User talk:Picaroon/Archive 6

Lenght

I reduced some stuff in my evidence. Tell me if it's enough. As you understand, while i was within 1000 words in the main argumentation, the necessity to answer to other users taken a lot of words, because many are the points debated. Regards. --Stefanomencarelli 13:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Banned user

I certainly respect your opinion. Please accept my apologies if you think it was unreasonable for me to request that he/she could still appeal. You do make a very good point that it's a privilage, not a right. I guess I acted as if it were a right. Sorry.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You had a point; in most cases, there is no reason not to give banned users one last method of appeal. But she has been the cause of so much disruption, I think her case is an exception. She's already emailed a lot of people asking for an unblock anyways. Picaroon (t) 23:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Right.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting a sockpuppeteer

There is a certain sockpuppeteer that I can smell a mile away. Every time I do and remove their edits I have to go through a bunch of rigamarole with some admin who listens to his complaints. I've had the exact same conversation so many times I just tell people to read my user talk archives like this one where you commented. I'm going through it again. Instantnood has been running sockpuppets for two years now, and I'm tired of having to justify myself everytime he shows up and I remove the edits. Advice? SchmuckyTheCat

I haven't been following this situation; while I'm aware that you have correctly identified Instantnood's socks in the past, uninvolved admins will require more than your word that this is the same user. Maybe file a report at WP:SSP, and lay out some evidence of how they are similar? Picaroon (t) 18:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

no offence

you blocked jeeny what for? She seemed upset at you. I hope that she isn't gone for good cuz of you. I just got back from a long wikibreak and me and her are chatting buddies. I will say that I will be sort of angry if she's off for good. Something like this has happened to her before and I really don't think she deserves it again. Seth71 17:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

But the fact of the matter is she is well aware that edit-warring is not the solution to conflict. She knows that other methods of dispute resolution exist, yet she chose to edit war anyways, on an article that seems to have to be protected more often than not. I felt that a block for her and Egyegy both was the best way to resolve this situation; what would you prefer, letting them get away with it ad infinitum? Picaroon (t) 18:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also no offence, but a lot of people seem to support jeeny and they my have some ill feelings toward you. In fact they will, that's what happened last time. Seth71 18:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware a lot of people 'support' Jeeny; compared to some other people who work in controversial race-related topics, I find her to be good-natured, and even funny at times. I would be surprised if anyone tries to 'blame' me for her leaving, though. Do some research - I blocked one of her main edit-warring partners indefinitely, and very recently supported the ban of another one of them. It should be quite obvious that I'm not favoring anyone here. Picaroon (t) 18:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. She says she won't be back, but she will. Me and someone else are e-mailing her. She's been blocked before so hopefully she'll be back once her times up and she cools down. Seth71 18:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

When did you block her. Seth71 19:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You can find this info out from the special:log/block. I blocked her at "03:25, October 28, 2007" for 48 hours. Someone subsequently made the block longer. I'm still reading up on everything that happened after I logged off for the night. Picaroon (t) 19:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

See my response to you on my talk page. If you strongly object to me restoring your original block duration, I'm, willing to reconsider. For the moment, however, I do intend to unblock exactly 48-hours after the original block. Boating prohibited. Best, El_C 10:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 43	22 October 2007	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens, budget released	Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos"	News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for help

Picaroon, there are three or more instances of 70.107.177.198 vandalizing talk and other pages including Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Workshop. I have reverted three instances including a personal attack on another editor. Can you look into this? FWIW Bzuk 04:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

This, and the subsequent IP starting with 141 are more of the same Wikzilla troll. I've blocked each of these for 24 hours. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked 141.155.108.17 (talk · contribs). You can report to WP:AIV for a faster response. Picaroon (t) 14:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bolaji Akinyemi on DYK

On 31 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bolaji Akinyemi, 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.

—Wknight94 (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Belatedly answered your related concern at User talk:Komusou#Nom. Regards, — Komusou ^talk @ 18:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann

Hate to bother you about this, but what are we going to do about Dbachmann?3RR report, page history[1].. He seems to not know how to use the talk page but insists on making extremely drastic pov changes that obviously lack consensus since people are reverting him, yet he keeps reverting. He did the same thing while edit warring against Jeeny. This was reported as well, but ignored, simply so he can do it again, while others who did much less were blocked [2]. Why do you honestly suppose that is? Also notable is his personal attacks of other site users, calling them "trolls" and threatening sanction against whoever doesn't agree with his tantrums.[3] In any event, something needs to be done because of course these policies should apply to everyone, but if one person is exempt, I don't see how anything will ultimately work and actually it only makes an already volatile situation more volatile.Taharqa 16:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over WP:CON

Picaroon, as someone who is frequently involved in arbitration cases I was wondering if you could help with the application of WP:CON. The recent arbitration case I was involved with hasn't resolved the dispute and now some users are trying to claim consensus was reached on disputed material even when that was clearly not the case - otherwise why would there have been dispute resolution at all?

I'm not asking you to make a decision on the content dispute, just whether consensus can be reached through a majority of users expressing an opinion one way or another. For reference this was done through a RfC - a number of users left a comment each and then that was it. The dispute is on Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story. Your thoughts are welcome, thanks. John Smith's 19:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A previous discussion on the external link issue is mentioned; can you provide me with a link to that? Also, PalaceGuard says "It [Jin's criticism] has been acknowledged by Chang herself." Was this a serious acknowledgment by Chang, or just passing reference to the fact that detractors exist? Picaroon (t) 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Passing reference, as far as I can recall.

You can find the discussion, such as it was, here. John Smith's 00:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert parole violation by Giovanni

Hi. Giovanni reverted the Mao: The Unknown Story article here recently (more recently than a week ago). Then he made a partial revert here a little while ago. I have asked him to revert back, but I need to go to bed now so I thought I should let you know. If he does not revert by the time you receive this/in a reasonable period of time, please report or block him - I'm not quite sure how to "alert" the relevant people in regards to an arbitration vio. John Smith's 00:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Picaroon, while I think John is correct that Giovanni reverted twice in one week I would encourage you to not take action by blocking Giovanni. Actually both Giovanni and John have rv'd twice (see [4] and [5] for John's violation, at least as I read it) but I think it was unintentional in both cases and not at all disruptive. I think we're very close to solving some of the long term problems with that article. I made some fairly large changes to the response section in the article (which I have been discussing with both John and Gio for quite some time) and both Gio and John then made some relatively cosmetic changes which was fine. In the process they both partially reverted each other and/or me but it was certainly not edit warring but rather working toward a compromise. So while they may have violated the letter of the ArbCom sanction I personally don't think either violated the spirit of it. I understand that a block or blocks might be required, but as I think we are very close to making that section of the article stable it would not be very helpful at this point. A caution to both to be more careful about making edits that are in fact reversions is probably warranted. Just my two cents.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That second diff is big, what content was changed in the same way as in the first diff? But I agree about letter v spirit, even if JS broke the limitation here too, I don't intend to block either. Nearly always a warning will suffice for the first violation of a committee restriction. Picaroon (t) 01:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Some material that Giovanni had added back in (which had been removed when I made a big change initially) was removed again by John and small but significant wording changes were made to the paragraph on reviews in the China Journal (for example changing "expert scholars" to "various academics" which is not a minor change by any means). There were some other changes as well but I'm not sure how significant they were. Anyhow I don't want John blocked at all but am just pointing out that both editors did two reverts. I asked Giovanni to self-revert as you did but do appreciate your inclination to let this go with a warning.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, BigT, if my changes were a revert then any edit to existing material would count as a revert. That isn't logical and would see most editors on a day-to-day basis guilty of reverting without realising it. As Picaroon said Giovanni's last revert was a big one. I would appreciate it if he reverts himself - the fact I came to an individual admin and asked him to encourage this rather than try to report him where he'd get blocked automatically is an example of this. John Smith's 07:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This definitely should be clarified so hopefully Picaroon can do this, but given that reverting "means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content..." I do think both of your edits count as reversions. For example in the second edit (your first edit is clearly a revert of course) you removed a passage that Giovanni added back in. Similarly Giovanni left some of your changes in but reverted others. They were both relatively small reversions, but I do think you both technically violated your 1RR limits. Had you made very small cosmetic changes, or added in wholly new material, or of course if you were simply reverting vandalism these would not be considered "reverts" as I read it--when you partially or fully undo the recent actions of another editor it is reverting.

