User talk:28bytes/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

My recent edits: Irony

Hay 28bytes. In my recent edit's I sourced all my genre's For The Cars album, The Cars. But the ironic thing about it is, when I first put the genres, I had no sources for it, and had no idea there was any, until I started reading allmusic reviews, and soon I found that Greg Prato covered all the genres I put, and exactly how I put them! That is pretty ironic, sense I had no idea he did, I just put my opinion on the genres, but since I learned to source I was able to turn them into facts. Take care! MajorHawke (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Good call

Here... well done. Too many people around here are like sharks; one drop of blood in the water and it's feeding frenzy time. → ROUX ₪ 14:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes (most of the time, even) it's better to just let things go, IMO. 28bytes (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you please close this AFD with a speedy keep?

Hi, This article has been completely rewritten resulting in the withdrawal of the AFD nomination and a near-unanimous consensus to keep (only two editors haven't changed their !votes and that's probably because nobody has asked them to). I think the AFD should be closed. If someone else still feels the new article should be deleted, they can always renominate it. Thanx. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Send a note to the delete voters letting them know the article's been rewritten and the nomination withdrawn. If at least two of them strike their deletes, I'll close it. 28bytes (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I changed mine, provided Richard goes back to using Firefox. History2007 (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirects of sock and banned user talk pages

Why is it that sockpuppets, banned users, and indef'd users get their talk pages redirected to their user pages? I've been doing this for some time, but, I don't understand why.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The main reason I can think of would be for cases when it would be pointless for someone to leave them a message since they're unlikely to be able to respond to it. This would typically be the case if their talk page privileges have been revoked, or it's just a throwaway sock account that they shouldn't be editing from anyway. I usually leave talk pages alone, but I don't think there's a hard and fast rule when and when not to redirect it. 28bytes (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a fan of leaving talk pages alone in most cases, too and think it can be misleading if somebody really needs to look for something on that talk page. However, people probably do it for the reason 28bytes stated, and I think WP:DENY probably has something to do with it, too. Kansan (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Starting a major RfC

I have made a proposal that seems to want a lot of attention. I've never really understood how RfCs worked here and would like to start a large one (like the one currently going on to say whether Bureaucrats can desysop or not).Jasper Deng (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't want my proposal to die.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jasper. I did take a look at your proposal after you left the note, and it looked like it was getting some vigorous feedback. That said, I'm not really an expert on rangeblocks, so I would personally tend to defer to editors more experienced with them rather than commenting there myself. Technical things like that are probably best handled by asking the opinions of admins experienced in that field before starting an RfC... I dunno if you've done that or not. 28bytes (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that though is that I'm afraid that asking admins like that could be canvassing and that I don't really know who has experience in this field (I would if I were an admin, since I'm into networking).Jasper Deng (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not canvassing if you're just asking for advice. Check with MuZemike, I believe he does a lot of rangeblocks. 28bytes (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops

That would be an error. I'm trying to prevent someone from constantly reopening a closed discussion that others have also been trying to keep closed, and somehow I think other comments are getting messed up in the process. My bad. CycloneGU (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It's restored now. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, just did further research. The user whose comment has been incidentally removed is the same user who has reopened and is attempting to continue the discussion running now on five times. When reverting his unhat, I did not see the additional comment. It's better off not allowing the additional comment as it gives him the satisfaction of knowing he got the last word. Either way, I think Tarc is posting about him at 3RR, and I intend to post as a witness. CycloneGU (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

He's already blocked now, so it's a moot point, I suppose. 28bytes (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

re: delta

with regard to

The approach you are suggesting is:

1. Δ notices an image use with no rationale, leaves a note for someone (who?) and takes it off his list.
2. It languishes in a state of technical NFCC violation forever, since there's no real incentive for anybody to write a rationale for it.

