User talk:east718/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please contact me on my talk page.

Archives

Current Late 2004 and onwards March 2006 and onwards November 2006 and onwards July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June–July 2009 August–December 2009 January–June 2010 July 2010 and onwards

*huggles back*

No idea why, but this one was the funniest image that popped up on a mayflower search. :P Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 02:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

:o *huggles again* east.718 at 02:33, July 1, 2008

Thank you...

... very much for being willing to look into the goings-on at Lyme disease. MastCell ^Talk 07:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I've watchlisted the article for now and will keep an eye on it for a few days. east.718 at 18:11, July 1, 2008

Image:ChuckD2.jpg

Hi, East. I just noticed that while the license on Image:ChuckD2.jpg is CC-BY, the original license on Flickr is CC-BY-NC. Did you miss this, or were you able to relicense the picture when you uploaded it? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the author recently decided to relicense all their images (compare [1] with [2]). All for naught unfortunately, since licensing is irrevocable. east.718 at 18:11, July 1, 2008

E-mailed Images

I haven't been able to get to a print shop to copy and upload the RCMP reports yet, but I did send other scans. Did you see those? This image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_Warning_4_God%27s_Emissary_1.jpg expanded to an image 3 times bigger than the thumb so a viewer could study the faces in detail when it was originally posted. I don't know why the current one restored to the article doesn't. Would you please repost it as it was originally. Thanks with appreciation.DoDaCanaDa (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Untitled section

Asshole. You deleted the photographs that I took and posted to the Crystal Lake Recreation Area Wiki page. With people like you destroying people's contributions, no wonder most people give up and stop contributing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damotclese (talk • contribs)

You didn't specify the terms of reuse - they could still be "all rights reserved" or "non-commercial use only" for all I know. east.718 at 18:22, July 1, 2008

Serious help needed

This tag has just appeared today and I thought the dispute was resolved. This user Administrator was the person starting the dispute, removing the image another Administrator initially posted. I'm suspect of this users NPOV since in his profile he states he is "strongly atheist". He justifies this because no other user posted an opinion. Help! Please!

Image:2nd Police Warning 4 God's Emissary 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DoDaCanaDa (notify | contribs).

• This was originally tagged as replaceable fair use, but was kept. I don't think I agree with that- it has been kept on the rationale that it is an irreplaceable historic image. Maybe, but the specific incident in the photo isn't discussed in depth in the article, and, furthermore, a free image of the subject could be created (still living), meaning that there is no reason to keep this. J Milburn (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC) DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take a look at this, but on the article talk page, where this discussion belongs. Please see the steps in our dispute resolution system - have you tried talking with J. Milburn? (And not with suggestive pejoratives such as "strong atheist" either, I'd hope.) east.718 at 18:11, July 1, 2008

• Thank you. I'm not using "strong atheist" in any pejorative sense. God knows I was atheist for many years before my Spiritual resurrection, and I respect free will period. I was not a strong atheist though which may have a different POV than an ordinary one in viewing material on a strong believer. I believed consensus had been reached on the image issue and I was content to let it rest. I did remove the image and re-posted it thinking it would revert to the 3 stage image for closer examination as it was originally. I could not do this. I also changed the caption to 'Police let Cormier go' which is as generic as 'speaking to crowd'. If you look at the image history, it was J Milburn who re-posted it when the dispute was temporarily resolved. He's had a change of heart.DoDaCanaDa (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You should pick one image and use it: see our non-free content criteria, specifically points 1, 3a and 3b. For a profile or sidebar photo, only a free image is appropriate - please consider donating one that you own and hold the copyrights to. east.718 at 00:05, July 2, 2008

• There you go with the wisdom of Soloman again. You're right. Both images depict the same event from a different perspective. It's difficult for me to choose between the two and I would hope other users would post a comment or opinion. To date in June there have been 1500 views of the article, but only 350 went to the Discussion with no discussion of the images except by me and the gang of 4 Administrators, but more users are getting interested since yesterday. I do believe East you have been fair and objective not only with me, but I see with other users coming to you for guidance as well. I made a peace overture to J Milburn on his talk page. Best Regards DoDaCanaDa (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Labeling editor as a sock