Obviously since I don't think either of you should be blocked for it I'm only continuing this thread to get some clarity on the issue. Since both you and Giovanni are under fairly harsh revert restrictions it's obviously good to know exactly what constitutes a revert so maybe Picaroon can chime in on that. Incidentally it seems like Gio went offline immediately after making his last edit so presumably he hasn't had the chance to self-revert (I'm guessing who would be amenable to that and like you John probably did not think he was in violation). I'm going offline now but when I get back on maybe we can come to a conclusion on this. I think some things in Gio's last change should probably be changed back to your last version but I think it's okay if it just sits as is for now, or if Gio gets back online and wants to self-revert that's fine by me too.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'd gladly self revert but it may be impractical now since there have been other edits since my last edit. Thanks for the warning. I think John Smith needs an equal warning since he did the same thing, before I did, and he seems to be under the impression that doing partial reverts, if he combines them with making other changes, doesn't count as a revert. Of course he is wrong about that as that also counts.Giovanni33 18:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not impractical - you can revert to the earlier version after I made my edit. I'm sure Picaroon wouldn't mind that for the moment as a sign of good faith from you. Also you reverted more than just the once when you restored the content on Dr Gao and Kaz Ross here - please don't imply I am somehow the cause of this. The warning is not optional. Either you should revert back or you may get blocked - you can't say "thanks for the warning now let's pretend I never broke my revert parole". John Smith's 20:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If I revert back at this point, I'm undoing several other edits from other editors in the process. Hence it not practicable. Lets just focus on the content on the talk page and come to some measure of consensus on the issues. I'm willing to compromise as I've stated there already. Also, by your logic you'd have to self revert your changes after I did, since you violated the terms by 2 reversions within a week.Giovanni33 21:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, John, please let's move on here. Giovanni is right that reverting himself is not practical at all at this point which is not his fault--Endroit and myself have made several recent edits such that Gio cannot simply "undo" his last edit. You applied this argument to yourself here in explaining why you could not revert yourself so I'm surprised your changing you're argument here. Obviously we still need some clarity on the reversion issue as you do not seem to think that you were in violation. But aside from that, let's get the rest of this figured out on the talk page and drop the talk of possible blocking--it's counterproductive.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that Giovanni has long maintained any action that undoes that of another edit is a revert - he tried to get me blocked before the arb-com case on that principle. So by his own logic he should know have regarded what he was doing as violation of his revert parole. The fact he did this twice in the space of a few hours means he can't claim he acted "accidentily". On the other hand I honestly didn't realise I was making a revert. I saw your (BigT) edit and started making some changes in my word processor. I then went back to the page and inserted them without realising Giovanni had made widescale changes that meant my edit could be counted as a revert. When Giovanni reverted again after my edit, I didn't push things again - I contacted Picaroon to ask for his help, rather than go to the general admins' board. The fact Giovanni tried to imply I was the cause of the problem by alleging I "reverted" first, when I demonstrated that was not correct, was neither helpful nor honest. I've noticed that Giovanni frequently plays the "tu quoque" card to try to deflect attention from his actions when he is reported for something - he's still doing that despite the arb-com case and being rebuked for it by various admins prior to that. That isn't good faith. John Smith's 22:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully believe you that you did not intend to revert twice, and if you understand that you in fact did (even accidentally) I don't think we have an issue anymore. Picaroon warned Gio and does not seem inclined to go any further so I think we should just drop the issue unless Picaroon has anything to add. You'll both have to be more careful in the future.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure what to say about this. If someone has edited over the revert, and can not be undone, it seems impractical to insist Giovanni revert it. But on the other hand, I don't want waiting until the revert can't be undone without throwing someone else off to become a standard excuse for letting the edit stand in all such cases. Let's make an exception to the insistence on reverting this time, as it was the first occasion, but in the future I will insist on a no-compromises attitude towards self-reversion of anything except copyright violations and vandalism. Any further questions? Oh, and in the future, please see WP:AE. Picaroon (t) 23:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Feel free to archive it; it looks pretty clear at this point. Everyking 03:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hausa Wikipedia

You should clean the CSD there, I recently filled it with main page templates which were mass-copied from the English Wikipedia. -- Prince Kassad 16:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, will do that now. Thanks. Picaroon (t) 22:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted all but two things you tagged. Regarding ha:موشوفتسيه, could you expand on this reasoning please? Is the text unsalvageable, or could someone who understands Ajami find some use in it? Picaroon (t) 23:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In that article, all the vowel marks are misplaced, some don't even combine. I don't know if the Hausa orthography needs these vowel marks (if not, you can just remove the vowel marks to get readable text), but if yes, then this text cannot be understood by speakers of Hausa. -- Prince Kassad 09:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Thanks for tagging them. Picaroon (t) 20:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Page moves of yours

Will you please stop undoing my moves? You don't own the articles in Wikipedia. First of all, "Kano" doesn't really commonly refer to the city in Nigeria. It isn't the common usage of that word. And just because you enjoy Nigeria articles doesn't mean making them the primary page for that title. And the people who criticized me are wrong. Only 2 of them were right and were civil. But you, you just don't become civil enough with your responses like this, which is bad and it means you don't deserve to be a admin if you continue being uncivil. --Louis Alberto Guel 00:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me make this more clear...

Leave page Kano as a disambiguation page.

And you're still being rude. You're an admin, not a "angry person".

And the city Kano isn't well known as the MK character. So I suggest you please stop reverting my moves. --Louis Alberto Guel 02:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I know what he is talking about, two. He is completely wrong and untrustful. And you don't tell what people should do, Picaroon. And I'm not saying that Nigeria is not that notable. I know what is Nigeria. All I am saying is that the MK character is notable as the city, as adults also know Kano (Mortal Kombat). So you mean you don't know who is Kano (Mortal Kombat)? And by the way, I do know about West Africa. Seriously Picaroon, you don't make a good admin. --Louis Alberto Guel 23:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why were people talking about me

I got a message from someone named tiptoey or something like that on my talk page. It said that some people are talking about me. I have assumed it's about jeeny. Could you maybe see what it's about for me. Seth71 16:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No idea. Jeeny is fine, she has just chosen not to respond to emails for the time being. Picaroon (t) 20:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop talking about me! ;p I hate all this attention. BTW, thanks Picaroon. :) (I have no ill feelings towards you) ~Jeeny ^(talk) 20:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Jeeny. Picaroon (t) 23:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nigeria (Main) and Dimeji Bankole

Thanks for handling these vandals (i.e. on the Nigerian main page), and also for creating a page for the new speaker.

