User talk:Baa/Archival Quality/May 2009

This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from the current talk page for the period May 2009.

In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form. Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the current talk page.

If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the current talk page page and then add your comments there or preferably link to the section in question within the archives.

Sockpuppet

Hello Treelo. I believe that your biggest fan LEDJRuff is a sockpuppet. His other identity is User talk:67.171.250.39. They seem to edit the same way, have a weird obsession with the Cartoon network logo as well as others, and are interested in the block Action Flicks. I will attempt to file a sockpuppetry case, but I have little experience with the matter. He seems to have a history of cases as well as disorders. My strong suspicion is also fueled by the fact that in his contributions he made two edits under an IP address that is one number off from the one I gave you earlier. Both he and the address feel the same way about Action Flicks and the logo. Please contact me if you have any objections. Toonami (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Whilst that is some good sussing out it's also a little ropey a reason to suspect or even accuse someone of sockpuppetry, could be simple as editing whilst not logged in which isn't sockpuppetry as that requires two registered accounts. If he was actually causing problems and doing the same through being not logged in there could be a cause for concern as that'd be marked evasion, seeing as he isn't being disruptive whether or not he is logged in I'd say this is isn't actually a case to bother filing. treelo _radda 13:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I apologize assuming the worst but I strongly believe that he isn't clean. He is on and off. he makes some good edits, and then some controversial edits too. And he made two edits with another IP address that caused a stir (you can see it on his contributions page) and User talk:67.171.250.39 only makes bad edits. Sure it isn't vandalism, but he keeps on making the edits that are starting to piss people off. Im sorry. I just believe that those two are connected. Toonami (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I always apply Hanlon's razor to LEDJ, nothing more I can do until he does something that is actionable. Tell me, what link do you have with Crips r us (talk · contribs)? He's been blocked as an actual sockpuppet for over a year now so moving him into the inactive members section on the Rhode Island wikiproject seems a bit pointless. treelo _radda 16:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess moving him to the inactive section was pointless. I looked at each member's status to keep the page current, and didn't really think about removing it from the list entirely. Why? What does that have to do with LEDJRuff? Do you think Crips r us (talk · contribs) is LDEJRuff (talk · contribs)? That was a while ago before I "retired". Do you think those two are sockpuppets? Toonami (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

He has nothing to do with Crips r us, proved as much through a checkuser. What I was wondering is if you're a sock of Crips r us given the oddness of you being on my talkpage somewhat randomly and the whole Rhode Island thing (check the case links on his talkpage) but I'm fairly convinced you have nothing to do with that dick so can put that one away I guess. treelo _radda 20:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, thanks for remembering, TR, but please don't talk about it again, okay? ;)

~~LDEJRuff~~ ^{(see what I've contributed)} 14:42, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

Future programming block info and logo galleries in an article...

Why are they considered fruitless in this article?

BTW, there's a logo gallery in the Disney Channel article.
~~LDEJRuff~~ ^{(see what I've contributed)} 14:46, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

Because they are, leave a section for future programming and all you get is useless guesswork and dream programming slots. Also, the Disney Channel has had several logos whereas Cartoon Network has had two and both are already in the article. Please don't ask me any more questions with answers you can find out yourself, you do this a lot and I'd rather I wasn't held accountable by you. treelo _radda 19:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

AF logo

RE: this - The problem is the old logo is still showing although it was supposed to be the new one. I performed the self-revert to fix the image to the way you had it and uploaded the new image again. The new image is now in use on the article. Cheers! John Sloan @ 17:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've re-reverted it now because of the duplicate file warning. John Sloan @ 17:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If you were still getting the previous version whereas I was getting the newer version then you've wasted your time reuploading under a new name and reverting. Your browser still had the old image cached, just needed to refresh and bypass the cache to see the new image. treelo _radda 18:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats strange because I logged out and restarted firefox and logged in again but it still showed the old image. That should have made the new image appear. In any case, the new image is in the article now and thats all that really matters at the end of the day. Thanks John Sloan @ 20:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If it were me I'd request a speedy deletion of the new and poorly named replacement image, make another revert for the original image to my most recent upload so it isn't deleted for no reason other than my own klutziness and then change the article so the old new image is used. Roundabout way and a little complex but it'd get things done the way I should have got it done.

As it's not me in your place I might revert the image so your new upload is available (and probably change the image source URL as it won't be correct, would need to figure that out as the new image has a poor source URL) revert your edit to the article and then finally ask that the newer image be deleted as it's a duplicate of the existing image... but I won't do a thing unless you say so as you might consider it somewhat unfriendly of me to do so without explaining why I did it before doing it. So, sound good? treelo _radda 20:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

One, I don't really appreciate being called a klutz. Two, the name of the image isn't the issue, the correctness of the image is. Three, mother caught a flea, put it in the teapot and made a cup of tea..... (sorry couldn't resist :D) Joking aside, i'm not really bothered how things get done, just as long the correct logo for Alien Force is present in the article ;) John Sloan @ 21:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I found the image by a google search. URL: [1] John Sloan @ 21:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't implying you were a klutz, if I did it it'd be a klutzy move as I can't stand kludges for stuff that I did wrong but for you it's a simple error. Names do mean something and whilst not the issue it does make up some of it. Anyway, I'll do as I suggested and remember to bypass caches when uploading over existing images. treelo _radda 22:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont want to worry you, but i'm still seeing the old image. On the article as well! John Sloan @ 23:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now its working! It's definately my software thats playing up tonight and causing all the problems. I think we can put this behind us now! Thankfully John Sloan @ 23:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you're leaving EEnE

Why not just take a short Wikibreak from it? We need you there. -- Elaich ^talk 03:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Because "we" is just you and me against every idiot who wants to expand the articles in their own way. I have no time to defend that which I have grown to dislike purely on the basis of its fans and yes, I understand that it leaves you alone against a sea of fools but hey, that's why WP:RFPP exists. I used to like EEnE, I really did and then this set of godforsaken articles comes along and makes me notice that the fans are all over-excitable and gullible drama-making fools. That specific fanset, the only fanset I've seen here or elsewhere, I don't want to be associated with and why should I? The show itself might be smart but the fans sure aren't and well, it's tiresome, thankless work. I don't feel I'm doing anything for the articles, just keeping them clean but never working on them and improving them and that is probably the kicker. Sorry but you'll have to do without me, it isn't like I'm that critical. treelo _radda 08:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

About CN Real

Actually, CN has been airing ads for CN Real for a couple weeks now (albeit without a specific date). I guess I could wait a couple weeks though. Chdr (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd advise upon it, the schedule could slip and has done before for other slots. Like I said, when it starts being promoted with a start date and time would be good to add it but it's just too far out at this moment. Heck, even given two weeks with a date and time would be too much out, generally adding it within the week or sometimes day of airing is usually best. treelo _radda 00:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As of Memorial Day Weekend, CN has been airing ads for the CN Real shows with specific dates and times. Some example promos at [2]67.82.3.89 (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)chdr

OK, through the magic of proxy software I was able to see the promos in question but the dates are some weeks out with the block not starting until late June, I don't see the urgency in getting these details into the article right now. treelo _radda 21:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Removed template because the image is not being used in the article therefore it should be deleted. 90.211.185.86 (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing the fair-use rationale won't get it deleted any faster. I've tagged it for speedy deletion given the other image which is available. treelo _radda 16:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)