Regarding this comment: it seems that SA was right (if impolite) about the sock.[3]. If you already knew this and I just misread your comment as implying otherwise, my apologies. Antelan^talk 00:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew he was right, but that doesn't excuse it - the possibility of false positives always exists, and an edit war is never good. It's not difficult to find an admin, say "hey, I've found a blatant sock, he's active right now, so can you please fasttrack this investigation for me?", get the block rubber-stamped real fast, then remove the banned user's edit. With patience on the behalf of even one party, we can all avoid unfortunate incidents like the Jossi-SA flareup now. east.718 at 00:55, July 2, 2008

Agreed. Now, imagine what could happen if both parties were patient... but now I'm asking far too much. Regards, Antelan^talk 01:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can figure out how to instill patience in both sides of a dispute, you will have solved one of the great problems of Wikipedia. :) east.718 at 04:39, July 2, 2008

Missy smiley

File:718missysmiley.svg

Hi!

Hey, I made a derivative work of your smiley because I've always wanted him to pair with his Eve whenever seeing your pleasant guy. Well, the flying flowers can be viewed as some sort of hallucination, but I like them.:) Since you're the original creator, so I want to share with the creation :P I hope you like it. bye --Caspian blue (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

pics

wonderful --TheGreenGorilla (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC) i love the lion

RCMP Reports

I have uploaded the relevant RCMP reports substantiating the prophetic action concerning the trilogy of events connecting Prime Minister Pierre (Peter) Trudeau and the three Popes in 1978 removed to the history of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier. I am ready to e-mail them to you as you suggested. Do you still want them? The article stated the 1st incident happened August 23rd, but that was a typo error. The actual date was August 3rd.DoDaCanaDa (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:DoorLearn

You blocked the IP he's using for six months over one single edit a couple of weeks back (was there something else involved? Oh, I see, there's a sockpuppetry case. Or was there?). He's now requesting unblock. His contribs seem reasonable despite one vandalism warning; however I'm a little concerned about what he did with his userpage header. Would you take a look? Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I notice the IP was mucking around with User:SexySeaClownfish, which in turn is one of several sockpuppets of User:I'm On Base, who seems to have a general interest in wrestling articles. User:DoorLearn's first edit was listing themself as a member of the pro wrestling wikiproject. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, blatant sock of I'm On Base. Thanks for tending to my talkpage in my absence, Luna! east.718 at 01:43, July 6, 2008

Bot-net?

Per this? Not sure who else would be relevant to mention it to. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just 4chan. What happens is that a poster there will post a something in the vein of "Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B&oldid=223722527&action=edit and click 'Save page.'", and incite dozens of people to follow through. east.718 at 01:43, July 6, 2008

Info appreciated. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lafayette Afro Rock Band

On 5 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lafayette Afro Rock Band, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, BorgQueen! east.718 at 01:43, July 6, 2008

Sysop assistance

Hi. I'm addressing you because no one has bothered to answer my post on the noticebard. User:Hiram111 keeps removing large criticism sections in Walid Jumblatt (here, here, here and here) and Saad Hariri (here, here, here and here). I reported him and asked for the articles to be protected but his edits didn't seem to be disruptive enough. Apparently, people can delete whatever section they don't like on Wikipedia without it being considered disruption. GreenEcho (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like another administrator is attempting to foster discussion on the talkpage. A prudent move for you would be to cease reverting with an accusation of vandalism - any good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism - and try to negotiate. east.718 at 05:35, July 7, 2008

Unbalanced Editing

Having recused myself from editing my own article which is not forbidden but discouraged as it should be, I have patiently waited for almost two weeks for another editor to restore balance, posting the following on the talk of the two editors primarily responsible: You were a participant in removing 95% of the content in the article. This was left in "In 1986, to complete his Canada-wide mission, he hitchhiked East to Quebec and the Maritimes.[7][8][9][10]", It may have been an oversight, but that makes no sense without restoring this "In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon to draw attention to Revelation 19:11 [2]. Newspapers across the country chronicled his journey........" I have recused myself from editing the article. Would you please restore this to the article with the references also removed?

How long should I wait before restoring the balance myself? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ray, I'm not going to make any edits but might drop in to participate on the talkpage. I'm also advising you to avoid making any substantial changes to your own article, aside from correcting obviously false information. east.718 at 21:26, July 7, 2008

• As you and other editors suggested, I have recused myself from editing the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier which is proper. I have also dropped my desire to post the 95% of the article edited out to the talk page for discussion and re-working in deference to other Administrators experience. I have been appealing to those same editors to do the right thing and restore balance to the bare bones left in the article after the major decimation with no response. They left this in: In 1986, to complete his Canada-wide mission, he hitchhiked East to Quebec and the Maritimes.[7][8][9][10] This makes no sense without the inclusion of this: In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon to draw attention to Revelation 19:11 [2] even removing these references so a viewer would have no clue of this verifiable action without going to the history:

[7] Steve St. Laurent. "Visiting 'prophet' no average preacher", Calgary Herald, 18 July 1981, A11.