Sure thing, Callie. By the way, you've uploaded some scans of photographs from the Abuja Cultural Center. Do you live in Abuja? Would you be able to shoot and upload a photo of the outside of the Nigerian Presidential Complex, and a less-blurry one of Aso Rock? Picaroon (t) 23:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Q&A Page

Editors recognize that the Arbitrators do not have time to follow, in real time, all of the diffs on all of the pages of all of the arbitration cases. Editors recognize that questions that they would like to ask the Arbitrators would usually get no response, or a much delayed response, if asked in one of the several talk pages of the arbitration. In response to this, many editors will message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, which garners a much faster response.

The problem with doing so is that, consequently, discussion relevant to the Arbitration is split from the remainder of the discussion. Those who haven't watchlisted Arbitrators' talk pages might not even be aware of the communication. I think that this is problematic, but I would like to suggest a solution.

I believe that a Question and Answer Page (by whatever title is appropriate) would be a useful addition to Arbitration. There, users could ask questions, and arbitrators could reply as needed. This resolves the current problems: it provides a clean space that arbitrators can readily keep track without getting lost in tens or hundreds of daily diffs, it allows users a place to ask a question and reasonably expect that an Arbitrator will see it, and it keeps all of the discussion within the Arbitration, instead of allowing it to get scattered across Userspace where some participants might not see it.

If you think this is reasonable, would it be possible to add it to the current Science Apologist and Martinphi Arbitration that is currently ongoing? Thank you for your consideration. Note: I am canvassing all active arbitrators on this issue because I feel that this is a neutral suggestion. Antelan ^talk 06:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just use WT:RFAR. Picaroon (t) 17:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Thanks. Antelan ^talk 17:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wikzilla

Hi. I was interested in your comment there. Sorry if you feel I was being policy-wonkish, but I started this with the intention of "going by the book". My hope would be that if we get wider input to this case we can spread the load of dealing with this abusive user away from User:Akradecki. I am relatively inexperienced in this area, so please feel free to make any suggestions as to how we can best deal with the matter. Best wishes, --John 19:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm clerking the Stefanomencarelli arbitration case, and have been reverting and blocking Wikzilla's socks and IPs every once in a while. Problem is, his IPs vary widely. Picaroon (t) 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Per his comments to Alan, the wide IP variance is completely intentional. - BillCJ 20:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

User:87.78.154.177

Needs blocking also. Is Dorftrottel avoiding his block: User_talk:Dorftrottel#Blocked. User:Veesicle 20:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikzilla sock question

To answer your question, no it wasn't ever in doubt. When the latest incarnation popped up, John and I discussed asking for a checkuser, because he somewhat fit the pattern, but to that point his edits were only mildly inappropriate. Since there had never been a formal sock report filed on this situation, John thought it would be a good idea to go "by the book" and have a report on record before requesting the checkuser. He started the report, I filled in the data that I'd been collecting throughout this incident. Events took their own course in the meantime, and the latest sock got indef blocked by another admin, so the need for a checkuser at the moment became moot. Emphasis on "for the moment". This person is clearly having too much fun causing havoc to go away anytime soon, so the report on-record might be of benefit in the future. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

Replied. · jersyko talk 02:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're just blocking Alaska Airlines employees

This is just a bunch of admin who have nothing better to do. Where's the disruption, the reason for blocking?

I've just learned that you are on a spree to block Alaska Airlines employees, none of whom were editing with each other (which is what a sock is). Identifying that the editors are from the same city is just harrassment.AS 003 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Alaska Airlines employees, eh? And how would your CEO feel if I told him someone had been impersonating him on Wikipedia? Picaroon (t) 00:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

English Curt Lahs entry

Hello. I am the grand-daughter of the artist Curt Lahs and wrote an English timeline of his career on the English Wikipedia. This is not a copyright infringement. Please let me know why you deleted this and what basis of knowlege on him you used to do so. You can verify the information I placed on line in a number of places on the World Wide Web. I would appreciate it if you would put it back on line. There is a German biography on line, but no English exists and I would appreciate it if you could put the English version back on line. With thanks. Sincerley,

Olivia Lahs-Gonzales, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivialahsgonzales (talk • contribs) 20:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[6] was the webpage in question, but since you are the one who wrote both, and you consent to release the text under the GFDL, there are no copyright issues. I've restored the article. Sorry about that. Picaroon (t) 00:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, of course

But it was still delightful. Durova^Charge! 02:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar

If it is true that Alkivar is bashing wikipedia in some other venue (and I don't know that it is), how is that off-topic? Doesn't it weigh into his fitness to be an admin? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Picaroon (t) 15:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dorftrottel (talk · contribs)

Hi there Picaroon, I've started up a thread on AN about a possible unblock of Dorftrottel, due to him no longer being drunk - feel free to comment. Take care, Ryan Postlethwaite 18:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No objections to the unblock. Picaroon (t) 22:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Remembrance Day Notice

The notice is not only for Canadians or those who observe Remembrance Day, but to remind people about the wars (doesn't really matter which one or which side) and the people who fought in them, who live through them, and who suffered because of them....I am trying to be as ambiguous as possible with this notices, which means that anyone could see it differently...some people might see it as a reminder of how Canada "became" a nation in WWI, or of how many people died in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or of the attack at Pearl Harbor, or of the Holocaust, or of the killings in Darfur, or of the Rwandan Genocide, or of the Nanking Massacre....its up to those who receive the message to define what it is a reminder of...but if you choose to have it removed from your user talk page thats fine with me. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to the message. My objection was to the implementation. Picaroon (t) 22:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

implementation? nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 22:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Leaving messages on many dozens of talk pages. Picaroon (t) 22:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Starkey International Institute for Household Management

Try writing a NPOV BLP-compliant version, or take it to deletion review. In the closure, I said it may just meet WP:N, but the whole piece was an attack piece in its nature. Where was the balanced coverage expected in an encyclopedia article rather than a news report where scandal sells? Where were the positive aspects of the place? If it's your assertion there are none, better get a source for that. Carlossuarez46 17:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• You are taking this way too personally. Carlossuarez46 02:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

arbitration

Thanks for the update on the arbitration. Who do I ask for clarification about the meaning of the instruction? My concern is that the other party may take this instruction as a license to own articles; do I need to avoid any article he edits, and stop editing whatever articles I edit if he edits them too? csloat 06:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is always an issue with this sort of remedy - how are common interests divvied up? I don't have an answer, but you can ask at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification. Picaroon (t) 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, it was an obvious edit to make. Nobody can have any quarrel with the actual edit, but having me make it, of course ... Smallbones 03:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

FallingRain.com Maps

I note that you have deleted the link to http://fallingrain.com/world from the Ajaokuta page. This is a pity, since FallingRain shows things not so clearly showing on other Internet mapping programs such as topography and contours, airports and railways, and small and large thumbnail sketches to help you navigate.

FallingRain Maps are accessable by name of town rather than by longitude and latitude, which means that it does not appear to be accessible from the {{Coor}} link. It would be helpful if someone could solve this missing link.

