User talk:Jéské Couriano/Archive 6

• NOTE: If you leave a message for me here, I will respond to it here.
• NOTE: If you need to ask me a question regarding certain users, be aware that I will look into the history.
• NOTE: I reserve the right to remove any posts by anons unrelated to building an encyclopedia. Personal attacks, vandalism, Internet memes, etc. will be reverted on sight.
• NOTE: Other admins have ZERO permission to protect my page. For reasons which I have made clear before, I do NOT want my page protected from Jarlaxle's wethers, nor do I need it protected from them.

Re:Dispute

re When In Rome Band page. Jeske, I am still experiencing difficulties with vandalism on this page. The current page reflects the vandals info. Can you help  ??

No. Administrators are forbidden to interfere in content disputes short of blocking, reporting for three-revert rule violations, or semi-protection.

For future reference, you use a colon to indent, by the way. Indenting with a space activates the "Code" function. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 19:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: WALFULZ

thanx for the revert from Wafulz's junk, i was watching tv and didn't catch it. What a hosier.Vu1kan (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC) (p.s. how would I go about adding a gratitude barnstar for ya?)

I believe there's a template that does the trick, but I can't remember what it is for the life of me offhand... -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 08:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Found what I was lookin' for:

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For contentious reverts...appears to be a pattern for Jéské Vu1kan (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Danke muchly, Vu1kan. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 09:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Crotchduster Article

I wanted to get clarification on your refusal to remove the protection on Crotchduster. Specifically, I wanted to get a better understanding of the notability concern, and express my concern that this article will remain protected based on personal bias regarding the subject matter (the band itself and their themes) rather than their actual notability. In short, I do not want to go to the trouble of writing a well researched article if you are simply going to refuse it's entry to Wikipedia. Please do not consider this a personal attack or judgement, but based on your user page I would assume that my proposed article is outside your area of interest or expertise.

A quick google search will prove that Crotchduster are in fact a real band, below are two links that will help you quanitify that...the first being the label site, which includes links to a number of reviews I would include as citations, the second is a link to their MySpace page should you wish to verify that they do in fact have recorded material available. I other other sources to use as well including published articles and interviews that I would be happy to provide upon request.

Willowtip Recordings Page: http://www.willowtip.com/releases/details/crotchduster-big-fat-box-of-shit.aspx

Myspace Page: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=81918559

My goal here is, ideally, that you remove the protection based on my commitment to add useful and accurate information to Wikipedia. Failing that, I would appreciate some kind of commitment on your part that you will remove the protection once I write the article and am able to provide source material upon its completion. Please let me know if there is any other information I can get to you. -Williamsburgland

Whether or not it's a real band has absolutely no effect on notability, and unless you can provide secondary sources (newspapers, periodicals, and news networks) you won't be able to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. Myspace is unusable (as are all other blogs), but if there are independent reviews on them linked to on their label's website, those will do. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 23:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon games moves

Hey, when you moved each of the Pokémon games, instead of moving them to their original titles, you included the remake in the name (except for Diamond and Pearl.) This goes against already established consensus (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon#Moving Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire to Pokémon Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald), so I was wondering if you could delete the redirects on the original titles, and then move the articles back. For example: if you could delete Pokémon Red and Blue, then move Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow to Pokémon Red and Blue; and continue the process with Gold and Silver, and Ruby and Sapphire. Thanks, Artichoker[talk] 22:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I can, but I wouldn't have objected had you done it yourself. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a sysop. I can't delete pages. And thanks, Artichoker[talk] 01:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Done and apologies. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! Artichoker[talk] 01:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: War on Redirects

Hey - about the subpage, please get rid of it. Thank you very much. Rory (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Done and Done. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 21:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks. Rory (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayen Varma

Thank you for handling the creation protection request regarding article Jayen Varma and for replying on the user's talk page. Thank you also for restoring the history on User talk:Jayenvarma prior to deleting User talk:Big Head Ache Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Null persp. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your recent post at User talk:Jayenvarma I have a question as to if oversight will actually accomplish what the user is looking for. The problem is the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayen_Varma which displays the standard screen for an article name that has been deleted. Will oversight remove the deletion log entries? This seems to be what the user is asking about. I personally think that User talk:Jayenvarma is over reacting, but his concerns need to be addressed, even if that can not be complied with. And as you well know, even if oversight is able to remove the deletion log entries, google will continue to link to the deleted (or non-existant) page. And if the page is create protected the problem just becomes even greater. I do not think that it is possible to accomplish what the user wants. If I am guessing correctly, what he really wants is to delete the google entry. see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Jayen+Varma%22+%2B+Wikipedia&btnG=Search I think he is asking for the impossible Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oversight can't touch log entries, unfortunately. And as I said, even if it could, Google would still link to a cached version of the page. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, and thanks for posting on the user's page as well. The google cache would actually disappear fairly quickly, but that was not the real problem, which was the deletion log listing as seen in following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayen_Varma It is just going to be something that Jayen Varma is going to have to live with. Thanks for the information about how oversight works. Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Lulu

