User talk:AmandaNP

Archives (Index)

2009/December 2010/January 2010/February 2010/March 2010/April 2010/May 2010/June 2010/July 2010/August 2010/September 2010/October 2010/November 2010/December 2011/January 2011/February 2011/March 2011/April 2011/May 2011/June 2011/July 2011/August 2011/September 2011/October 2011/November 2011/December 2012/January 2012/February 2012/March ISI 2012/April 2012/May 2012/June 2012/September 2012/August 2012/July 2012/October 2012/December 2012/November 2013/January 2013/March 2013/February 2013/April 2013/May 2013/June 2013/July 2013/August 2013/September 2013/October 2013/November 2013/December 2014/January 2014/Early 2014 2014/July 2014/August 2014/September 2014/October 2014/December 2014/November 2015/March-July 2015/January 2015/February 2015/August-November 2015/December 2016/January-February 2016/March-May 2016/June 2016/June-October 2016/November-December 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Eugene Burger

Please follow {{PROD}} removal instructions at Eugene Burger. I have reverted your edit and commented on the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well if your going to revert that one, might as well start on the the other ~27. :) User talk:Alwayspericulum and Special:Contributions/Alwayspericulum might help explain. This is also possibly a sock, but this user is not new to Wikipedia. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

All I am saying is if you are going to remove the tag, follow procedure to do so. The template tells you what to do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So for a person who spammed 43 deletion tags in a matter of minutes + that being their only contribs, and that I blocked, you think I should have followed the procedure for everyone of them? ... That's excessive and very time consuming. The user already has a denied reviewed block. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

All that you have to do in the edit summary is say something like "RV WP:PROD by WP:SOCK WP:SPA" in each edit summary I guess.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the mass revert script doesn't allow me to do that. Maybe talk to User:Timotheus Canens to have that changed. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

• Board elections: Time to vote

• News and notes: Board resolution on controversial content; WMF Summer of Research; indigenous workshop; brief news

• In the news: 60% of doctors use Wikipedia; growing in India; brief news

• Recent research: Various metrics of quality and trust; leadership; nerd stereotypes

• WikiProject report: Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Two cases pending resolution; temporary desysop; dashes/hyphens update

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, AmandaNP. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Block of User:86.8.218.114

Could you explain to me why you used the word vandalism when blocking this user? As far as I can see none of their edits are vandalism but rather are attempts to improve the encyclopaedia. Per WP:VANDALISM that is not vandalism. A block may well have been warranted but I would have thought it would have been for edit warring rather than vandalism. Sorry about this being somewhat after the event but I've only just noticed it and I'm concerned we're being too harsh on this user and don't think describing their edits as vandalism is going to help. Dpmuk (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Now looking over the diffs a little better, it does look more like it is not vandalism directly, and maybe this should of been the block reasion: "Edit Warring: Continuous adding of incorrect information" or something along that line. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool. If they come back after their latest block I will, if I notice, try to help them. I get the feeling they were jumped upon for not conforming to some obscure standard on airport standards and although they were told about this it escalated way too quickly to accusations of vandalism (which as far as I can see it never was) and comments like yours may help if they do come back as I'll fell more able to say to them "it wasn't vandalism but you were doing things wrong". Apart from one initial attempt there was never any attempt to explain things to them, e.g. the idea of consensus was never mentioned. Hopefully we haven't lost a potentially useful contributor. Dpmuk (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Block of Arnithorri

I see that you have blocked Arnithorri for vandalism. Certainly that is the way the editing looked at first, but looking deeper I don't think it was. I am inclined to unblock, but thought it better to consult you. You can see my reason at User talk:Arnithorri. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey James, thanks for pointing this out. The "vandalism" I went on was the last two diffs, and the smileys add to the article back in '07. It's clear now after looking back that the smileys belonged, and that the last two edits were probably a misunderstanding. Just thought I would give you where I came from on the "Vandalism" part. Anyway, again thanks for pointing this out and I hope to see you around. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I too saw the last couple of edits as vandalism at first, but I didn't see the smileys. Also, having thought about it a bit more, I do think that there is a significant element of AGF in assuming that the latest edits were not vandalism, as I wonder about the motivation for wanting to delete the article. However, I think we can afford to assume good faith: we can always reblock if there is any continuation. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, AGF in the fact that it wouldn't continue. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out...

Hey there, I do thank you for your assistance in the last article after an IP address attempted to re-add an unreferenced entry or source of former employees as per BLP material set by another user. I will still continue to monitor the article, however. CHAK 001 (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Courcelles internet was the only reason that I portected it :P but anyway there is an SPI for the guy now. -- DQ (t) (e) 15:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Bizovne, Iaaasi

Hello DeltaQuad,

I would like to bring these matters [1][2] to your attention on the grounds that you told at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bizovne that "On hold pending further investigation, hoping to be back in 1 or 2 days. Poke me on my TP if i'm not back."--Nmate (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, so I looked over the evidence again, there is still some ties to Stubbes99, I hope that this is just one of them playing sock, and not a third party now involved. But i'm tired of evasion by these two and am hoping this is not a meat, so I have endorsed. -- DQ (t) (e) 15:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, In my opinion, Bizovne is not a sock of Iaaasi, they are in cahoots with each other for certain purposes. Bizovne is Slovak, and Iaaasi is Romanian. The two countries they live in, are not even adjacent with each other, but both are bordered by Hungary.