[8] Cathy Lord "Visions compelled search for God", Edmonton Journal, 25 July 1981, G13.

[9] Leslie Cole "Self-proclaimed prophet: Showmanship not his style", Whitehorse Star, 26 August 1981, pg 3.

[10] Nicholas Read "'Divine gifts' inspire ex-executive to tramp the land with a message", Vancouver Sun, 3 October 1981

[11] Maclean's, 31 August 1981, People Section.

With every passing day, my POV is evolving to believe this is a deliberate act of subterfuge. With the dispute and discussion ongoing over the images in the article for deletion over FUR, Maclean's has provided written permission to post this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MacLean%27s.jpg image, but reference [11] is removed. No other editor/contributor has stepped in to correct this imbalance. How long should I wait? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• You may not have to take any action here. Progress is being made with one of the editors involved with promising results. Many Thanks. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• You will notice another editor jumped into these ongoing discussions for the first time removing a post I made to your talk page. Being your own personal talk, I will not presume to undo what he did. That is your exclusive prerogative. If you read it, it is not aggressive in tone or intent at all. I posted the same message only on the pages of those Administrators involved in these ongoing discussions and he removed them all. Only one Wikipedian had the balls to contact that user telling him not to mess with his personal talk and undid what he did. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

0417mac

I saw you indef blocked this user a few moments ago, just a couple questions (and please don't think I'm attacking you, just curious). One, is there an "unofficial" age limit for editing on Wikipedia, and two was the oversight on all of her edits designed to protect her privacy? Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no age requirement for editing, but competence is certainly required. Edits containing identifying information about minors are routinely deleted, but both Wikipedia:About and Talk:Main Page are too large to delete without putting an excessive burden on the site, so an oversight is necessary. east.718 at 21:26, July 7, 2008

Thanks for the answers and I understand the need for removing the thread, just for my knowledge in case something like this happens in the future. Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:0417mac

Why is it necessary for the edits to be oversighted, and why did you remove the thread? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I take privacy concerns wrt minors very seriously. east.718 at 21:26, July 7, 2008

Was it really necessary to remove the thread? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The header on the noticeboard specifically instructs people to not make requests of this nature there, but to email oversight-l instead. east.718 at 21:40, July 7, 2008

Um, I didn't request oversight of the user's diffs. In fact, I didn't even request a block. What does your reply have to do with anything? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it devolved into a privacy issue. There was no need for the thread to remain anymore with the offending edits still in public view. east.718 at 01:15, July 8, 2008

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminbots

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminbots. Could you help with the list on the talk page? Carcharoth (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully my comment will bring some clarity on what my tools will actually do. I believe you're actually the first person to ask such a comprehensive question of me. :) east.718 at 01:15, July 8, 2008

THe Rock IIII.jpg

Could you get a copy of this image? I know you deleted it and I am pretty sure sure you can see deleted articles/images. Thanks if you can! Altenhofen (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the image; you'll need to provide adequate sourcing and licensing information or risk deletion again in a week. east.718 at 04:23, July 8, 2008

Professional fighters = notable?