Considering that it took you less than a minute to post on the 3RR page and the ANI page, I dont think you put a great deal of effort into looking into that. Lulu had undone at least 6 edits in whole or in part, just as he had done the other day. CENSEI (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I edit-conflicted twice with you, CENSEI. I even looked at the diffs and saw no 3RR violation. Put the stick down before you're hit with it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 02:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I dont think you looked too terribly close at the evidence presented. Lulu has had a history of edit warring on that article, as supported by the prior 3RR that was stale, and his block log in general. 3RR is more a tool to stop edit warring, and there is clearly edit warring on the page. Where can I go to have your decision appealed? CENSEI (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Ilsensine would have a word with you over your attempts to become an illithid. Expecting a report to actually succeed when you have 0 proof of an actual 3RR vio for that incident is like looking for hen's teeth, regardless of the reported user's record on that article. I will say it again - drop the stick before the horse resurrects and takes it from you to exact revenge. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 02:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Whats with the stick comments? Are you saying that I will be blocked if I continue to ask for justification of your decision? CENSEI (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that if you keep on, you may end up being blocked for disruption, and not by me. From what I gather at AN/I you've been acting rather bullheaded. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but please recognize that the other editors on AN/I currently complaining about me have a nasty habit of singling out other editors and harrasing them via ANI and other articles. Unfortunately they outnumber any editor they disagree with 10-1, work in concert together on articles and edit war like a wolf pack ... when one runs up to a 3RR, another one or two steps in. You allways see a coulple of them on election related articles, and they act in concert to dominate and own these article to the detriment of the entire encyclopedia. I am just frustrated that they can continually get away with the bullshit that they do and no one says boo. Chalk it up to frustration. CENSEI (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Given as I know those editors rather well to do just the opposite, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to ask you to step outside. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 04:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that expalins you 3RR decision. BTW, I dont think you want to "step outside" I did spend 3-1/2 years with the 26th MEU. Thanks anyway. CENSEI (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, my 3RR decision can be explained in two words: NO VIOLATION. I saw no violation there; you were just throwing crap into a frivolous 3RR report and hoped it stuck. Now slot off. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 17:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I told you, fair enough, I understand your point and how you came to it, and there is no reason to be uncivil with me. I consider this conversation over and thank you for your attention. CENSEI (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

sorry

Sorry i don't know how too get to the page protection page other then that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo81001 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You've been filing reports on the Main Page unintentionally. Might I recommend using this quicklink instead: WP:RFPP? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 21:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

GdS s-prot

Hi Jeske, I'm told that a rangeblock instead of the semiprotection is not going to work because he edits from multiple huge ranges. Ryan Postlethwaite recommends that new IP edits be reverted on sight instead of the semi... I'm not sure about that - personally I'd rather not have to deal with repetitive legal threats until the case, if there is one, resolves itself. Up to you. Thanks, Avruch ^T 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'll lift the semi and c&p this response there. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 23:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fraser Forster

Hiya Jeske, just responding to your comment at here regarding the unprotection of Fraser Forster. I've created a template at User:Doberman Pharaoh/Forster and if you could sort that out for me it'd be great. Thanks. User:Doberman Pharaoh 21:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems in order; unprotected. Move the subpage there and I'll be by shortly to remove the redirect. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

/b/

the header says it all. Do what you want, though. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

They targeted you again. Are you sure.... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I know who it is. I block them three months apiece when I see them, and leaving my page unprotected allows them to feel like they're harassing someone rather than making them go off and harass others. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 00:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

kk, your choice. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thought I was helping

