Please keep away from my talk page. This is my page, and nothing to do with you! Do not edit it again! Flibberty Gibbert!

It has already been pointed out to you above that you shouldn't remove warnings. Petros471 15:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Longestyardsingh.jpg.JPG

Thank you for the reminder, I'd forgotten about this one. The orphaned images have been deleted, the others will be sent shortly to WP:IFD and the user will be notified that he'll have to fix Fair Use assertions to keep them. Thanks again. Radio Kirk talk to me 15:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

boo

Benon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}} or {{subst:smile2}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Benon 19:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]