I've been spending the last few hours assessing the articles of unassessed fighter, and while I did that I noticed that A LOT of them were not in any way notable. So I tagged the most un-notable (only a few fights and/or in largly unknown organizations) with CSD A7, and they were deleted. The rest of them I've tagged with the prod-template. The thing is, I just go to Joe Sampieri and discovered that you had already removed a prod because "professional fighters are inherently notable per WP:BIO". Now, 1) if that's true, then that that SUCKS for me as I've spent a lot of time on this :P, and 2) I don't agree. There are a lot of fighters in small organizations and I can't see how they should have their own article. The articles I've tagged have pretty much all been created with that tool that takes info from Sherdog and makes an article out of it. To quote WP:BIO: If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.. Almost none of the fighters are mentioned outside Sherdog and other record-keeping sites. I really don't see how they are notable. There is no meaning in having articles echoing Sherdog. If you'd like you can check my contributions too see who I consider unnotable, and I sincerly hope you and Wikipedia agree with me on that having an article on them serves no purpose other than taking up space... Thanks in advance! - Aktsu (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that I might agree that some of the people I've tagged could be worth keeping (people with multiple fights in the UFC for example), but IMO it's really now worth even having the pages when all that's done to them is updating their record after each event. Take Steve Berger just as a random example. What is on that page is either directly on Sherdog or could be found in one Google search. I can't see that he's done ANYTHING remarkable (except lose to somewhat well-know fighters), so why does he have his own article? I'm probably arguing for something that's not really an issue, but found your disagreement on prod-ing the article on Joe Sampier very, very strange.. - Aktsu (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Aktsu, you can try to get these articles deleted, but WP:CSD#A7 shouldn't be the route to make it happen. The articles assert notability, i.e. the subject is a professional athlete. This should go through PROD or AfD. Darkspots (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(Was just about to post this on you talk page:) Oh, I just read your comment on his talk page :P. Sorry, I was under the impression that you were removing the prods also. If not, I don't have a problem with it (even tough I still think CSD A7 applies, as I said: WP:BIO says: if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Being listed on Sherdog or similar record keeping sites is not enough IMO. etc..) - Aktsu (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't touched your prods. Whether or not the articles pass WP:ATHLETE or not isn't relevant to WP:CSD#A7, which just covers whether or not there's an assertion of notability. Saying the subject is a professional athlete is enough to save the article from a speedy. That said, I'm not surprised some of them have been deleted by the speedy process, different folks are narrower or looser with A7. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable.. Got it :) Thanks for clearing it up! - Aktsu (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. If these prod tags get pulled, you can always try a multiple-article AfD. Darkspots (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading some of the AfDs on MMA-fighters and it seems like articles on anyone having fought in the UFC would be kept.. How do you think fighters having mainly fought in small promotions like Rings, Range of the Cage, Gladiator Challenge, Rumble on the River, etc would fare? Also, if a prod goes through - does it matter that an AfD probably would decide to would keep it, or does the fact that the prod went through take priority? Anyway, looks to me like there isn't a very big push to remove "unnecessary" content from WP, so I'll probably just have to let this pass. Thanks anyway! - Aktsu (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! You've just discovered the big loophole in WP:BIO -- that it breaks down wrt combat sports. I agree that the argument of "how can this possibly expand beyond a stub without significant sourcing" is convincing, but this isn't really a valid reason for CSD (or PROD for that matter).

Something to consider is that most of these articles are really low quality and should be deleted. However, I don't think a mass AFD is the way to go: these are all different people, and not characters from the same video game or something. I think that the least painful option is to modify WP:ATHLETE to exclude combat sports (where everybody's a professional), and we can get rid of the worthless pages with ease. A residual benefit is that this will be an effective tool to remove new pages, rather than having to scrap to take each one down.

(By the way, I've deprodded some of your stuff... Dave Menne, the first UFC middleweight champion? Come on! :P) east.718 at 06:44, July 9, 2008

Heh, guess I must have been a little to quick on some of them yeah :P But what about people like Eddie Ruiz (1-1, last fight a loss in his first and only fight with the UFC in 2003) who have maybe one or two fights with major organization and who's obviously not fighting anymore? Anyway, you're saying getting WP:ATHLETE changed would be the way to go? How would one go about doing that? Also, I feel I should apologies for creating a bit of a mess as I'm sure your time could be spent better than reverting my PRODs. Too bad I didn't see your revert on the Sampier-page before and/or read WP:BIO better instead of taking it for granted that they weren't regarded as notable. Again, thanks! - Aktsu (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WT:BIO is the place. (Hey, look, there's already a discussion on marginally notable soccer players there!) I agree that Eddie Ruiz shouldn't stay around, but the devil is in developing a set of detailed criteria that will enable us to send genuinely worthless articles into the ether while preventing rules lawyering from people with grudges against individual articles, for example. Perhaps riders such as "noted success in a mid-level promotion" or "success in a top-level promotion" would help? Now I have to figure out something for boxing, which works under a different business model... :/ east.718 at 07:24, July 9, 2008

Edit protection

The history of the Great power article contains two protection entries for the 9 July, when you unprotected it did you intend to leave the move page function protected? I ask this question because it is the second page in 24 hours that I am watching where this has happened. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That was intentional; the article has repeatedly been a target of pagemove vandalism in the past. east.718 at 08:32, July 9, 2008

