This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.
Winchester 1200
I just wanted to stop by and say thanks for looking at my article and upgrading it from a stub. I appreciate the work you have done! Mzwhiz21 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is definitely past stub class, and i am certain it qualifies as a C class article as well. Seeing that it is on hold for a GA review which cites just a few minor points i marked it as B class, but i leave the definite review of that to someone more involved with that particular wiki-project. Of course it might already be GA class by the time that someone reviews it in more detail.
Besides, you may wish to use the search function to see if we have article's on a few redlinks. For example the M-1917 bayonet is currently a redlink, but i believe it might refer to the M1917 bayonet. Other then this it is a nice article, and i certainly enjoyed reading it while is was being expanded and i hope you also had a good time writing it; At the very least i guess that it was quite a different homework assignment then usual. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll go through and check for the redlinks. I'm hoping to get it passed into a GA shortly, just having some problems with the proper wiki reference citations. I think I have them fixed for the most part though. This definitely was an interesting assignment for class and showed me how tough it actually is to get an article approved and passed on wikipedia. Mzwhiz21 (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations!
I just noticed the article passed its GA review. Well done! I took the liberty of adding a GA button to your user page; those are visible indications that a user helped with a certain activity. It should be in the top-right corner of your talk and user page, on the same height at the page title. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the kind words! I really appreciate it especially because I am rather new to the whole article writing process on wikipedia. Thank you also for helping out with my sources during the writing process. I was really confused about that whole part of the process but you really helped. Thanks again!!! :)-Mzwhiz21 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Thank you for protecting the article History of Morocco.
However, I have another request: Can you please lock it on the version that was online [1] before the editwar started [2]?
As you can see on the discussion page[3], this is not happening for the first time, but always involving the same user. The maps on the article are original research and non-sourced and they contain false information example. The given information is also non-sourced and in contradiction with all the sources and references (see [4]).
I'm just asking you to lock the article on the less untrue version.
Regards,
Omar-Toons (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a page is protected due to a content dispute, it is customary to protect the version that is currently on top, unless this version contains vandalism, copyright infringements or violations of the BLP policy (See Wikipedia:Protect#Content_disputes). Since this version seems to contain neither i am reluctant to switch the top version. Remember, protection a certain version is not an endorsement of that version, but rather a necessity to stop the edit war.
I advice starting a discussion on the talk page to form consensus on the topics you mentioned, including the usage of those maps in general. If i have a section showing clear consensus i can act upon that basis once a user enters an edit war that does not comply with that consensus. If a user refuses to comment on the talk page and continues his reverting behavior that is considered to be disruptive, which in itself is a reason for a (temporally) block. Try to work something out in the three days the article will be locked and remember - the protection lasts three days, consensus lasts a lot longer - So don't worry about the top version. If you cannot find consensus yourself i would point to DR for some assistance with it. Good luck! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
re users BisR41 and TrisR41
I note you blocked the former as a sock abusing account. I would note that I have blocked the latter as a block evading sock of the former. You commented in your block summary that BisR41 passed the WP:DUCK test, so if there is an ongoing SPI you may wish to include the latest incarnation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a SSP case, but the sock template's should do the "tag-and-recognize" task. Quite a persistent and predictable fellow though; Create an account, post an angry message, complain at jimbo's talk page about how he is blocked unfairly and then create another. But i shouldn't be speaking to you - talking to myself is a sign of madness, and since we are all meat-puppets according to him... O well, easy enough to recognize and remove i guess. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed his "Request" and self granted unblock on IRC, so i just removed his talk page access. I guess WP:POPUPS needs some maintenance as well as you can apparently block people without showing up as being an admin. O well, vandal logic i guess. As for protecting your talk page - well, it is mostly a case of "Not Done" par the protection policy because new accounts and IP's would not be able to contact you at all. If want talk page protection you should have a separate area where unconfirmed and IP users can contact you. In other words, it would just mitigate the problem. Though if you wish some short protection and won't mind an extra page for IP's and such I'll be happy to protect the main talk page.