One obvious alternative is "leave a note about the problem, saying the image will be removed in (e.g.) 15 days if the problem is not fixed by then". Δ could use one of his own user pages to track files that had such notices pending. Maybe you could suggest that. 67.117.145.23 (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad suggestion at all. If I recall correctly I suggested something similar to him on his talk page a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, the arbs seem hesitant to entertain any alternate proposals at this point... the existing ones seem virtually ignored, so I'm hesitant to add any more if they're not going to pay any attention to them. 28bytes (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ive proposed a bot to do exactly that, however I think arbcom will veto the communities support for that and it will go no-where. (another classic example of being ArbFucked™) ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously?

Are you going to hat his comment further up as well? Don't get me wrong, I greatly respect your opinion, but am I not allowed to respond to a dramaboard-only account? Black Kite (t) (c) 17:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments like this fall squarely in the "not worth responding to" category, in my opinion. See also most of MickMacNee's comments, which have been (almost) entirely ignored. If someone makes a comment that appears designed simply to draw attention, why give them what they want? 28bytes (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, true. It's irritating that such accounts are the first to burst into tears when someone replies to them, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think most sensible people notice the irony when bomb-throwers suddenly turn into delicate, sensitive flowers when they're called out on their bomb-throwing. 28bytes (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Calling you out for your overreaction to a completely passionless procedural question is not what I would characterize as "bursting into tears," but ok. I have no quarrel with you -- if you have good-faith complaints about my comments or contribution history free of rhetoric and grandstanding, I am happy to entertain them on my talk page. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you're quite aware that your comment wasn't "passionless" ("A cadre of fanatical Betacommand-apologists") but frankly I (and you) probably have better things to do. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That comment was obviously passion-ful, but isn't the one you replied to that started this whole spat. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I thought differently, but frankly it's obvious which way the ArbCourt is going to swing, so it's probably not worth arguing about. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you please paste the edits I lost to my user page?

"If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page..."

Hello! I'm afraid I'm new and used a COI username etc - is it possible for you to post the changes I made to the page titled "Community Energy Scotland"?

CommunityEnergySc0t (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Your edits are still visible in the page history; this link should have them all, just click that and then "edit this page" and you'll be able to copy out whatever you need. 28bytes (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Aah, thank you - and apologies for my Wiki-newbie-idiocy... :D Swellmap86 (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. 28bytes (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a thankless work