Sorry, didn't know I was getting in the way. I just thought I was trying to help. By the way, thanks for biting the newcomer. I will leave now, all of a sudden I don't feel like editing anymore.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to bite. I was telling you that your warnings were of no help. I apologize if I came across as rude. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. As if someone knew I needed to be cheered up, I was left a message on my talk page by someone who appreciated the way that I reverted vandalism on his user page, just after I read the one you left, asking me not to help. So its nice to feel useful, even if Im not an admin.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Null persp. It's just that, in a 4chan flood, the IPs are only on long enough to vandalize before fleeing. As such, warning them's not going to do anything. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I see, but I know the step is to warn first, then report. I have seen many IPs that have have made over ten vandal type edits, but have never been warned. I know Im not an admin, so Ill leave this all up to you fine gentlemen.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's actually quite simple. If an IP has only the one harassment edit in their contribs, just don't warn them. They're, for all intents and purposes, Grawp meatpuppets anyhow and are to be blocked on sight. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Excessive dynamic IP blocks

Hi Jéské Couriano, I just thought you might be interested to know that many of IPs you are blocking for extended periods are clearly dynamic and likely to change owners in less than a day. The blocks are excessive, unlikely to affect the intended user, and likely to affect innocent users. Please consider reasonable periods based on the probability of disruption from the same IP. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem - I am. Any less and they would get involved in the next revision-paste vandalism. Now, unless you have ranges I could reasonably block to prevent the sort of crap as is going on at User talk:J.delanoy, I'm maintaining a six-month AO/ACB block on each one as socks of JarlaxleArtemis. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What proportion of 4channers have you seen edit twice from the same IP? It is a simple fact that many of these IPs will not be used by the same user ever again. For example you are blocking AOL addresses that change hands within a few hours - what use is a six month block? Blanket months-long blocks only serve to block and deter genuine contributors. You will find semi-protection more useful. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen what 4channers do? They will move on and find another admin or user to harass, which is worse than the cure. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, then we'll move on with the semi-protection until they get bored. It is clear from this that the extended IP blocks are useless. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As are the prots, as some of them will get an account to continue their rampage or move on to an inactive low-profile user. I'm sorry, Zzuuzz, but I honestly don't think your suggestion would work. I would much prefer week-long rangeblocks to six-month whac-a-Jarlaxle-marionette but as I can't figure ranges I have to play whac-a-mole.-Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly this does nothing but provide more lulz to the vandals, since they can get everyone on their ISP banned. I had to refresh my IP just to post this comment these blocks are so bad. Would Jimmy Wales give 6-month blocks on dynamic IPs? En masse for single petty vandalisms? A 6-hour block would be just as effective as a 6-month block on a dynamic IP. There is a button on these ISPs routers to change your IP...you press it and wait 3 seconds... These ban terms just end up looking like an absurd admin power trip before some admins more in tune with the policies and spirit of Wikipedia finally say something.71.37.56.163 (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And even if they change their IP I will block it if they continue. I can take the whac-a-mole. Now, unless you have a range I can block that is reasonable, go buzz. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 03:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I feel bad for some reason. All the vandalism, all the long drawn out philosophical arguments for the rights of Mudkips. Maybe I just have a stomach ache, but maybe its guilt. I'm sorry for trolling you for the last year or two, Jeske. You seem like a nice person now that I think of it. I've begun contributing a lot to Wikipedia, and suddenly don't feel like vandalizing anymore. I hope you accept my apology and have no hard feelings, it was never anything personal. 71.212.43.160 (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I try to be nice to everyone, I really do. It's also been brought up (at Wikipedia Review) that I have somewhat of a fight-or-flight mentality when it comes to vandalism. The truth of the matter is, this harassment has no more purpose. I've left Mudkip's list alone for almost six months now. It's time 4chan realized that they're wasting their energy trolling someone who officially no longer is trying to stymie them and go off elsewhere. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 03:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeske, despite zzuuzz's comments above you haven't really explained why it is necessary to issue long-term blocks to dynamic IPs that cycle rapidly. Since it has no impact on the vandals, and potentially a significant impact on unrelated IP editors, I'm not sure I understand why you continue to do it the way you have been. Can you explain? Avruch ^T 14:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeske, just block the IP's for 6 hours - that's all that's needed. You certainly shouldn't be blocking them for 6 months! Within a few minutes, the IP will belong to someone else who hasn't been doing the vandalism. 6 months is completely excessive - please just take our advice. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

6-hour blocks for what amount to meatpuppets continuing on the edit patterns of a banned user? Uhh, I seem to recall escalating from those. I have lowered my block length to three days, however, but will start escalating again if the problem continues (apologies for taking so long). What I told Zzuuzz still stands - gimme reasonable ranges and I'll block those for a short time, but until then, escalating blocks are to be expected. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 07:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be having a miscommunication here... When you say "escalating blocks" are you referring to blocks of increasing length on successive (i.e. different) dynamic IP addresses? If so, who do you believe you are effecting with such blocks of the vandalising user cycles away from that IP within a couple of hours? Avruch ^T 15:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That is what I mean. Now, if I could work out ranges or had someone willing to give me ranges I wouldn't have to resort to such blocks. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic either. It's my impression that ISPs with dynamic IPs cycle through thousands or millions of IPs before the same customer is ever assigned the same one again. Are you expecting the vandal to be re-assigned the same IP at a later date? Habanero-tan (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm expecting more than one user on that range to become involved in a 4chan attack. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

