User talk:Heymid/2010 July

Talkback

Hello, Heymid. You have new messages at Template talk:Talkarchivenav.
Message added 21:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HFowdthispage

I am going to delete this page, as I have already taken care of it by blocking. In the future as a pro-tip, stuff this bloody obvious doesn't need to be sent to SPI. Thanks, anyway, –MuZemike 18:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I requested speedy deletion of that page, as I already found out you had blocked that user. Also, I didn't know that was the result of TW when I used the "Sockpuppeteer" option. Also, I wasn't sure you had already noticed him. Thanks, /HeyMid (contributions) 18:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting empty user pages

My thoughts for keeping User:AndyZ blank (as opposed to deleting it) are two fold - 1) AndyZ is an admin, so if he wanted his user page deleted (instead of just blanked) he could have done so. 2) Although I know he has not been active here in a few years, if he comes back, I assume he would rather have a blank user page with the history preserved. If you know of a policy or guideline that says otherwise, please enlighten me. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute on Huljich brothers

Hi, I found your edit war via Huggle and later AIV. As I said on AIV, I'm going to act as an impartial third party to provide a third opinion. Leave the content out for now as it's claimed to be poorly sourced and we don't want to continue this edit war indefinitely. It's also on a BLP so any poorly sourced and potentially libelous content has to be removed immediately. I'll look at the sources via the page history and provide an opinion on it. Let me know on my talk page if you have anything to add. Thanks. elektrikSHOOS 21:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll be warning him as I don't anything that's poorly sourced. Thanks for being proactive. elektrikSHOOS 21:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Jack Johnsonism

Hello. You're right, the "unreviewed" tag shouldn't have been removed on Jack Johnsonism: I tagged it A10 using WP:Twinkle, which evidently overwrites unrev tags with speedy tags. I'll notify Twinkle's maintainer. Thanks for pointing it out. Empty Buffer (talk) 08:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, it was Twinkles fault, not yours. I believe you would not have removed it if you did it manually. But thanks for noticing me anyway. /HeyMid (contributions) 08:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In case you're interested, according to this archived thread on Twinkle's talk page, it's not a bug, it's a feature that was added deliberately last October, in response to user requests. Thanks anyway. Empty Buffer (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Your request for rollback

Regarding this: you may wish to read Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Your lack of maturity, seeming inability to recognise what you've done wrong, and horse beating are only contributing more evidence for your unsuitability for rollback. --Deskana (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop claiming I don't know what that means or what I am doing, since I do know. Please trust me, I would not do any damage with the rollback permission and would like it. I am still wondering why I am editing on Wikipedia. Thanks, /HeyMid (contributions) 19:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Be warned: altering the comments of other users (by striking through portions of their comments, or otherwise) is disruptive. If you do so again, you may be blocked from editing. --Deskana (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have started to be angry now. I have engaged in disruptive editing, which of course will lead to a temporary block. I will stop doing so immediately. /HeyMid (contributions) 21:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice

I have renominated Jehovah's Witnesses reference works for deletion (third-party sourced material already merged to Jehovah's Witnesses publications) at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jehovah's_Witnesses_reference_works_(2nd_nomination), and have mentioned your previous participation at the first discussion, the result of which was No consensus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not this time. But thanks for notifying me. /HeyMid (contributions) 08:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting content in talk page

Hi,

Why can't the content of the talk page be deleted when I don't even have a user page? I was an admin before and then got myself de-admined before requesting for removing user account. Maybe the talk page can exist for people to post information about images I have uploaded and all that. But otherwise, why should the content remain? Before I had requested for user page deletion, I didn't know that talk pages would be retained. Otherwise I would have deleted the content of my talk page before the request. KRS (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I did it for historical reference, there is no reason not to keep the archives, even though you have left Wikipedia, but if you really don't want those archives, then sure, go ahead and revert my edits. /HeyMid (contributions) 14:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User:KRS

Hi Heymid! I noticed you had looked into this user's talkpage and talkpage archive deletion requests as well.