• 2.220.204.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• After having explained a policy of Wikipedia to an Anon IP editor, he actually called me a prick and asked me to fuck off. Facepalm --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've warned him for that, and if he keeps it up I'll block him. (He's right on the "said" change, though: see WP:SAY.) 28bytes (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Noted but if the source had stated very clearly as "explained"? Should we go for "said" and violate WP:SYN? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow. Why would saying somebody said something be synthesis, if indeed they said it? 28bytes (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Good grief, I know the link is dead now but I remember reading it previously as "explained", which was as quoted in the media report. BTW, someone (an Admin, in fact) taught me a big lesson on WP:SYN last year and I've been applying this delligently as part of WP:NOR. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Man... Nowhere did I mentioned to him about a block and he blew his top. FYI, I now suspect that this guy knows Wikipedia a little too intimately and could be an IP sock of someone we might have some knowledge of. Let me sift through the data I have first. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's really a need for a sock hunt over someone changing "explained" to "said", is there? Anyway, he mentioned a block because I told him I'd block him if he kept being abusive. I'm inclined to just leave him be at the moment. 28bytes (talk) 09:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• What a B E U TI FUL SUNDAY! The sock's pattern has been confirmed by User:Σ, on WP:Wikiquette alerts#Dave1185 - he just popped the cap of User:Tasc0 who was banned for the very identical way of abusing others. One thing the other Admins know me and User:Baseball Bugs for, our keen nose for sniffing out a sock when there is indeed one. We might not know whose socks they are but given time, we will get them eventually, through help by others. Now that's what collaborative effort on Wikipedia means! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The only problem is that nobody else believes that. --Σ ^talk_contribs 16:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• No matter, its just a matter of time they slip-up... and someone else like you will notice it then thats it for the smarty pants. And I quote Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool all of the people some of the time and you can fool some of the people all the time but you can never fool all the people all the time." We have better things (in RL) to do on a beautiful sunday than to stuck with an angry bird on the web, no? Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hey 28, I've been searching through the web the past few days, then lo-and-behold... I managed to find a yahoo group that had archived the original news report and I just amended it to the article page. Let me know if its looks good? Thoughts? Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC) (PS:I've been exonerated!)
  • Facepalm . You really want to keep battling over "explained" vs. "said"? 28bytes (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• For me, this is about the principle that an Admin had taught me and that is: WP:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Hows about we sent it to WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for neutral third-party assessment instead? FWIW, I can accept that if you can too, or for that matter the potty-mouthed IP editor. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I'm also an admin and I'm trying to teach you that (1) using "said" is more neutral language, regardless of how the source phrased it, and (2) even if it weren't, battling over it is a huge waste of time. But if you want to ask on the NPOV noticeboard, go for it. 28bytes (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• There's also WP:No original research/Noticeboard that I'm considering bringing it too and to note that most of the editors on WP:Wikiquette alerts#Dave1185 agrees that "explained" is no different from "said", so why changed? And if indeed you had read carefully the source, there's a reason as to why it was phrased that way. The IP claimed that I lied but now that an archive has surfaced, I'd expect him (and in his language) to shut the fuck up by now. Anyway, we are involved now so if you don't mind, we could use some neutral third-party assessment from those noticeboards, eh? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• You're certainly welcome to ask for other editors' opinions, on a noticeboard or elsewhere. 28bytes (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• 2.120.57.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• FYI, some anon IP just did a driveby-smearing on your discussion page twice, it is closely related to the anon IP at the top, both are from Sky Broadband. Coincidence? I think not. But no worries, we are watching. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it was in retaliation for this, but I could be wrong. Either way, thanks for the watchful eye! 28bytes (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Alrighty, I've tagged that one as well, but one thing baffles me... although they're all from Sky Broadband their IP's geolocation are too wide apart to effectively triangulate the wanker. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 01:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• May be not, we'll soon see. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 01:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• May be one wanker, may be unrelated wankers. There is no shortage of wankers in the world, you know. WP:RBI's probably the best thing to do here. 28bytes (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

KnowIG sock

89.240.169.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – pls. could you zap this one as well? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 08:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ta. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 09:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to turn this case over to the arbitration commitee? It seems like this mad editor is going to keep his rampage going regardless of a ban so I'm thinking maybe the arbcom can come up with a mutual agreement. –BuickCenturyDriver 17:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My view is no, involving ArbCom would not be helpful. What we have here is a clearly disruptive editor; even during the ban discussion, he was socking and vandalizing other editors' comments. I believe this is best handled by the community if possible, and so far the community is handling it well, in my opinion. Unless I'm missing something, involving ArbCom would just be a whole lot of paperwork with no benefit. 28bytes (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The best thing to do to these vandals is WP:RBI. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. However, the "R" part becomes easier with a community ban, since anyone reverting a banned user's edits is exempt from 3RR. 28bytes (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, except I've tagged banned users' creations for G5 deletion and had admins say, "Looks like a good page" and remove the speedy tag, so it doesn't always work. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Send 'em to me, I'll delete 'em. I cleaned out a bunch of Chester Markel edits not too long ago, I've got no problem doing G5s. 28bytes (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, they are Baumstark and Lingenfelter, created by a sockpuppet of the banned user User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg. The other half dozen were deleted by various administrators. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well WP:RBI works, but too bad it had to come to the point where whole IP ranges are getting blocked because of this person. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me

Hello there. I was wondering if you can email or put a deleted article on my userspace. The article Dustin Corea is about a footballer that now follows WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. It was deleted a few months ago for not following those rules. Yesterday it was deleted again because I did not know you had to go through some steps for it to be approved. I'd want the one it was deleted yesterday. Thanks in advanced. Jaime070996 22:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Restored to User:Jaime070996/Dustin Corea. 28bytes (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for hatting discussion re:Dekkappai Happy Friendly Gift Giver (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, mysterious stranger! ☂ (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder who you are... ⚔ (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget me! --Σ ^talk_contribs 22:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone guess who I am? (Hint: My name has been blacklisted from creation.) ⚔ (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, my first guess is buried not too deep in my contribs... ☂ (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Blasted account creators... I can't register any awesome unicode symbols! Σ (talk | contribs) 23:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