Oh, and if you meet another account such as our good friend, don't bother with level 1 warnings. If this is a users first edit just hand then a level 3 or 4IM and blast them to AIAV if they repeat. No need to assume good faith on those kind of edits :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll just go to you. That was an excellent response. Although I wonder... what do you mean? Another talk page? how? Tommy201019:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically it is just a subpage which is being user as a talk page. For example, you could create the page User:Tommy2010/NonProtectedTalk (Or a similar name) and leave that one unprotected so that anyone can edit it. If you place a note on your talk page directing users there it can be used as if it is another talk page, while protecting your own talk page and other user pages from hostile edits. That way the junk will stay limited to one page that few users will actually see, reducing the damage hostile edits might do. Most times it is more convenient to leave the regular talk page unprotected though as sending users around and watching two talk pages is a tad more time consuming because you need to check two pages (And you won't get the message bar if someone posts on the subpage). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User was blocked for edit warring at Afghanistan and is now requesting unblock. I have reviewed the scenario and think full protection may be helpful as there appear to be ongoing disputes at the page. I am contacting you as you handled a request for protection for the page, and thus may have some context that I do not. Thanks for your time Taelus (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. It seems that there are several disputes concerning a large share of the contributers on that page. The IP users seem to be editing in good faith as well, so using semi protection on the page would disadvantage them while permitting other users to edit. Seeing the page has been fully protected just days before, and considering that we are now up to the point where users are being banned for 3RR i protected the page for 3 days. Hopefully that will cause people to spend their energy discussion, rather then reverting. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing that a checkuser process may take a longer while (+ 2 or 3 weeks) than creating a next one, Iaaasi returned under the username Conttest (talk·contribs).His latest blocked sockpuppet , Umumu (talk·contribs), was so isolent that commenced lingering disccussions on WP ANI
[5] and Fringe_theories boards [6] in which he vigorously participated of course. Then he falsely denounced Rokarudi
for vandalism
[7]
and eventually he tried to get Squash Racket blocked on Edit warring board
[8]
Also, it is important to note that the reason why Umumu was blocked was
he was a sockpuppet of veteran sockmaster of
Bonaparte (talk·contribs).
And now this new user, Conttest, suspiciously emerged at the same article John Hunyadi[9][10], which was the main hunting field of Iaaasi/Ddaann2/Umumu.
It looks to me that if his recurring sock-accounts are not blocked with quicker velocity than the time a checkuser process usually takes he will stop at nothing. May I ask what do you think of it? Good luck and best wishes--Nmate (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umumu contacted me on IRC in the past, and after this message Conttest contacted me there as well. A WHOIS on Conttest responded with this line: "Conttest <qeqqeeqqqe@(REDACTED)> “Umumu”", which confirmed that he is indeed Umumu (I redacted the IP address from the line). I didn't comment on it and instead just asked if the accusation was true which Conttest admitted: "<Conttest> the fact is that his accusation is true, I am iaaasi/umumu, but I made this account only to make constructive edits to show that I am not a disruptive user"
I am not sure if he is directly related to Bonaparte, or if this is a separate group. Regardless i blocked Conttest for sockpuppeting and advised him to take it to the mailing list if he wishes to have his block reviewed. I also advised him that a two month or so timeout without further sockpuppets may demonstrate that he intends to be a constructive editor. Also a note for future reference: The user indicated that he won't be editing the disputed topic anymore when unblocked. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On April 29, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rustock botnet, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Who is Flowanda and why is she taking off information from pages who are extraordianrily cited even with ISBN I went ack to several of her recent edits before Coffelt and they all are non-sensical. This editor should be censored as she is taking information Wiki deems acceptible and information that is cited and with articles cited.
Please help Excirial I would surely be obliged. OneMarkus (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to contact Flowanda instead of me, as she was the person removing the content. The reason for the content removal was left on the article's talk page though, and i presume it was done par WP:BLP. I would urge you to cease reverting edits for now, at least until you contacted him/her about the issue. Flowanda is no new contributer and therefor i presume that there might be a very good reason to remove this content. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reversion of vandalism to my user page.[11] The IP has previously only edited Talk:Joseph Vickers de Ville.[12] Recently there has been repeated blanking on this page by dynamic IPs and, as soon as the page was semi-protected, the same kind of blanking by D-MacDermott (talk·contribs),[13] whose edits have all concerned this subject,[14] who has previously been warned,[15] and has recently been marked as a sock (of the IPs).[16] To avoid perceptions of involvement, I left another warning, but I think the IP needs to be blocked, and also User:D-MacDermott. this is an extremely obscure subject, and the vandal edits are obviously by the same person. Ty12:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
„Draganparis“/GK1973/Simanos case.
Dear Sir, I saw that you had problems with Simanos. I think that we all have. It seams that Mr “GK 1973” and “Simanos” pretend not to be aware that I disclosed my personality almost 2 months ago and that this has been verified by Wikipedia administrator. This protects me against defamation. Both users have been explicitly defaming me permanently since. Of course I had some harsh words for them, although not containing direct insults. I do not say that I will make a legal case immediately but I think that they should be aware of the matters of facts. The European jurisdiction is quite explicit, I am afraid; even the US jurisdiction has recently been quite clearly pronounced. I expect Wikipedia to respect its own rules regarding defamation and ban the two editors indefinitely. I want that the case finishes calmly without a scandal that may be really very serious indeed. (For further information please see my Talk page, present investigation page, Syril and Methodius, Alexander the Great, and Macedonia (Ancient kingdom) as well as their Talk pages.)Draganparis (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