And because Iaaasi is blocked from editing Wikipedia, and because Bizovne can't speak English even at a basic level, and because they both pamper a grudge towards Hungarians([3] [4] [5] [6]) ¶ ([7][8][9]) for historical reasons, they have superabundantly enough reasons to be in cahoots [10][11]. So that Bizovne is a recruited meatpuppet of Iaaasi, and not a sockpuppet of him.--Nmate (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi DeltaQuad. In my opinion user Nmate does not like Slovak editors (just look at his blocking history (15:15, 22 April 2008 Elonka (talk | contribs) blocked Nmate (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment of other users: Ethnic slurs and incivility) and his activity on Wikipedia). I don't know lassi and Nmate's allegations are ridiculous :) Best Regards. --Bizovne (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear DeltaQuad,

Sorry to "hijack" this topic a bit but since the meatpuppetry of Bizovne's being discussed here I thought I'd ask you whether is there any possibility for sanctioning meatpuppetry in connection with behavioral evidence (even though you've closed the SPI case) or not? -- CoolKoon (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I will say I am willing to consider action for meatpuppetry, but please understand that 1) Your diffs have to be conclusive 2) and I do apply tl;dr, so short and sweet is the best. I would also have no problem with you going to another administrator (preferably SPI clerk if you do) for them to look it over. -- DQ (t) (e) 00:08, 12 June, 2011 (UTC)

1. Iaaasi commenced a checkuser investigation as to whether User:Darkercastel is a sockpuppet of Stubes99 on Wikimedia Commons on 07:39, 9 June, 2011
2. Bizovne commenced a checkuser investigation as to whether User:Darkercastel [12] is a sockpuppet of Stubes99 here on English Wikipedia on 11:00, 9 June, 2011
3. On Wikimedia Commons, Iaaasi refers to Bizovne's report made on English Wikipedia that "User:Darkercastel was blocked today on en.wikipedia as scokpupept of User:Stubes99" on 14:21, 9 June, 2011

Perchance it is a coincidence? Because if so, then I have to think that that Bizovne is not only ilk of Iaaasi, but they are identical twins with some clairvoyant abilities chiefly after this map:[13] can also be found not only here on the user page of Bizovne, but here , too, on the archive user page of Iaaasi alike.--Nmate (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Nmate :) Your arguments are weak.

• User:Darkercastel was an obvious sockpuppet of Stubes99, I didn't need instructions from anyone to realize that by myself
• I took this photograph from the profile page of User:CoolKoon not from the profile page of User:Iaaasi :)))) (Bizovne (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

You are right, this map is also placed on the user page of CoolKoon still by the influence of Iaaasi with a very different caption. On the other hand, that you recognised the same obvious sockpuppet of Stubes99 , Darkercastel, 2 hours 21 mins later on English Wikipedia than as Iaaasi had done that on Wikimedia Commons ,which SPI report of yours Iaaasi even referred to 3 hours 21 mins later then on Wikimedia Commons without having been any connection between two of you, is hardly credible. Please note that the account Bizovne was created on 18 March, 2011 : [14] , but Stubes99 was blocked for indefinite time on 26 August, 2010 [15], so then Bizovne may not have been familiar with the account Stubes99 at all.--Nmate (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Second, here, Bizovne had reverted me [16] and the next user who edited the article was a confirmed sockpuppet of Iaaasi, User:Dadamereu [17] And at the article Sixty-Four Counties Youth Movement, I had deleted the edits of one another confirmed sockpuppet of Iaaasi ,User:Attila99, and then Bizovne restored those edits made by the sockpuppet of Iaaasi two times without having edited the article beforehand:[18]->[19]->[20]]. Too much coincidence.--Nmate (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)--Nmate (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This are only your speculations. In the same manner I could bring even stronger arguments for a meatpuppetry relation between you and User:Hobartimus (Bizovne (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

Template:Sexual slang

The happy fun argument of doom: the Wrong version to protected to is actually the... er... wrong version.  :-) You really shouldn't protect the BLP violation into the template; and even if there is a sincere doubt that it is in fact a violation (there isn't, IMO), it should still be removed preemptively.

I'll not unprotect, because having it protected is the right thing to do (and what I was about to do myself), nor will I edit through the protection even though policy, interpreted strictly, demands that I do so. Please do the fix yourself; it's just a template and can survive without that stain in it while the dispute is taking place at no loss of value. — Coren ^(talk) 23:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Delta, just to let you know there's a similar problem at Template:LGBT slang in case you're willing to keep an eye on it too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done &  Done. Feel free to repoke. -- DQ (t) (e) 23:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)