I've made a report at AN/I about a case you were involved in

A 3RR case in which you blocked User:WorkerBee74 is part of a report I filed a little while ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Scjessey lying, gaming the system, POV pushing. You may want to look at it. I didn't file it to criticize your decision, as you'll see if you read the report. Noroton (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

barnstar

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		Thank you for your swift and clever solution to the chart sorting problem on List of Major League Baseball stadiums. I really appreciate it! It was a masterful stroke. Kingturtle (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, KT! A masterstroke, this must be my finest hour. :D east.718 at 06:38, July 10, 2008

Miller Dowel

You have deleted my entry of "Miller Dowel." It was copied from our website, with permission. We are a small company and purposefully deleted any blatant advertising so as not to present a conflict. We ask that you please reinstate the page for informational purposes. Thank you, Michael Miller CEO Miller Dowel Company —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acdowning (talk • contribs) 19:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia: it is not a directory of businesses, but an encyclopedia. If your company has encyclopedia merit, somebody else will create an article on it in due time. In the meantime, please read our business' FAQ and consider publishing your material on a wiki that is a business directory, such as MyWikiBiz. east.718 at 09:58, July 12, 2008

Static conditions

This was posted to J Milburn talk today with one subsequent post.

Good Day J! I've been accused at times of wearing my emotions on my sleeve and yesterday I showed that by changing this section header as a tangible display. I went to bed happy, pleased that after such a long discussion started by the images being removed, we, personally, had passed a threshold as it were. I still believe that, so you can imagine my surprise and disappointment to wake up and find the images deleted, not by you. When I went to bed the dispute over the image "Second police warning for God's emissary" was ended with a Keep consensus and a different tag noting this. That is gone as well which I don't understand. I had assured you the FUR tag was only a temporary measure. This dispute within Wikipedia required my immediate focus. If the article was in the top 100 list, I am confident there would have been a consensus to keep both images. This was more difficult with such a smaller number of users involved in the discussion. My optimism was restored when Kingturtle listed the article in the RFCbio list. Nothing! I have been pleading for someone to restore the information about the 1981 trip to Whitehorse, Yukon with the verification newspaper references removed from the article. Nothing! I am seriously considering abandoning Wikipedia to the neutral netherworld as not being worth my time and effort. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ray, this is a bit much for me to digest at once, as you'll notice I've been making only three or four edits a week for some time now. I will take a look (as an editor, not an administrator) and offer assistance if I find the time. east.718 at 09:58, July 12, 2008

East, with the information I e-mailed you privately, you know more about me than anyone else on site. It is a lot to digest so I stopped sending you additional information until you want more. I sent the previous message to only to those people who were involved in the discussions. I commend you on having the courage to undo what the other editor did to your personal talk. I will now focus on getting written permission from Canwest Global to release into the public domain all articles written about me, including the just deleted images. For a beginning, I have been pleading with the Administrators who demolished the article to at least restore the balance by re-instating the information about the 4000 mile hike to Whitehorse symbolizing the White Horse of Revelation 19:11 in 1981. Even in bold print on their talk, it is ignored with the newspaper references also removed. You are my last best hope to rectify this subterfuge. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• I started a new section 'Let's build the article together' in the article talk. It's been on the RFCbio list with no editors contributing as yet. Waiting patiently for so long with direct appeals, I restored the 1981 information myself. When you find the time as an editor, please make the following your 1st contribution: At that time, it appeared the U.S. under Ronald Reagan and the Soviet Union were heading for a clash for the first time since the Cuban missile crisis.

The Declaration

On Remembrance Day 1985, in the presence of the Governor-General of Canada, Government Leaders, the Military, Ambassadors of the Nations and 25,000 people he publicly declared,

"Hear O people and Nations, even to the ends of the Earth, the Word of the Lord God who is, and was, and is to come, The Almighty. The Lord has a controversy with the people. Do you do well to honour the dead, and yet, deny the God of the Living? Why do you follow the vain traditions of men, and make of no effect, the principles of God? You come here for one hour one day a year in a great show of public patriotism, and then forgetting, go back to work and make the same careless mistakes made by the generations prior to the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Hitler was killed, but it's his legacy that remains. A Soviet-American military-industrial complex consuming $trillions of dollars every year, holding the entire World hostage............"

