User talk:Dylan620/Archives/2011/April

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter

We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk page access

User:Bonaparte/User:Iaaasi uses his talk page access to throw mud at me (the second time). Was this the original purpose of enabling him to edit the talk page?
As you (and possibly other admins) still seem to read what he writes, do I need to point out his falsifications, distortions or should I just let it go? Squash Racket (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The original purpose of restoring Iaaasi's access to his talk page was to allow him to address comments in his ban discussion. That being said, it is preferred to discuss bans over a period of 48 hours, and Iaaasi's ban discussion has been open for roughly 56-69 hours. I'll post at AN asking whether consensus exists for a community ban, or if more discussion is required.

And I'm only really watching Iaaasi's posts to his talk page, for now; pointing out his "falsifications and distortions" may help to determine socks in the future, so please do. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 22:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, while it was never proven that Iaaasi wasn't a sock of Bonaparte, it was never proven that he was either, and that's what matters. Please do not say that one user is a sock of another without proof (like CheckUser, for example). Unfounded sockpuppetry allegations are personal attacks (and so is your allegation of Iaaasi's "falsifications and distortions", pending the evidence that I have requested). --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 22:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

He was originally blocked as a sock of Bonaparte. Excirial's comment was the only reason for which he was treated as a "new user", quote:

It is possible that this account is a separate group of sock puppets from Bonaparte. User:iaaasi admitted he is the puppet master for User:Conttest and User:umumu, so it may be possible this is a separate group. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If you see a link between those two statements, notify me.
Distortion: I changed the lead of the football team back to its longstanding title, because — as Iaaasi very well knows — there's a Requested move process only waiting to be closed by an admin with an overwhelming, clear support for that move. In fact he changed the lead of that article in a bad faith, because by the time he did that the process to move it to its original title (Golden Team or a similar version of it) enjoyed wide support.
"militating for his ban": I haven't even voted there! I argued against the whole process as Excirial didn't give any reason for us to treat him as a new editor. I showed the links to admins to let them decide. My main concern was the detection of a banned editor from a new IP range.
He claims: "The only sock account I used since last my block is User:Nauneim, which was already blocked (since 7 February 2010). I edited only its talk page. If editing that talk page was enabled, I considered it is nothing illegal": User:Nauneim's first edit was a removal of a Hungarian name, next moment he got autoblocked, because it was an IP recently used by Iaaasi. That's why he only edited its talk page. He even tried to blank the page after he had been caught.
He falsely called others' edits vandalism, he even falsely reported at the vandalism noticeboard.
He broke 3RR at the article Székely two days before the edit warring for which he was blocked. Neither User:Hobartimus, nor me reported him, so he could get away. Should we continue? Squash Racket (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

While Iaaasi was suspected as a sock of Bonaparte, I don't see anything about that in the rationale for his first indef. In any event, Iaaasi is now formally banned, so even if he is Bonaparte, the matter has become irrelevant, as both sockfarms will now be reverted on sight.

Iaaasi didn't quite violate 3RR at Székely. To violate 3RR, you must make at least four reverts on a single article within a 24-hour timespan. While Iaaasi did make four reverts, those were in a timespan of 33 hours; he certainly edit-warred, though. I should note that if you or Hobartimus had reported Iaaasi for edit-warring, you would have reported yourselves as well, since you were both parties in the edit war (Hobartimus made three reverts, while you made two).

I think that by "since [his] last block", Iaaasi meant since his prior indef was reversed. That being said, Iaaasi should have known better than to use any socks at all; also, as Jpgordon had to use a rangeblock, it is plausible that Iaaasi had socked via IP's as well.

I agree with you about the AIV report, the Golden Team move discussion, and that you weren't "militating for [Iaaasi's] ban". --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No matter how I count it, he broke 3RR on 22nd March 2011 at the article Székely (that means within 24 hours). While Hobartimus did not. Besides, he edit warred alone against two editors, so he shouldn't have pushed it at all...

But now that isn't very important that much anymore. Squash Racket (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Bacon WikiCup 2011 Award

		Bacon WikiCup 2011 - Participant Medal
		Due to your work in expanding bacon-related content during the Bacon WikiCup 2011, you have been awarded the Bacon WikiCup 2011 Particpant Medal. You received a final score of 37, earning yourself sixth place. Congratulations, and thank you for your great work! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 09:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yay :) --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 03:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Radbourne, Derbyshire Sweet Friggin' Daisies Jason Cameron Staunton Harold Reservoir Sri Lankan Spotted Chevrotain Central American red brocket Whore (2008 film) Yellow-striped Chevrotain Yang Kuei-Mei Southern Yellow cattle and Philippine Native cattle Timor Warty Pig Autumn Heart Bovini Bangweulu Tsessebe Remixes (Prudence Liew album) Raving (film) Williamson's Mouse-deer Flores Warty Pig Finching (cattle)

Cleanup Armorican (cattle) Red Poll Aurochs Merge Lake District National Park Ear tag Piedmontese (cattle) Add Sources Chollima Hippopotamus (genus) Grazing antelope Wikify Ravenheart Dama Gazelle Mike Noble Expand Bovinae Index of Bermuda-related articles Bag It Up

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:ACC tool users' pledge

Wikipedia:ACC tool users' pledge, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ACC tool users' pledge and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:ACC tool users' pledge during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 10:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm Reporting you for edit warring!!!

This is your final warning!!! I cut you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.74.154.74 (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You replaced the article's entire content with this. Why should I not have reverted that? --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 19:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

It might be worth closing the others aswell, but I'll leave that up to you. Unsure if I can withdraw an AFD or not but I doubt it. Oh and the comment above made me smile. Best,   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. BTW, Special:Search/withdrawn prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion turns up over 6,000 results, so I think it's safe to assume that withdrawing is legal as far as AfD goes. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 03:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)