It has to be said that the railways at Ajaokuta do not appear to be on any map, because it has not caught up with recent changes. However, that is the exception.

Please reconsider your deletion.

Tabletop 09:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The map is already linked, as a reference. Take a look at your revision - the same link is present on two occasions. Picaroon (t) 21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again

Hi, Picaroon. The discussion on the Mao: The Unknown Story article died down after some issues were resolved, but the matter of the external link wasn't resolved. Giovanni then went away for about a week, so, given he didn't answer any of my points (or indeed any of Folic Acid's in a proper fashion), I removed the link. He then came back just to say "I'm sort of on wikibreak" so it would take him time to get back to me. Yet he conveniently came back to revert the page in a matter of hours.

I feel Giovanni is trying to avoid the matter because he has a revert advantage and hopes that I'll get bored - or he just doesn't care because he can keep the link in by reverting me once a week. What can I do? He's shown that he won't back down in discussion over this particular link despite the fact the points I raised were pretty conclusive, mediation didn't work and arbitration doesn't resolve content disputes. So what is there left to do? I even left a message on the book/literature project but no one seems interested. Please leave your response on my talk page. John Smith's 22:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I only have access to the information in the link and on the article talk page. John Smith's 07:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 45	5 November 2007	About the Signpost

Wikimedia avoids liability in French lawsuit	WikiWorld comic: "Fall Out Boy"
News and notes: Grant money, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Lists of basic topics
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 3, Issue 46	12 November 2007	About the Signpost

Unregistered page creation remains on hold so far	WikiWorld comic: "Exploding whale"
News and notes: Fundraiser, elections galore, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Missing encyclopedic articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

ok then

[7] Ok then. But I still believe he shouldn't get to decide about something like that. It's not his userspace, after all. — Dorftrottel⁠ 18:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you want to revert again, on the same grounds, that still hold, I suppose? — Dorftrottel⁠ 02:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

DALMATIA

It is going worst and worst. I really need to tell something. It is my right to be protected by a moderator, from insults, personal attacks, edit wars, and reverts, by a group of several users. If you can do nothing, at least tell my what I shall do. --Giovanni Giove 23:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Can you please provide me with some context to this comment? Picaroon (t) 23:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia ArbCom

Hi Picaroon, if I want to comment on other people's statements I should edit my comment on the main page or I take it to the Workshop page?--   Avg    01:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to respond to another user's statement, start a new section with a title like "Response to user X" at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia. Once people have begun providing evidence at /Evidence, you can respond to their evidence in your own section as described in the header their. At /workshop, comments usually aren't too long, so inline responses are fine. That page can get crowded, however, which is why I asked you to use a short signature for commenting at it. Picaroon (t) 01:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I've noted that thanks. If I may ask, do you feel my signature violates WP:SIG or this is a recommendation for this page only?.--   Avg    02:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsure whether it violates that policy. It's certainly not as long as many, but nevertheless contains significant unnecessary html markup. I'd recommend you try shortening it - maybe aim for 3/4 of what you've got now? Picaroon (t) 02:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

NYBrad

He started the harassing Arb Com, so all i said was the truth. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Pidgin

Nice to meet you, finally! I've been seeing you on Nigeria-related articles for quite some time now. I think that we've run into each other on Talk:Nigerian All Peoples Party before.

I don't know of any real pidgin words referring to sports in general; there are sports analogies in pidgin all the time (e.g., "who wetin go win de prize" etc) and of course people like to praise the Super Eagles as a way of displaying patriotism, but the closest that I can think of to what you want are Yoruba and Igbo words that are used for games in general, sporting or of any other variety.

Sorry that I couldn't offer more, but I'm not sure that any real pidgin term exists in modern usage, at least not in the Lagos or Kano areas. Anywhere else in the country, I can't speak for.

I wish that I had more time to devote to the language articles. I tried working on Nigerian music articles about a year ago but could find very little good info that was from a properly reliable source. There are plenty of podcasts, free websites, and blogs that describe the history of Naija hip hop, for instance, but none of them are reliable sources and I haven't been able to find any books on the subject. I can keep hoping that Newswatch prints something, I guess.

Nice to meet you, again! Heather 01:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

User page vandalism

Hey, I'm sorry! I completely forgot to thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page a couple days ago. :) Anyway, thanks! GlassCobra 05:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Intimidation by User:Giovanni33

I'm sorry I had to do this, but I'd like to report Giovanni for intimidation and false revert parole warnings. He challenged me to undo this edit on my talk page and the article discussion page, claiming it was a reversion. He complained that this edit was also a reversion.

I responded that my edit on the 14th November was not a reversion at all - it was a clarification. User:Cripipper had made a point on 7th November about a supposed abscence of any public response to criticism of the book. I provided fresh material that updated it to what was correct. If Cripipper had objected and changed it further, another edit by myself probably would have counted as a revert. But he agreed with it. Revert parole is designed to stop edit warring, not working out problems between users. As I have said before, if we hold to Giovanni's logic then every edit on wikipedia is a revert. That is complete nonsense.

I'd ask that you take Giovanni in hand and stop him from making warnings like this. I see them as a means of intimidating and controlling the actions of other users. I don't even think my edit today was a revert, as I was merely updating the section to conform with that on the main article. How is that a revert and what have I reverted to? Giovanni never explains any of that, just tries to bully people to get his way. Clearly that is very much against the spirit of Wikipedia and a poor way to interact with other users. John Smith's 10:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking over this now, will respond at AE shortly. Picaroon (t) 23:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a complaint against Giovanni on the page for making a second revert and throwing out the consensus reached on Mao: The Unknown Story between myself, him and BigTimePeace. I'm sure he will claim it's a different page, but the section on Jung Chang has always been closely linked. He's now trying to change it arbitrarily because BigTimePeace has gone on wikibreak. John Smith's (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You comment at the Dbachmann RfC

Just wanted to say thank you, as I believe you've framed the problem and our expectations better than I could have. Your input is very much appreciated.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. If he agrees to my suggestions, I ask that you guys try to put past disputes, both on content and interpersonal issues, behind you, and work for compromise versions on the articles in question. None of the four of you have malicious intentions - which is more than I can say for several editors who've been shown the door with indefinite blocks in the last few months. Picaroon (t) 01:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If he agrees, you have my word that I will do my best to convince the others to discuss differences in editorial views as correctly as they should be discussed on Wikpedia. I'd just like him to make an effort at discussing opposing views based on sourced material rather than based on personal opinions. Right now, what I find hurts the credibility of his positions most on these article is the fact that he doesn't seem to want to bother presenting sources to back up his positions, while I regularly see the other authors backing up their edits with sources (those may later come under debate - but at least there's a source).--Ramdrake (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Anime South

The deleting admin states that I am not allowed to re-create this article under any circumstance because I am involved with the article. -Animesouth (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli closed

Copyedit from my "talk" page: "The above-linked arbitration case has been closed. Stefanomencarelli is banned from Wikipedia for one year. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 02:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)."