"Hostage" was the last word he said perched on a bus shelter roof, as police got up and grabbed his megaphone. He was arrested for shouting, causing a disturbance, convicted and fined $250. He appealed without a lawyer to the Supreme Court of Canada.[16][17][18]

I e-mailed you scans of the relevant pages of the government lawyer's Factum resisting my appeal on the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. It verifies not only the words in the declaration itself, but also the circumstances described above removed from the article. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing by proxy isn't the best idea, Ray. When I do show up, you'll have to come to terms with the fact that I will be making changes of my own free will, some of which you may not fully agree with. Are you OK with this? east.718 at 03:04, July 14, 2008

• One of the songs that kept me in balance most of my life is the Rolling Stones 'You can't always get what you want..." The tone must have been wrong, it was a suggestion, not an order. I trust you'll do your best. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm pleased to report some editors have made small changes to the article. I am patiently and anxiously waiting to see what you will do when you find the time. Ray DoDaCanaDa (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:foo.jpg

Hi. It seems that you deleted Image:foo.jpg from en.wiki in favour of the Commons copy without verifying that all the information had been correctly transfered. Could you please go through the the original info at Special:Undelete/Image:foo.jpg and transfer the missing info to the Commons image page. Unless the info is added the image will probably have to be deleted as missing essential source and/or author information. Thanks /Lokal_Profil 00:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've never deleted that image. east.718 at 09:58, July 12, 2008

Sorry about that, the text above linked to the wrong image. Can't find the image I was intending to link to right now but I'll get back to you if I find it. Once again sorry for the mixup. /Lokal_Profil 20:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

leaving a article looking bad

I understand the image policy, but if you delete an image I feel you should address the area where it is transcluded as you leave the articles with infoboxes that say "Image:ect." and a caption with no image over it. If you're going to take the time to delete images, can't you delete the reference to it in the infobox so you don't leave someone's page with an error on it.Mike P ^{(wots all this, then?)} 14:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a bot which removes deleted images from articles a couple hours after it happens. Less work for me, and the people who edit the articles. :) east.718 at 03:04, July 14, 2008

Ah. I learn something new everyday. Mike P ^{(wots all this, then?)} 03:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Movie

In 2006, Wendy Williams announced that she was in the planning stages of making a movie about her life. Queen of Media was written by Furqaan Clover and Kimba Henriques, with Robin Givens as the lead role of Wendy Williams. Filming wrapped up in late July, 2007 and is set to be released in the Fall of 2008. The title is ironic, since she's not even that popular. Other notable cast members include Trey Songz and Chandra 'Deelishis' Davis. hello Wendy Williams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.252.154 (talk • contribs)

Bad Block

The block of BG7 is innapropriate. If you had read the ANI discussion, the e-mail was forged. Even though he is retired, he is definitely not a sock. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea as to what the background of this is, but got involved in an administrative capacity as one of the people who works the unblock backlog in the #wikipedia-en-unblock IRC channel. Last afternoon, Chemistrygeek/Chris19910 came on and requested an unblock, and was told to leave, but in the meantime I managed to capture his IP address, browser version and chat client version. Last night, somebody claiming to be Bluegoblin7 came on and confessed to operating a drawer of sockpuppets, including most of the ones in Chris19910's category. However, they didn't "identify", in IRC parlance, as BG7 and refused to do so on request, so I kicked them out of the channel under the aegis of them being an impersonator. I also captured this supposed impersonator's data, and they were a perfect match to Chemistrygeek's the browser and chat client, and a likely match to the same IP network. This morning, BG7 came on IRC again, and this time identified (this requires one to know one's IRC password, and will throw up a "cloak" to hide their IP information). However, I happened to catch all their data before identifying, and it was a perfect match to the impersonator's IP address, and again, with the same browser and client. From this technical evidence which is slightly superior to CheckUser, and in light of the fact that the "impersonator" knew BG7's password, I can conclude that the person who admitted to operating the sockfarm is the same person that owns the Bluegoblin7 account on IRC. As established by this post, this is the same person as Wikipedia's BG7. The same technical evidence is also highly suggestive that the IRC BG7 is the same as the IRC Chemistrygeek, who linked themselves to Wikipedia's Chemistrygeek. Armed with this information, I treated them as the same person and applied blocks on both accounts. This post was written on very little sleep, and I expect to be forgiven for repetitive prose and infelicities of grammar. :) east.718 at 14:41, July 14, 2008

Toolserveraccount

Hello East718,
please send your real-name, your wikiname, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to . We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. 14:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, DaB.! Will do as soon as I get back to the pad and get to playing around with puttygen. east.718 at 14:41, July 14, 2008