67.234.104.242

Hey Jéské, I've seen you around a bunch doing great work defending the 'pedia. I noticed this thread and wondered if you would mind discussing it with me. I didn't see the whole thing unfold (so I don't know if you have info I'm missing) but I felt like I might have handled it differently by discussing it more thoroughly with the guy. I wonder whether it would have been possible to calm him down by taking more time to explain that we're on his side (e.g. "thanks for bringing this up, it's really important to us that articles be accurate") and explaining the relevant policies in depth. (Apologies if you or someone else did that, I didn't see much discussion with him on his talk page but I might be missing it.) It seemed like he came away with this feeling that Wikipedia was trying to persecute his sister and wasn't interested in the truth. Personally I would have ignored his misbehavior and attacks and focused on trying to calm him down, but of course I can't order anyone else to do that (and he was definitely out of line). I felt like if a confrontational dynamic is set up it could cause him to act more out of line and be more persistent (e.g. saying "tough" in the resolved template, may have made him feel like it was him against Wikipedia). Like giving him a cause to fight, you know? Anyway, sorry for the long post, I certainly don't mean to sound critical, I just wondered if you would be interested in discussing it. Peace, delldot ∇. 06:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get involved in the content dispute that caused his block except tangentially, so I'm afraid you've got the wrong guy. I merely extended his block after he used his unblock request to troll. He wasn't discussing with anyone. I also explained why we couldn't act on his word after I used "Tough" in as civil a manner as I could have. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 07:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to reply! Yeah, I didn't mean that you were remiss in any of your responsibilities, just that I thought it was possible that there might have been more you could do to convince the guy that it wasn't us against him. Your point about him being unwilling to discuss is well taken though. Still, I just meant it couldn't hurt to try. Anyway, I'm glad you were conscientious about making your wording as civil as you could, keep up the good work. Thanks again for doing it, I know the stuff you deal with daily ain't pretty. delldot ∇. 04:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Preventing vandalism

I want to become a vandal fighter. Who will help me become one, and teach me how to notice vandalism (the sneaky type of vandalism). Perhaps there are certain tools I could use? Please give me some more information on this. I eagerly await your answer, J.B. 10:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In order to become a vandal fighter, all one has to do is be quick to revert any vandalism that pops up. As soon as you have the community's trust, you can receive the rollback tool at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions and use automated editing scripts such as WP:AWB and WP:TWINKLE (but be careful; abuse any of them and you may very well be blocked for it). -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 10:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

I'm sorry if I came across as canvassing. I contacted you as a result of this edit of yours, which indicated to me that you had a strong feeling about the proper way to handle death hoaxes. I know that when I have participated in a discussion and feel that we came to a consensus, I appreciate finding out when others are overriding/ignoring/changing that consensus, and I still think that the previous discussion came to a consensus. Obviously not a widely held consensus, or last night would have gone much differently than it did.—Kww(talk) 12:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the proper way to handle a hoax is to expose the faux news article as a hoax, link to the site of the news agency it's spoofing, and block any users continuing to try and post the hoax link. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 19:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

To Jéské Couriano:

Thank you very much Jéské Couriano.

This is the first meaningful communication I have received from the wikipedia to date and thank you for spending your time to explain the issue.

Please let me know what will happen now. Will bjweeks defamatory statement be corrected and/or be out of Public View now?

Appreciate your response in here very much,

Kind regards

210.55.128.254 (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Siavash

___________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.128.254 (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Bjweeks WASN'T being defamatory, and I can't help you if you aren't able to understand that. Also, I am a volunteer, NOT a Wikimedia Foundation employee, as is Bjweeks. Retract the legal threat you left on his talk page now - I will not ask you again and I will block you if, when you respond here next, the threat remains on there. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Might i suggest that you and anyone else that gets targetted by 4chan, ask East718 to look after your page and let his bot do the blocking. It seems to be working quite well for him do you think he will let you? Seems to be a good idea, then you can go back to having your talk page exactly that instead of your "discussion" page. Ta 211.30.109.24 (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)