Sign your posts with ~~~~ so I know who I'm talking to.
I'll probably respond on my talk page unless you say otherwise, so that you immediately know when I've responded.
Please do not remove messages, including your own, unless they are clearly vandalism.
Be nice. A more polite response will get a much better response in turn.
Randy says I should ask you. What if we find non-free images on Commons, that really should only be at en:Wiki? Is there a bot or a template that will move them out of Commons but retain the image elsewhere? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kanonkas asked me to answer here. As far as I know we don't have a special template/bot for these kind of images at Commons. I believe some admins just restored images for a moment and transfered them to enwp with imagetransfer.py in the Pywikipedia package, but i'm not sure. multichill (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a great tech guy, could you help me with this? There are some still-in-use unexpired or recently changed Scout emblems that the fair-use applies to, and I don't want to lose them because they are in the wrong place. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you were the one to semi-protect that article. I've been engaged in this little edit war with these really stubborn and in my eyes deliberately unwilling user. Could you please judge a better version? This version [1] seems the best in my opinion. The talkpage also holds a small discussion. Got vexed (a lot) there, though. Thanks Mallerd (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you at least reply or something, please? I think the little argument is over now, but still. It would be a display of some wikilove. Mallerd (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mallerd. I was just about to reply (and I am on holiday, just so you know). As for the dispute, I would rather not get involved. In other words, I'm not going to judge which version is best or not. I hope you understand, and if necessary you may want to talk to Xavexgoem about disputes, or read about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 21:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sorry to come to ask you something here for TestWiki, but there is no Steward activity there.
The request for my Steward status there is supposed be finished since 6 days, but I can't contact any Steward on talk page or IRC. Could you grant be the Steward rights please ? Or let a message on http://testwiki.unixpod.com/wiki/Test_Wiki:Requests_for_Permissions if you oppose (no Steward or Staff has vote) ?
Thanks for taking it out. That guy has been the bane of the Tambayan's existence since forever. Ranks right up there with Grawp and LOTRules, among others, in terms of being a jackass of a Wikipedian (sorry for the PA). Good day. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kanonkas, would you mind semiprotect for a long time my userpage?. I'm being harrased by an expelled editor at eswiki here. Thanks in advance, —df|10:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but next time please inform me before you reduce the block. I'm not trying to badger you, but it would be better for me this way (if possible for you). Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 21:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your removal of the weblink to Pope John's birthplace. It is a nice, relevant en non-commercial website. I can't see any good reason to remove it.. Kind regards, RJB-nl (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey RJB. I'll have to disagree with you there. The site was being mass spammed on several wikis by an IP (now globally blocked by a steward). As an addendum, the site was globally blacklisted on meta wiki. If you need further information, please say so. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 19:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite unclear to me why this site was blacklisted.. It's a nice and friendly website about the house where Angelo Roncalli was born.. What harm could it do? RJB-nl (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good day Deon. I've seen and read the sections, but I'm not quite sure. That's the reason I haven't commented one way, or another at the requests. Hope you understand. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 13:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IP ranges incorrectly marked as open proxies / bots?
Earlier I was using a (password protected) SSH tunnel through my Dreamhost account, so I could watch an episode a TV show streamed from its web site (for which I need a US IP address as it's geoprotected; I'm based in the UK). I went to edit an article not realising I was still going through the proxy, and I got this message:
Editing from 208.97.128.0/18 (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Kanonkas for the following reason(s): This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy or zombie computer.
The IP range is owned by New Dream Networks LLC, and it's where their own servers are hosted. I'd suggest that the range has been incorrectly attributed as a zombie / open proxy range - there's no open proxies as far as I can tell in this range, and there's certainly no zombified PCs in the range as it's only their servers! Could I suggest that this block is reevaluated?