I hope that Stefanomencarelli will eventually return to en.Wikipedia and grow to be one of the editors who can provide substantial contributions to some of the obscure articles that he initiated and developed. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

I agree. He is obviously knowledgeable, and he has the potential to become a positive presence, if only he would edit within our policies and respond to constructive criticism of his actions - this is why I proposed mentorship as an alternative to banning, to try to minimize his violations of policy while helping him contribute content more efficiently. Picaroon (t) 03:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite this finding which I still regard as largely a case of "You've made your bed, now lie in it," I for one, would like to thank you and the members of the arbitration committee for the reasoned and principled delberations and efforts to provide a solution to this (and other contentious issues). Although I did not know exactly what the process entailed, all the members of the ARBCOM have endeavoured to assist me and other interested parties in finding a resolution. I reiterate that I wish Stefano well and hope to see the time when he can be welcomed back. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

Re: Certified.Gangsta

Yes, please leave it in place for the time being. Thanks! Kirill 19:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ethiopian names

Hi Picaroon:

At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Altzinn, he is correct about Ethiopian names. Also, Ethiopian women do not take the names of their husbands. Their second names are their fathers' names.

Thanks! Aberra Molla (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To do

• Do something with http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/friday_review/article02
• Write article on Ahmadu Ali
• Expand Association of Nigerian Authors

--Picaroon (t) 03:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 47	19 November 2007	About the Signpost

An interview with Florence Devouard	Author borrows from Wikipedia article without attribution
WikiWorld comic: "Raining animals"	News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: History
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

Thank you for clarifying the IP here. I'm too familiar with him and easily understand his style and ips. Actually, i'm not reverting his edits all the time, i only revert if he puts unsourced statements or irrelevant references to unsourced statements. That's the case in Turko-Persian tradition. I'm working on that article for a very long time, trying to improve its status to good article candidate. Regards. E104421 (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Is this Tajik? The edit-styles are quite similar. In the first edit [8], he deleted Azerbaijan. In the second one [9], he added classical Ottoman, since his aim is overshadow the Turkic. In the third one [10], he pushed the Shahnameh naming as if it's the only important one. He claims that since Shahnameh is in Persian, everthing in it is Persian. On the other hand, the Shahnameh has a certain anti-Turk bias (Igor Mikhailovich Diakonov. The Paths of History, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 100, ISBN 0521643988). In the fourth one [11], he reverted to his previous version which pushes Arabic-Persian traditions as if Turko-Persian. This time the ip range is different but the style is the same. What do you think on that? Regards. E104421 (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  Certainly seems like him, so I've reverted and blocked. Whoever was behind that IP has definitely been here before. Based on their knowledge of Wikipedia and their point of view, Tajik is the most likely culprit. Even if it isn't him, no one should be logging out to make reverts, so the block is necessary regardless. Picaroon (t) 19:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, they are definitely related. Thank you. In addition, the user de:Benutzer:Postmann Michael in German Wikipedia who is banned infinitely for POV aus zweifelhaften Quellen, Verharmlosung des Nationalsozialismus. Schadet der Wikipedia seems to be Tajik-related along with de:Benutzer:Phoenix2 and de:Benutzer:Tajik. All these give an impression that Tajik causes same kind of problematic issues in both German and English Wikipedias. Regards. E104421 (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong information. de:Benutzer:Phoenix2 is a medical student from Hamburg and is not related to Tajik (de:Benutzer:Tajik) who studies Islamic history. Both of them are at the University of Hamburg (along with me). German admins have confirmed this. In case of de:Benutzer:Postmann Michael, you either got your information wrong or you are purposely misleading the admin. Postmann Michael was a Turkish nationalist and he was permanently banned because of Turkish nationalist POV (ask User:Elian, a.k.a. admin de:Benutzer:Elian). Postmann Michael is allied to de:Benutzer:Westthrakientürke, another disruptive Turkish nationalist and POV-pusher. He is known by the name User:Moorudd in the English Wikipedia (as he confirms on his German user page: [12]) and he is currently vandalizing various articles as IP-socks: 85.178.179.115, 85.178.149.27, 85.178.185.30, 85.178.131.182, 85.178.148.58, etc. An easy checkuser file can confirm that (I frankly ask admin Picaroon to check that).

What is also interesting is that your edits are almost the same as those of User:Moorudd (a.k.a. de:Benutzer:Westthrakientürke). They are perfectly matched, and you always show up to revert to his version (= meatpuppet). You share the same anti-Persian views. That's why you have blindly reverted here, and why you deleted this (although this information was linked to a Google books reference). That's very disruptive, E104421.

• Tajik, you're wrong. It's not diffucult to compare the articles German and English Wikipedia. Since it's well-known that you're from Germany and you edit German Wikipedia, too. I searched the edit histories and compared them. That's why they seemed to be suspicious. You're banned by the arbitration committee along with your sockpuppet German-Orientalist and the anonymous ips. Your block will reset each time you edit under different names (see this). You're making your case even worse. Regards. E104421 (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Btw, User:Tajik, along with User:Beh-nam posted several spam-like messages on several users talk pages. As happened, [13], [14], [15], [16] [17], [18]. Regards. E104421 (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

E102241, I really do not care if you still believe that I am Tajik or not. It's your right to believe whatever you want. But here, you are purposely misleading the admin, claiming that Tajik is the same user as a Turkish-nationalist POV pusher who was not only banned because of his Turkish bias, but also because he glorified the Third Reich. You could simply ask User:Elian (the one who banned Postmann Michael). What you are doing here is spreading wrong accusations against Tajik. It is known to everyone that you and the "Turkish block" were very happy that Tajik was banned (very obviously because of wrong accusations, as checkuser has proved). But do you still need to spread wrong accusations? I also find it very interesting that you are so well informed about the German Wikipedia, although you do not speak a word German (sollte das nicht der Fall sein, so bitte ich um Entschuldigung). It is very obvious that you are coordinating your moves with User:Moorudd (or his IP socks). So basically, you are a meatpuppet of the German user de:Benutzer:Westthrakientürke. A simple checkuser file can prove that the mentioned IPs are IP socks of User:Moorudd, the one who is giving you instructions (for example your coordinated edits in Babur or Timur). And if that it confirmed, User:Moorudd and and his IP socks need to get banned in accordance with Wikipedia rules. Also keep in mind that you are not allowed to have more than one revert in all Turkish- or Iranian-related articles. You are on a 1RR parole because of edit warring and disruptive behaviour.

• Tajik, your comments are ridiculous. Check the ip of the mails i sent to you for the Tajik-Professor case and compare with Germany ips, and see the difference in kilometers. Regards. E104421 (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You have to ask Tajik. I did not receive any E-Mails from you. All I know is that you are well informed about the "internal fights" between Phoenix2 and Westthrakientürke. And that could only be through a direct contact to Westthrakientürke. Your coordinated moves in Wikipedia (you reverted to his version in the Babur article, you reverted to his version in the Timur article, he is removing references to Persian culture and language, you are deleting references to Persian culture and language, you reverted to his version in the Seljuqs page, etc.) only point to that fact: that you and Westthrakientürke (a.k.a. User:Moorudd a.k.a. various 85.xxx.xxx IPs) are coordinating your edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.133.46 (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Take a bottle of Vodka and drink. Tomorrow come to my talk page, when you become Tajik again. E104421 (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's all you have to say, E104421. I am anxious to see the results of checkuser. I hope that Picaroon files checkuser in case of User:Moorudd and the strange IPs in order to clear things out. Once checkuser has proved Moorudds suckpuppet abuse and vandalism, and once he gets banned, you and me can sit together and drink some grünen Tee (I do not drink alcoholic drinks).