E-mail me a unicode symbol you want and I'll create the account for you. (Make certain it isn't in use, though.) :) ⚔ (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! ⚖ (talk | contribs) 19:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Guess I'll need to upgrade my OS, Mr. Rectange with 2696 in it. ☂ (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Symbola font? --Σ ^talk_contribs 20:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Lol, what happened, Σ? Swarm ^X 19:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought Sigma could be trusted to only use it for humorous purposes, like 28bytes' umbrella and my crossed swords. Oh well. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. He actually tried to be constructive with the account. The bastard. Swarm ^X 20:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to comment at ANI

I want to comment on the incident related to WikiAlpha, but, I must ask for your permission first.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, I want to note that a spam filter should be made by all being spammed, and my proposal for a possible solution.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I also want to raise concerns with Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s intent to misuse admin tools (in order to provide copies of deleted articles in bad faith, which constitutes a serious breach of community trust) to help WikiAlpha.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoa there. Why do you think Moonriddengirl is acting in bad faith? 28bytes (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The diff is troubling. The ability to view deleted articles isn't supposed to be used in a way to promote another website like that. There are also legal problems with that, which is serious.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's normal for administrators to provide copies of deleted material unless it's a copyright violation, attack page or otherwise problematic content. What legal problems are you concerned about? 28bytes (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It violates the part of the license Wikipedia uses that requires attribution. See Jimbo's talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears she's trying to help them do proper attribution... we want that, don't we? 28bytes (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In any case, I feel even if it's not a violation of policy, that admin's comment must be brought up to ANI. The problem is that the attribution problems wouldn't be solved by her doing this. It should be discussed.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the right thing to do would be to voice your concerns directly to her on her talk page first, don't you agree? 28bytes (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, looks like you already did. Let's wait until she responds. 28bytes (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

And I should have said this last night, but please don't phrase your concerns as demands to people that they explain themselves. I wish you hadn't assumed bad faith on her talk page, my talk page, and Jimbo's talk page, but I do appreciate and am grateful for you not doing it on AN/I without checking here first. 28bytes (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I knew to phrase it better instead, but I was in a venting mood.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, don't vent at Moonriddengirl. She works very hard for us. Vent at me if you need to vent. 28bytes (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

...and it probably wouldn't be a bad idea for you to stop back over at her talk page and apologize for being brusque now that you're feeling less venty. 28bytes (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)OK then. I am not really sure that an admin's ability to give out deleted articles was supposed to be used to promote another website, or maybe even against the attribution rules (according to her, no), which leads me to believe that it's misuse of admin tools. This is what brought me into this vent.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's a few things to keep in mind. First, Wikipedia allows, and even encourages, other sites to reuse our content. The WikiAlpha folks were doing it wrong by omitting the attribution and incorrectly stating the material was public domain, and Moonriddengirl was trying to get them to fix those problems so that our authors would be properly credited. Second, as Moonriddengirl points out, it's OK for administrators to provide copies of deleted material, within certain guidelines. (I'm even the first one listed!) Third, even if Moonriddengirl was doing something wrong, it's always best to ask for clarification rather than accuse somebody, and especially not accuse them on a highly-visible page like Jimbo's without giving them a chance to respond (or even notifying them that you're discussing them there.) Again, it's good you didn't repeat that accusation on AN/I, as people would have likely torn into you pretty quickly given Moonriddengirl's well-earned status as a highly-respected editor, not to mention a WMF employee. Lastly, I appreciate the apology you offered on her talk page, but you should probably drop the "I felt you were abusing your admin position right there." part at the end. A post that's all apology is always better received than a half-apology, half-justification. Sorry to go on so long here, but I want to make sure we're on the same page. 28bytes (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we're on the same page here.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Great. I saw you edited your comment on her talk page; good call. 28bytes (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

On a different note, I would like to say that an email filter and my proposal (linked in my 2nd comment at the top of this section) to require CAPTCHA for non-autoconfirmed users for the EmailUser function would together constitute a great solution to our spam problem.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Facts and goodwill