User talk:Bluegoblin7

He's asking for an unblock, claiming innocent and I believe has submitted to a CU being run on him. Just curious where the sockpuppetry admission is? Apparently from what I see on the AN/I thread, he claims someone was impersonating him, so I'm not sure if this is what it was based on. –xenocidic (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already answered an identical inquiry two threads above. The short of it is that he came into the unblock IRC channel and admitted to being Chris19910. The operators there (i.e., me) are armed with tools better than CheckUser, and I was able to determine that the person who made this confession is indeed the same person as Bluegoblin7 onwiki. east.718 at 14:59, July 14, 2008

My apologies, I didn't see the above. –xenocidic (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I can see the misplaced and erroneous terseness in my reply now. :) east.718 at 15:05, July 14, 2008

Not at all. =) He's still claiming innocence but I've done my part. –xenocidic (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Were Kodster and I right then?--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 15:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Since this AN/I thread is related to the above, I figured I should let you know. –xenocidic (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi east, would you recommend taking StJamesIII (talk · contribs)'s userpage to MfD or should it just be deleted it with a message on his talk page about WP:UP? He seems to be Ginuwine's brother, so he obviously has a conflict of interest. Spellcast (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice catch. I've blanked it and offered the editor guidance, we can always just delete it outright if they don't reform. east.718 at 11:09, July 16, 2008

I feel stalked

I swear it's not me! :D this vs User:Lucasbfr/Jimbo doesn't care created 10 min ago... -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My days are surely numbered. Please play Verdi's Requiem after the 21-gun salute. east.718 at 13:03, July 16, 2008

Good choice :) I still find it crazy that someone took the trouble to go through my contribs to find an unblock request. We have a weird fauna out there. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

Among other things, nothing makes me more nervous then when a candidate gets quick and numbered support before the majority of the community even gets to take a look. Same thing goes eve for my oen RfA, and sometimes such a thing can hurt consensus building once everyone gets a look. I'm lucky enough to have my first oppose be a well-worded and thought out one, easing any concerns I may have had over getting angry with it. While I wouldn't consider my mainspace work paltry, compared to so many users here it... well it doesn't compare. As for the concern of wanting to run the place, that is something hard to prove against, or rather proving the distinction between "wanting to help" and "wanting to be the boss". If I become an admin, I hope that you and others see through my actions that it is the former. Anyways, thanks again. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Your Approach

Leaves something to be desired. I can stand corrected on things but you would probably foster more positive interaction if you would contact a person first before you wipe out an entire page. Little edits in articles is one thing but to blank out an ENTIRE page without warning is pretty harsh for someone that proclaims they're fair and impartial. And now i'm noticing on your page someone made that suggestion to you. And you respond by saying "nice catch, i'll take his crap off if he doesn't behave". Not your exact words of course but in essence what you said as if you half expected me not too "behave".

If you make your case logically I would have actually deleted the whole thing myself because I did go back and read the guidelines a little more (Lot of guidelines so people are prone to miss the point of a feature for a site of this magnitude) and i can see where you arrived at your conclusion on certain levels but the whole page didn't have to be deleted.

Just a little advice. You're the second person to do something like this but at least you had some basis, but you still jumped to conclusions based on what you wrote.....and another person seems to have a problem with me when i'm barely active so this doesn't seem like too friendly and cordial a place to join in and participate. I won't be posting anything on my USER page at all...you can leave it blank and i'll just use the site for my study material when needed. Thanks for the "warm" welcome. hmmmmmm StJamesIII (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:203.122.240.118

Prom3th3an has requested that this IP address, which he says is his own IP address, be unblocked. He says he had a proxy running there but has taken it down. He put up a request at WP:OP, and ClueBot ran a check and the proxy was clean. Anything to say before I unblock? Mangojuice^talk 14:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a conventional proxy, but a web anonymizer. Since the proxy was being used for vandalism, I blocked it but was contacted by Prom3th3an since he was hit by the block too. Since it doesn't make too much sense to leave a good faith editor blocked, I disabled the block for registered users. I was also told by him that he had removed the anonymizer, but then he reneged and mentioned that he would just move it around so him and his friends would use it. I am hesitant to leave an IP address used by more than one person open to anonymous abuse. east.718 at 14:31, July 17, 2008