Oh my God, it is the same as in German wikipedia. (I followed the link of 82.83/Tajik as I often do to protect Wikipedia from nationalistic falsifications or violations of copyrights by User:Tajik (see [19] or [20]) and so I found this page) If User:Tajik a.k.a. de:Benutzer:Phoenix2 is really a medical student, I think, he strictly must medicate at first himself.
It is the same madhouse-style as in German wikipedia. (I am mostly at German wikipedia not so much here in English.) I have nothing to do with Michael Postmann. It is almost always lies by Tajik to discredit the others to be free to make the edits that moslty are forged, selective citations and copyright violations. The only aim is to make the Turkic or Turkish identity as not existent. This is what Persian nationalists have to do to declare Central Asian history "free of Turks" and consequently "Persian dominated".
In German wikipedia the block log of Tajik/Phoenix2 is full because of lies and verbal slanders (see here), he also made disruptive use of sock puppet (see his most commonly known sock puppet de:Benutzer:Christoffel whom he did not need anymore in the last time period because his main combatant (Michael Postmann) has been blocked because of Phoenix' falsified messages. After the Postmann-block Tajik could conveniently falsify the Turkic central asian history so he did not need Christoffel anymore. But in the last time period other users in German wp has discovered his falsifying character of articles)
Finally, also in German wikipedia he has been warned that he will be blocked indefinitely if he does not change his (madhouse-like) style.
His sentence German admins have confirmed this (that de:Benutzer:Tajik would not be his sock puppet) is again a falsification. German admins have confirmed nothing. He does not write often as Tajik in German WP why should the admins confirm anything? and where is the diff link to prove this allegation? (It is the same as in German WP: 95% of the unsourced allegations of Tajik/82.83./Phoenix2 are lies to discredit his "enemies".) It is the opposite in German WP: Actually the German admins are thinking about indefinitely blocking him. 85.178.185.30 (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, well, well, de:Benutzer:Wetsthrakientürke a.k.a. User:Moorudd a.k.a. different 85.xxx.xxx ... finally you have shown up. Now Picaroon should check your IP. You need to explain to us why you are vandalizing with your IP socks. Where is your proof that de:Benutzer:Christoffel is sockpuppet?! Where is the diff?! Maybe you should medicate yourself (wait a minute - you are not a doctor. So you need professional help.) Out of frustration that the German Wikipedia categorizes the Armenian Genocide as a genocide, you went mad and began to vandalize other articles, claiming that "all Germans have a sick mentality" [21] and that "Germany is denying a genocide in Africa" [22]. And your friend de:Benutzer:Danyalov calls all Kurds "Neanderthals" [23]. This is what you people are and what you people represent: a bunch of racists filled with hate, writing propaganda against everyone who is against you: Kurds, Armenians, Persians, and now even Germans. Postmann Michael was no different. That'S why he was permanently banned. But why doesn't it surprise me that you and E104421 are supporting him and the rest of the gang?!

I think it is your insane brain, that brings you to think only in dimensions of "supporters" and "enemies". In Wikipedia exclusively the arguments do count. Nothing else. and this is the reason that no one accepts your claims "that everyone who does not support your theses is an enemy" of you. They laugh at you at German wikipedia. see your insane vandalism message[24] (whole German wikipedia laughed at you) or see the degradation of you by an admin[25].

Sorry it is impossible to work for an encyclopedia with racistic feelings against Turks, Mongols and in fact against anyone who does not support your insane private theses for those you abuse the wikipedia platform, Tajik. 85.178.185.30 (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Photograph of pumpkin pie.

I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Musharraf

what's your problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.26.234 (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please help

Please help stop this fool/troll. <sigh> - Jeeny ^(talk) 05:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Picaroon (t) 05:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) - Jeeny ^(talk) 05:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

He's back. 222.153.110.86 (talk · contribs) - Jeeny ^(talk) 06:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone else got him, but I've extended the block to a week. I'm going to look into a rangeblock. Picaroon (t) 19:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As per Dmcdevit's go-ahead a few days ago, I've blocked 222.153.0.0/16 for 48 hours - tell me if Hayden manages to get through. Picaroon (t) 20:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I think he's more active on the weekends anyway. - Jeeny ^(talk) 22:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Help me, I'm drowning. - Jeeny ^(talk) 11:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidentiary procedures

Hi, I have just posted to

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Evidence

I would appreciate any procedural advice you can offer. If there are any conflict of interest concerns, I will understand. Thanks, Jack Merridew 08:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with your evidence. Picaroon (t) 23:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Jack Merridew 06:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Your talk page

I'm sorry for carrying Tajik here. I hope you do not mind the cluttering above. Regards. E104421 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

See it the way you want, E104421. Fact is that you are actively working and coordinating your edits with IP-sockpuppets of User:Moorudd. You have also - once again - vandalized the article Timurid dynasty, removing authoritative sources. It was certainly a good decision to put you on a 1RR parole, since your edits are disruptive. The history of that article clearly proves that your edits are coordinated with those of the IP socks: [26]. Both of you revert to the same wrong version, removing authoritative sources. You have even ignored the discussion with User:Ali_doostzadeh.

• I'm getting bored of these ip reverters. I'll stop replying these messages, since it's not useful to take into account of the banned users comments. Sorry for bothering you. Regards. E104421 (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  No need for apologies, I've blocked his latest address. Have you tried reporting to WP:AIV for when I'm not online? Quote this comment from me: "Admins reading this quote, please block any IP in the "82.83.0.0/16 range that is being disruptive on Central Asia articles and is accused of being banned user Tajik by E104421, because these IPs are without fail him (Tajik). Thanks, Picaroon". Picaroon (t) 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  Quote this diff. Picaroon (t) 00:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your help. Now, Tajik is causing disruption more than ever, since he's trying provoke other users. As he did here: [27], [28], [29], [30]. Tajik was banned by ArbCom, after anonymous ip and User:German-Orientalist issues. Unfortunately, User:Beh-nam, who knows this quite well, is colloborating with him and spamming messages to other users, too. As he did here:[31], [32], [33]. In addition, Beh-nam posted Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/E104421 but in his comments used the same style of Tajik, misrepresented my parole, and accused me of sock/meat-puppetry. How can i get rid of Tajik's disruption? What do you recommend me to do? Regards. E104421 (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 48	26 November 2007	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	WikiWorld comic: "Cursive"
News and notes: Ombudsman commission, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Education in Australia	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny

I'm wondering if there isn't something going on with the targeting of editors who've signed on to the Dbachmann RfC. I haven't been following the Jeeny thing, so I honestly don't know the issues involved. But I do know I seemingly was targeted the moment I started talking about taking action against Bachmann and Moreschi's Arb Com bid. It seems the phony banning of me from Afrocentrism and the one-year block -- both now dead -- really set Jeeny off. But was she deliberately provoked? What's your take on all this?