Thank you for closing this thread, which I probably misplaced, not knowing where to raise my concern once the original discussion was closed. My concern was not addressed: I see my talk pages as strong evidence that Rlevse and BarkingMoon are not the same person, and invite everybody (including you) to look there themselves. Most of the other discussions just seem to be convinced of the opposite and come to conclusions based on that. Prejudice, I would say. But I want to assume Good faith, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. The whole thing was very disappointing to me. I only interacted with BarkingMoon briefly on the DYK talk page, but their interactions with other DYK regulars (from what I saw) were very much unlike what I would have expected from a returned Rlevse. Rlevse always struck me as a fairly straight-shooting fellow, and the idea that he would (for example) engage Materialscientist in a "role-playing" exercise pretending to be unfamiliar with DYK norms does not mesh with my impression of him. I don't know what BarkingMoon's previous account was, but frankly, I find the whole "sock-hunting" culture here fairly unseemly. If someone is helping out with tasks that need doing (such as prep set building) and not causing any trouble, I don't know why they can't just be left alone. 28bytes (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! What do you think about posting something like you said on Barking Moon's talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it some thought. I'm hesitant to make any statement that might encourage BarkingMoon to return with that account; there are already a number of editors who have targeted that account for special scrutiny, and I can't think of any way to dissuade them from that. So returning under that account would probably not be a pleasant experience for BarkingMoon (and I suspect BarkingMoon is aware of that.) If the BarkingMoon account was a legitimate case of clean start (and again, I have no idea if that's the case) then the wisest thing for them to do, in my opinion, would probably be to clean start again – if they haven't already done so, which they very well may have. There are probably thousands of clean start accounts plodding along without incident as I type this; I suspect we'll see BarkingMoon again, even if we don't realize it. :) 28bytes (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Taken, :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Since 10.28.2010

As it seems you have taken up that ANI thread, you may want to see my talk page for an example of what he/she was blocked for. I have no position on this.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I saw that, and thought it a bit odd. 28bytes (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

My question is, does this make me involved?Jasper Deng (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you ask? 28bytes (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

My talk page was among his "spamming", and, it seems that (unless that was pure trolling) I have been involved in disputes before with this user as an IP (which I don't believe). I'm confused.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Normally people try to determine whether they're "involved" with someone in the context of some admin action they're considering. Are you planning to do something? 28bytes (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Since I don't have a clue in this, I'd rather stay out. The definition of involved needs to be reinforced for me.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think "Since I don't have a clue in this, I'd rather stay out." is the most sensible thing I've read all day. :) 28bytes (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

But I still am clueless on the definition of involvement.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Userify Fleet Management Ltd.

Hi 28bytes, I saw you were on the list of admins willing to userify a page. I made Fleet Management Ltd. but a few weeks later it was speedily deleted under A7 while I wasn't there to defend it. The four links in other articles to my article are what made it notable, so if my page is userified I will add details from these sources to the article itself such that it will pass all notability criteria. Thanks!

Merehap (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Restored to User:Merehap/Fleet Management Ltd. 28bytes (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Merehap (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Legal Threat

This is either just asking for a block or also having a true legal threat. Too petty for ANI.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If this user continues this abuse on his/her talk page (quite likely considering that the vast majority of the abuse is there), you know the drill - remove talk page access. Thanks :) .Jasper Deng (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Yes, I know the drill. 28bytes (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I should darn well hope you do! - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

And sure he does!Jasper Deng (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's time.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, such fun I miss when I go eat dinner. 28bytes (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh........ the uselessness of this user's vent.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Charming. 28bytes (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Blasphemy! They forgot to put me on their hate list! (Oh wait - that's good) --Σ ^talk_contribs 03:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Their little site seems to be ignored by Google in any case. Problem solved until the socking begins (my prediction).Jasper Deng (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Dodgechris

Not a problem. I was leaning toward unblock myself anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Help please

As my mentor, I'm turning to you to help settle the argument on my talk page with Eagles247.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Which argument? I see at least two. 28bytes (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)