I would like to raise that the only case of vandalism was to a single page several months ago and that the IP did not need to be blocked at the time to get it to stop.I DID NOt say anything to the effect of "mentioned that he would just move it around so him and his friends would use it". This is administrator misconduct, every standard check that you do with open proxies turned up nothing. I would also like to add that I told you about the proxy, I could have kept it quiet if i was untrustworthy or didnt want you to know. Other family members to edit wikipedia via this IP and you are hindering them. You are also interfering with my RTV as i mentioned on IRC. Proxy blocks are preventative measures for large ammounts of vandalism but if you know its my ip, I told you about it and it only vandalised once I must ask what are you trying to prevent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prom3th3an (talk • contribs)

On the contrary, blocks of proxies can be enacted for any reason at any time. (See WP:NOP - proxies are not permitted to edit, period.) I don't see the problem, since you can edit without difficulty as long as you're logged in. Begging your pardon, but I do not see why a person with a history of incivility and vandalizing with socks needs more than one account. east.718 at 14:45, July 17, 2008

Vandalising with socks, unless you back up this petty attempt to defamate my account I STRONGLY suggest you withdraw that remark. I do not have sock accounts! and yet again you have ignore the point, this IP no longer hosts an open proxy and you are not in a position to contradict that. You are also not permitted to interfere to my right to RTV (start a new account). Also note WP:NOP clearly states "Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked." I am pleading with you to see reason.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Prom3th3an: is the web anonymiser closed down or not? If not, how hard would it be to access? Could anyone on the web use it, if they knew about it, or is access restricted somehow? As for RTV, I'd be happy to temporarily unblock this, say for a couple of hours, so you can create a new account, but the long-term issue remains. Mangojuice^talk 15:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The Web proxy has been deleted entirely, it is no longer accessable. Tihs IP address no longer, and never will host another web proxy   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be true - the entire /home directory is now public, which it wasn't before. I will unblock shortly. east.718 at 15:41, July 17, 2008

Manny Pacquiao

Here's the article:

Pacquiao to stay at 135! The WBC had given Manny Pacquiao until July 28th to decide whether to keep the WBC lightweight or WBC super featherweight title. The Pacman, however, has already made his choice, and not surprisingly will remain at lightweight. "I have already instructed my lawyer to inform the WBC that I will defend my 135-pound championship belt....so this means the 130-pound championship belt I won last March will be given up," Pacquiao told ABS-CBN News. July 16, 2008

(Doesn't need a reply!) Cheers, claudevsq (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Damn Claude, you always keep me on my toes. By the way, did you hear about that match between Toney and Rahman? A draw?! Unbelievable! :) east.718 at 19:37, July 17, 2008

The result of the bout has been changed from a KO win for Toney to a non-contest by the California State Athletic Commission!

claudevsq (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Vacation

On vacation until August 11th at the earliest. I have asked a number of administrators to watch over my talkpage and field inquiries, so please leave your questions here. If your concerns haven't been attended to in a reasonable amount of time, please contact either Daniel or Rjd0060, both of whom can also help you with OTRS stuff. east.718 at 00:09, July 18, 2008

Enjoy your vacation!

I see you won't respond to this, but I'll notify you anyhow.

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shalom Yechiel

Please respond to an RFC I have filed about my conduct. Please evaluate my responses to false statements about me during my recent RFA. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please help!

I do not know the protocol for successfully posting an image. I did my best to follow what seems to be a complicated procedure. Can you please offer me some suggestion as to what would fulfill requirements to post Image:Usfa-gunslinger-sm.jpg Newportm (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Ahhhh! Never mind! I see that you deleted Image:Usfa-gunslinger sm.jpg, not the one I need, which is Image:Usfa-gunslinger-sm.jpg. Thanks! Newportm (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

trying to post a new article about Tamera

My name is Stephen Davis (http://www.reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Stephen_Davis), former Arizona state senator and now author and freelance writer. I am visiting an intentional community called Tamera in Portugal and want to post a Wiki article about this place. However, I have discovered that someone else posted a page which you deleted in February (which I have not seen), and I am having trouble posting a new article from scratch. Please advise. Thank you. Sadavissr (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I got this for yo, east. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse RfA question

Hi, just a quick question about what you added to Rlevse's RfA - it seems to me that some diff links to the specific points in DHMO's RfA that you're asking about would be a good idea to make the question easier for people to navigate. Did you not put them in because you didn't have time or you're editing from a phone or something, or is there some Wikiquette reason I'm missing that they were omitted, perhaps because of the fact that RfA's blanked? I'd be happy to add them if it's the former, just wanted to make sure. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 17:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)