Oh. Love the Sumatra photo on your user page, but I had to return to comment on the photo on your talk page. That thing. You know, that big, rotund, shaggy-dog/pig/cow, sod-munching, horned beastie-thing with the big, pink, wet nose. Eeek! That's all. Just ... eeek! 8o deeceevoice (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, no one is being targeted due to their comments on the Dbachmann rfc - it's coincidental that your block and Jeeny's were somewhat close together. I attribute no malice to Swatjester's provocation of Jeeny; he was just unaware of the context of her calling Hayden5650 a "moron". It's a Scottish highland cow. Picaroon (t) 00:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That's good to know. Jeeny actually explained it to me already. And, yes, I know it's a cow, Picaroon. I read the info. It's just a curious-looking critter and brought me up short. At first I thought it was a stuffed animal or something or PhotoShopped, but then I clicked to see the enlargement. (It's actually kind of -- dare I say it? cute -- but I just thought I'd poke a little fun. Thanks for the info on the Jeeny situation. deeceevoice (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

419 debate at Nigeria

There is now a debate about the inclusion of a sentence about 419 in the Nigeria article at Talk:Nigeria WhisperToMe (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Burntsauce and Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

It's probably fine to leave it for a day or two at this point, just so people know what's going on.

As for the other matter: no, the Committee has not reached any decision yet. Kirill 02:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom clerks

Will do. I think I had Phil confused with Tony Sidaway in my head, who is no longer an ArbCom clerk. Ral315 » 02:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

LEO

Responded at my talkpage.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

I have filed a case here, I just listed myself an Dbachmann as the involved parties, because I was unsure how to do it, if you would also like to be listed as an involved party and make a statement, please feel free to add your name and statement. futurebird 20:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Again

Hello again. Please, Picaroon, you know the context about Catalonia's RFAR. You know the Evidences, the Remedies, and now there are other movements ([34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]). I got a break to relax, because I was in the vivacissimo. I thought Dúnadan was talking me about an approach, but now I see just they are playing. Now I'm back and this landscape makes me think about forgetting the Wikipedia. Please, can you trace if there is harassment, disruption, bad faith in those attitudes? I've felt it since my first day. And you know, I was blocked. It works (I'm still guilty: there was no checkuser).

I'm afraid to edit any Catalonia-related article. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the fact is that their attitude works: I feel intimidated. I'm sure the sockpuppet (me) is pending, the same as they have pending business with Maurice27 and Physchim62. And I get very very angry. There was no checkuser, so I'm fuc*ed ("strong reasons" floating around). Because it's obvious they want their "justice", that "justice" that the ArbCom denied. Please, I ask you for your opinion. Thanks and regards. --Owdki ^talk 08:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to recommend, unfortunately, as checkuser requests to clear you are not accepted. Is there a specific article you are currently in dispute over, or is it a more general conflict? The remedies from the case, particularly the "Parties encouraged" one, seem to be having no effect at all on ending this dispute. We might need a Catalonia 2. Picaroon (t) 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems something is changing. Somebody is building bridges: perhaps there is a possibility to solve this ourselves (that would be really constructive). We'll see. Thanks for your response! --Owdki ^talk 02:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Your note

I consider making insulting and provocative remarks towards fellow Wikipedians, while in a public discussion on a policy, to be trolling. We are here to write articles and policies, and to politely and respectfully discuss them. Attacking each other contributes to a foul atmosphere, and is counterproductive. I hope this helps. Crum375 14:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Process order

Hi, Picaroon. Can you please tell me at what stage in the arbitration process the "Motions and requests by the parties" are responded to? Thanks, Xenophrenic 15:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The case is already in the voting phase, as you can see here. You could leave a message on that talk page asking if they would like you to expand your evidence in any way, or for other clarification regarding your request on /Workshop. If that garners no responses, you can leave talk page notes for the arbitrators involved with the case so far - Kirill Lokshin, FloNight, Jdforrester, and Charles Matthews, who all voted to accept, and Mackensen, who has voted on /Proposed decision along with Kirill, as they are the most likely to have an opinion on your question. Hope that helps. Picaroon (t) 01:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the reply. Strange goings on indeed. Mackensen is listed as inactive, and hasn't accepted the case, yet is voting on it. I left a specific request to the Committee for clarification before I present certain evidence, and they move past the evidence phase without addressing the request. I'll leave a message on an appropriate talk page as you suggest, but I must admit to some confusion. Is there a manual on this process somewhere? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration policy suffices as a guide to the process, although it doesn't touch on a time at which arbitrators are asked to comment on the motions and requests on /Workshop. Mackensen has been moved to active. Arbitrators need not accept the case to vote on it. Picaroon (t) 01:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 49	3 December 2007	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: New Executive Director Sue Gardner	Arbitration Committee elections: Elections open
Possible license migration sparks debate	Featured articles director names deputy
Software bug fixed, overuse of parser function curtailed	WikiWorld comic: "Wordplay"
News and notes: Wikipedian honored, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: LGBT studies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

I posted a question for you here. When you have the time can you respond? Thanks. futurebird (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There are still some concerns about the evidence you presented and its relevance to the case, can you stop by the talk page so we can clear this up? Thanks! futurebird (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 50	10 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia dragged into German politics over Nazi images	Wales comments on citing Wikipedia produce BBC correction
WikiWorld comic: "Kilroy was here"	News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Greater Manchester
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

To the opposers in my RfA

I would like to apologise for my intemperate comments during the Melsaran affair. I accept that I should have expressed myself more civilly, and should have waited for the ArbCom to explain themselves rather than jumping to conclusions and condemning them. I can honestly say that I regret my reaction.

In my defence, I would like to reiterate that I did not use the admin tools in any way in relation to the Melsaran affair. I am completely aware that it would be a very bad idea to wheel-war with ArbCom, and I can honestly say that I would never do so.

For what it's worth, I genuinely don't dislike the ArbCom. I respect the fact that they have to make tough decisions, and I understand that sometimes these decisions must be made in secret. It is true that I have a natural aversion to authority and secrecy; this is part of my character. But in future I will do my best to treat the arbitrators with more respect and to assume good faith on their part.

I served this community for seven months as an administrator, with very little criticism. I believe that I can continue to help Wikipedia by serving as an administrator. I ask you to look at the beneficial contributions I've made to the encyclopedia; I believe that the good I can do outweighs the problems with my somewhat combative nature.

Please give me a second chance. Walton^One 13:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Follow on to your article on Mussolini, where was Mussolini shot?

Hi Picaroon, Was interested to read about Mussolini being shot in the nose in 1926. Was wondering if you had any idea as to where this happened?

Philip —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.136.251 (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're talking about; I don't believe I've ever edited that article. Is there a reason you're asking me? Maybe try the wikipedia:reference desk/Humanities. Picaroon (t) 20:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Humain-comme

In reverting what I thought was vandalism to Jeeny's page, I saw your name in the edit summary, saying that you could confirm that the name linked in this subject head is an alternate account of hers. Is this correct? As someone who has been mentoring Jeeny, I would be both surprised and disappointed if this was accurate, especially given the edit summaries that have been used. Please let me know if you can shed any light on this situation. Jeffpw (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Jeeny emailed me, acknowledging the edits as hers. Jeffpw (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

There's a case at WP:RFCU which involves a possible sock of User:Revertedlesbo which you blocked as a sock. You might have useful information and I wanted you to be aware. The case is Runnerguy. -JodyB _talk 21:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Commented there. Picaroon (t) 21:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried to modify that wiki?

That wiki is edited just by the administrator, have you tried to edit that wiki site before you decided it can by edited by everybody? So if you cant edit nigerian.name, please revert the entries back with the contributions. Thank you.