I've just deleted their archives: this is unusual, and would not normally be done. You'll be aware of WP:DELTALK, which I presume is why you raised the issue with the user. In this case, however, the user has permanently left Wikipedia (except for their edits today, they haven't edited since 2008), and that's one of the very few reasons allowed for deleting user talkpage archives. I have not' deleted the user's talkpage. My reading of WP:DELTALK is that this would be allowed; however, I'd very much prefer not to. If the user requests it again I'll leave it to a more experienced admin to do so.

All of this is a round-about way of saying - thanks for being so vigilant!

TFOWR 18:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. You are always welcome! /HeyMid (contributions) 18:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Final warning

Hi Heymid. This and this is exactly the kind of behavior you have previously been warned for. Please focus on other things (and based on comments like this, preferably in mainspace), or you will find yourself blocked. Consider this a final warning. Please indicate that you understand why you are being warned, and that you will not continue the problematic behavior. decltype (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In this edit I removed personal information about myself, information that I don't want published for the public readers, so please don't blame me for that edit. Could you tell me why these conflicts are occurring, putting myself in trouble? Since I am already blocked from SvWp, I don't want to take the risk of being blocked at EnWp too. /HeyMid (contributions) 14:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the problem stems from your constant badgering of editors who are administrators / established users on the Swedish-language Wikipedia regarding blocks and bans on said project - as you have previously been informed not to do. I am sure that, if your block/ban on sv: were to be reconsidered at some point in the future, good behavior and positive contributions on a different language project is something that would definitely be taken into consideration. However, the English-language Wikipedia is not the venue for appealing a block/ban on a different project, and repeatedly contacting an editor after they have asked you not to do so constitutes harassment. With regards to a possible unblock on sv:, I'm sure such behavior would have the opposite effect. In case I have not made myself entirely clear: Do not edit Tournesol's talk page, and do not contact editors active on the Swedish-language Wikipedia, unless your inquiry concerns an issue at the English-language Wikipedia. Do you understand? decltype (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that due to my behavior on Swedish Wikipedia, I don't think they will ever trust me anymore. And I have revealed to them I am only 13 years old, which also may be a reason as to why I am currently in a 3 year long block from there. I think they don't want children to edit SvWp (Swedish Wikipedia). I don't like the administrators at SvWp, and I really think EnWp has better administrators respecting all users here. It is easy to get indef blocked from SvWp, but on EnWp, you really have to be a bad user in order to get indef blocked (well, it is probably easier to get just a temporary block).

So my summary is: English Wikipedia has a better service than Swedish Wikipedia, and I really mean that. /HeyMid (contributions) 15:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me give you a quote written by you:

"However, the English-language Wikipedia is not the venue for appealing a block/ban on a different project, and repeatedly contacting an editor after they have asked you not to do so constitutes harassment."

Yes, I know English Wikipedia isn't the place for appealing a block on a different language project of Wikipedia, but I was unable to do anything after even getting blocked from sending e-mail (!) from Swedish Wikipedia, even though I never abused or used that feature before. /HeyMid (contributions) 15:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you understand the "final warning" section above?

Please stop modifying existing messages in my talk page or I'll ask someone to block your account. Do you understand? Please answer yes or no. - Tournesol (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Tournesol, please read this carefully: It contains personal information about me. Everyone has the right to remove personal information about themselves. /HeyMid (contributions) 15:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

RFPP

Please don't decline requests, you are not an administrator, and cannot carry out a decline or a semi. Plus, I think you need a read of WP:GREENLOCK - it does state that highly visible pages that have no reason to be moved should be move-protected. Thanks. Connormah^talk 16:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. No problem. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:RPP

Heymid, you are not an administrator so you cannot decline requests at RfPP. More to the point, please don't badger editors requesting protection, especially not those greatly experienced at RfPP who know exactly what they're doing. Go and write an article or something. I know you mean well but your comments in the project space- such as RfPP and PERM/R- are not helpful and are not being well received. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so focus on maintaining and writing it rather than the background areas. I really don't want to have to block you, but if you carry on the way you're going, your fate on the English Wikipedia may end up being remarkably similar to that on the Swedish Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been involved in multiple issues today. Maybe I should take a break from Wikipedia during the rest of today? /HeyMid (contributions) 17:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThinkEnemies/Archive