Hi Christopher. That's not quite true. Webhosts are often used to proxify connections as they're more vulnerable targets to exploits (at times). Traffic shouldn't come from these ranges either. It is our experience that traffic originating from hosting service providers is invariably illegitimate, and usually the result of using an open proxy hosted at that service provider. As such I wouldn't want to unblock the range. If you have any further questions, I'll try my best to answer those. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 00:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
flickr review
Hi there Kanonkas, are you online? I recently uploaded[2] (CC-BY from flickr). However, the author has indicated that she will be terminating her flickr account shortly, so it would be great if you could review the the image for me. Thanks, decltype (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks! The user has been keeping her account active pending my reply regarding the image, so it's great that it got reviewed so quickly. Again thanks, and good night :) decltype (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reversal, James Hansen
I notice that you have removed a contribution on James Hansen that in includes a part made by me. You give no reason for this removal. Doing things this way is more in the line of childish behaviour than making a serious conttribution to Wikpedia. I suggest you give a good reason for removing this material or put it back how it was.--Damorbel (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Does this disruptive behaviour mean that the information is incorrect/unsuitable then? If so, 1/ Is this "disruptive" behaviour the subject of an administrative decision (link please) that requires the explicit removal of the contribution? 2/ Will I be part of the "disruptive" behaviour if I a) put it back, or b) paraphrase the item and make it my contribution? Kind regards. --Damorbel (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"essentially treated as a banned user". I am interested in this statement, does it mean that you act against scibaby in the absence of an administrative decision, i.e without him being banned? Since you did not provide a link (see above), I suggest that you have no authority for your actions. I am sure you have the interests of Wikipedia at heart but surely this behaviour is against Wikipedia policy?--Damorbel (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Essentially treated as a banned user" in that his edits are reverted on sight. This guy is an indefinitely blocked serial POV pusher, who's disrupted global warming-related articles for more than three years now (he's created hundreds of accounts during that span). Surely you can't think that reverting someone who's not welcome to Wikipedia and is only here to push some fringe POV is an act in violation of policy? Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)18:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing of your claim about blocking. I asked for a link to the administrative decision to block him and you haven't provided one. The natural conclusion is that you don't have a link and you are otherwise unable to maintain your case, Wikipedia has too much unsupported material, this seems to be another example. By the way, having a POV is fully in accord with Wiki policy, it is unbalanced, not Neutral POV (WI:NPOV), a very good reason to restore the material on James Hansen.--Damorbel (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you bother clicking the link to Scibaby's user page. If you had, you would have seen the note on the userpage that Scibaby is indefinitely blocked. There ya go: [3]. Want more? See this [4], which contains a list of all Scibaby sockpuppets blocked by a CheckUser. Scibaby's only here on Wikipedia to post Global warming denialist claims. That's why he was blocked back in 2006 and that's why we continue to block his accounts. I myself blocked two Scibaby sockpuppet accounts earlier today ([5]). Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)00:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. So your statement "Essentially treated as a banned user" misled me because he is in fact banned, which you could have said at the outset. I asked for them to help discover the history of this without scouring the whole of the Wikipedia administration (with which I am not familiar). I understand that you have some administrative function with Wikipedia and I asked for help. I now ask for more help; what is the basis for blocking "Global warming denialist claims"? I intend to restore some of the material about James Hansen deleted here [6] because it is very relevant for readers wanting to know about James Hansen, it shows that there is important disagreement about his Global Warming stance. Now as you wrote before "since I know at least a dozen editors will revert you on sight if that comes back in." would seem to mean that you or others will revert any contribution containing this factual material, would you please tell me, in your capacity of administrator, which part of Wikipedia policy authorises this kink of action?--Damorbel (talk) 06:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between being banned and being indefinitely blocked. Scibaby is the latter, but since he's treated like a banned user (in that his edits are reverted), I felt that I had to make that distinction clear. Posting global warming denialist claims isn't itself a blockable offense, but the level to which Scibaby engages in such behavior is quite clearly disruptive. Most of the time, he creates sockpuppet accounts to add to articles that global warming is not caused by humans (in fact, he keeps adding info that global warming is caused by cow dung to every single global warming-related article). I'm not familiar enough with James Hansen to assess the relevance of the Capitol Power Plant protest controversy, but it seems the matter was deleted because of certain BLP and POV issues. An example of a POV issue in the article is the last sentence (global warming protests hampered by record snowfall), which is quite clearly an attempt at irony on Scibaby's part. The BLP issues arise when one considers Scibaby's motives. He's here to discredit James Hansen, and he's doing so by including the negative comments made by Chris Horner and John Theon. I'd suggest bringing this up on the talk page of the article and seeing what everyone else has to say. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)15:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation seems to admit that you are walking all over Wikipedia policy. James Hansen, giving Direct evidence to the Iowa Utilities Board said "If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains — no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria" (p4, para.4) is clearly courting controversy and Wikipedia readers should be informed that not everything he says is part of a consensus. If you have a deletion battle with Scibaby that is to be resolved within the Wikipedia rules but you are including in your exclusion policy valid material about a deliberate controversialist and in the process demeaning to Wikipedia. Do tell me what, if any, criticism of Hansen you think has a place in the article and why you think all of the material from myself and Scibaby should be deleted.--Damorbel (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't know enough about Hansen to comment on criticism leveled against him. You'll get a much better response from the editors on Talk:James Hansen. What good is it if we let the edits made by indefinitely blocked users stay in the encyclopedia? That goes entirely against the whole principle of being blocked/banned. The way we handle Scibaby socks (WP:RBI and WP:DENY) is a well-established tactic used to combat blocked/banned users. Ask around for yourself and you'll find out. I ask that if you want to discuss content, go to the article talk page. Else, we can continue this discussion on my talk page (sorry for the distractions, Kanonkas!). Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)03:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated the article on Megan Fox for GAN, so I'm letting you know that I have completed the GA review. There are several problems, most notably with references, so work is needed still to ensure that I don't eventually fail it. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harrys_Gym.jpg){kind=link}