Regarding your edit to this archive, please bear in mind that a checkuser has already asked you to stay away from SPI. Making an unneeded aesthetic changes to the archive of this case is not appreciated, particularly in light of the CU request that you avoid SPI. Kindest regards. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 12:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. I didn't know it should be that way as it was from the beginning when it was archived. I have reverted it now. Thanks for notifying me. /HeyMid (contributions) 13:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

vandal ip

I don't like it when I go on recent changes and I try to revert and someone done it before me, so I help them out and warn the user. Solar Rocker|Talk to me! 14:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. No problem. /HeyMid (contributions) 14:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

NPP

Just pointing out that your CSD to Mac OS 11 is really a G3 (hoax or misinformation); The article is of course very silly silly, but it's not gibberish. Not that it matters much and it will get deleted anyway.--Kudpung (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The article was this time removed as a G1. /HeyMid (contributions) 07:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. Anyway, it had to go ;) Problem with Twinkle is that it doesn't cover enough reasons of some kinds, and too many similar ones of other kinds.--Kudpung (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. /HeyMid (contributions) 08:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A few random thoughts on WP:SPI

Hi Heymid, I noticed you've had some recent and controversial involvement with WP:SPI and I thought it might help if I shared my experiences with SPI (and WP:SSP, which preceded it).

During my RfA I promised the community that I'd help out at SPI if I became an admin. The reason for that was that I've been filing reports at SPI (and at "Suspected SockPuppets" before SPI came into existence), and (a) I wanted to "pay back" for all the help I've received there, and (b) I feel that my previous experience with SSP/SPI could be useful.

To date I've not got more involved with SPI. I've filed a few reports, but I'm still very much a "customer", rather than an SPI "employee". This is because I've had a whole lot of other stuff to learn about, and SPI is surprisingly complex.

SPI is complex because it deals with a number of different areas, all complex in their own right. For example, privacy: users have an expectation and a legal right to privacy, and this means that SPI folk have to consider a whole range of difficult issues around privacy. You've probably noticed that SPI clerks and checkusers tend to be very "terse" - they say very little. (as an SPI "customer", I find this quite frustrating!)

Another issue is the technical side - checkusers are expected to be very confident with networking issues like IP ranges.

However, one area of complexity that isn't necessarily obvious is "controversy". Editors get reported to SPI for all kinds of reasons - some good, some bad. Malicious editors may report another editor in an attempt to malign them, for example. Good faith editors may report another editor with whom they're involved - again, this is potentially controversial. Either way, editors who either report or are reported at SPI expect to deal with very, very experienced SPI people. That's the real reason I've not yet got involved with SPI. I'd want to have a lot of spare time to dedicate to getting familiar with the processes. Even then I'd want to have an experienced SPI "regular" to mentor me, and I'd expect to be doing only what I was told to do.

You seem to me to be very enthusiastic - and that's excellent. Don't take criticism to heart - it's an inevitable part of working collaboratively. If you want, I can show you recent examples of editors criticising me - and how I've dealt with it. I make mistakes. I'm going to continue to make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes - we're all human, after all! The important thing is to use criticism to develop as an editor. Above all, don't be discouraged, keep asking for advice and help, and keep working in those areas you know you're good at.

If you want, you can follow this up with me either at my talkpage or privately by email.

Happy editing! TFOWR 09:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for defending my behavior! By the way, I also wrote happy editing, but to Empty Buffer. /HeyMid (contributions) 13:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Niklas Sundstroem

Hi Heymid. Recently, you first blanked this redirect and then nominated it for speedy deletion per WP:CSD A3. I have reverted this because 1) it's a perfectly good redirect to a name that includes un-American characters (in this case "ö"), and 2) if you want to get rid of a redirect that isn't vandalism or meets one of the "R" criteria of WP:CSD, the right way to go about it is WP:RFD. Favonian (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The redirect was originally created by a bot, but I understand your explanation. /HeyMid (contributions) 14:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Winger

Left wing, why? RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The player is a left wing. Apparently in Evander Kane it also says "left wing". I don't know, would you rather prefer "left winger"? /HeyMid (contributions) 18:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)