Okay. I saw the "edit" links, and it didn't occur to me that, unlike Wikipedia, these would lead you to a login message. However, I'm still not convinced that this site is a reliable source, since it is self-published and has no apparent editorial oversight. Is the administrator an authority of any sort on West African naming? Does the site have sources, or is the admin just going on personal experience in providing meanings for names? Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability are still relevant, as is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Picaroon (t) 19:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No apparent editorial oversight?.... like "apparently everybody can edit that place".....the fact that vandalism is fighted by only selected editors contributions its the best prove that the place is serious and reliable ( if you want compare reliable and unreliable you can check onlinenigeria.com´s names section and see rubbish)..... and yes, the administrator is an authority on nigerian naming and have his own sources, thats why he´s devoted to built the reference for nigerian names.

Great, thanks for the confirmation. Since the issue of the source's reliability is cleared up, I have no objection to your re-adding the links on relevant pages (particularly Wikipedia's articles on Nigerian names, which you are more than welcome to help us expand). If you have a chance to speak with Uzuo, you might ask him to cite a source in his future articles on his wiki, so the site's reliability is more immediately apparent to other readers.

By the way, since you have use dynamic IP addresses (that is, addresses that shift every time you log on), you may wish to create an account. This will allow others to leave you messages that you can find easily (on a talk page like this), and allow you to edit semi-protected pages, among other things. You can sign your user name and the date with four tildes (~~~~). Picaroon (t) 23:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 51	17 December 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: ArbCom elections, holiday publication
Former Wikimedia employee's criminal history detailed	Möller resigns from board, joins foundation as employee
Google announces foray into user-generated knowledge	WikiWorld comic: "Tractor beam"
News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Plants	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nigeria Template

I agree, but the problem is that the List of Cities in Nigeria is alphabetical, and there is no other page that has these cities sorted by population. I got m data form the most populous cities in Africa page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwjsmartdude (talk • contribs) 03:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It would work better, but I think that there needs to be something like for the largest cities in the US with the graph. I am a novice wikipedian and I don't know how to work w/ graphs. But for now, it will do. Bwjsmartdude (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouln't mind it being removed. I wouldn't mind, however, if we had something more line this: List of United States cities by population. Bwjsmartdude (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Iyabo Obasanjo-Bello

Hi. I've nominated Iyabo Obasanjo-Bello, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on December 21, where you can improve it if you see fit. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I suppose it will be interesting to a general audience, which will probably not be aware of the high staying power of political families in Nigeria, even though the fact doesn't strike me as out of the ordinary for Nigerian politics. Picaroon (t) 18:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Comeradeash

Thanks Noroton (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Tell me or bring it up at ANI if he doesn't heed our warnings. Picaroon (t) 05:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Olaudah?

Hi Picaroon, I've seen you around a lot but we've never really met. Hi! I think you do a lot of good work. I've been fishing around looking for some article projects for the New Year. I was thinking that Olaudah Equiano might be fun. I've noticed that you watch the page and presumably have an interest? Wondered if you'd be interested in a collaboration of sorts on it? I have a couple books about him from college, and I figure if I can find one or two other editors and each get one or two more books, we could really get the article into shape. Olaudah would be a really great article, in my opinion, to get to featured status. If you'd be interested let me know... if not, no biggie. Cheers! --JayHenry (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, which I'm going to have to decline. I occasionally try working on getting articles up to B-class, or beyond, but I've found it's really not my thing; I spent weeks on Bayajidda, and couldn't even get it marked GA. I tend to focus my writing more on start-class articles, which I write, maybe nominate for {{Did you know}}, and then move on to another redlink (as Nigeria-related content is so behind where it should be). I'm also currently, slowly, working on User:Picaroon/Hausa people (a rewrite of Hausa people), which I'd say could be considered my significant project for the next month or two. I'd recommend Josh a brewer (talk · contribs) for collaboration on Equiano, since he more actively edits the article, and is clearly knowledgeable about him. Regards, Picaroon (t) 05:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll check with Josh a brewer, and see if he's interested. Thanks for the tip. You know, I'm looking at Bayajidda and I really think it's quite good. I saw your comment about "The article is 99% my own words and I have read it many times, so I can't exactly fix it myself." I know exactly what you mean. I get to the end of working on an article and my eyes are almost bleeding from reading it so many times. You shouldn't feel discouraged about that though because there's only about a dozen editors on the whole project who can produce prose that doesn't need a copy edit from someone else. I'd be happy to give Bayajidda a look because, like I said, after my initial glance I don't think it's that far away from GA at all. And you're right that Nigeria- (really any Africa-) related content is behind where it should be. Getting those DYK-quality start-class articles is invaluable because it also gives a base for translation. --JayHenry (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the comment. I'd be happy to look over Equiano once you've worked on it, too. Picaroon (t) 06:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Catalonia problem extending to other articles

Hi Picaroon, I apologise in advance for awakening old ghosts. The issues and discrepancies that developed into the Catalonia RfA are seeping in to related articles, and at least one of the editors involved in that dispute (Boynamedsue) is now trying to force his point of view onto the Catalan language and Països Catalans (Catalan countries) pages. I've reverted his edits (Catalan language diff — Països Catalans diff) but he's come back with a personal attack on my talk page ("Are you drunk or just naturally bad mannered?") and reinstated his changes. I really don't want to get into a lengthy discussion on why his opinions are biased, much less an edit war: do you have any suggestions? Thank you, and happy holidays. ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Except for the one-month ban of Maurice27, the arbitration request provides for no admin-discretion remedies (a shortcoming, in my opinion). You can report policy violations requiring admin attention to Wikipedia:administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, or file a second case requesting additional remedies at Wikipedia:requests for arbitration. Picaroon (t) 19:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Island (Nigeria)

Is it actually an island in Lagos or just a name? The article is not clear on that. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd always assumed it was an island, and a map in a National Geographic atlas shows a small waterway between it and the rest of Eti Osa. However, all maps I can find online (both on wiki and via Google Images) aren't showing any separation between it and the rest of Eti Osa. So, I'm unsure. Maybe Wikipedians who have lived in Lagos have an idea of whether the small waterway National Geographic shows is extant, or has been covered by development. I'll ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nigeria. Picaroon (t) 20:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Island is/was an Island. It was orignally separated from the Lekki Peninsula by swamps which were filled in by the colonial government. This activity continued under successive state governments, so that there is a significant land bridge between Victoria Island and Lekki Peninsula. This area was referred to as Victoria Island Annex and Maroko. Much of the Maroko area is now referred to as "Oniru Estate" after the Oniru ruling family. Ajisekanla (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher 00:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 27 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iyabo Obasanjo-Bello, 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.

Cheers, Daniel 08:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 52	26 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wales appoints six arbitrators	Board approves expansion, up to 11 trustees possible
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards, Senate testimony, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Plants
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

WikBack account created

Someone, perhaps you, recently created an account at the WikBack. If the account was created by an imposter, please let me know as soon as possible so that it can be disabled. Otherwise, welcome! The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's me. Picaroon (t) 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your post at RFAR

It is evident that you are not aware of the issues. User:Lpangelrob has supported our views and has never logged in to IRC. In addition to this, at the WikiProject council and WP:VPP pages, there have been some editors in support of us. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please (re)read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2 (second RFC)#Outside view by Krimpet, particularly her last paragraph. It's harmful to see this as you all ("us") vs him. Second, never did I say that only people in your IRC channel have supported your views.

On a general point, you and Scott5514 have yet to make the case that this is an arbitration-level dispute; the two of you have demonstrated next to no arbitration-level policy violation on NE2's part. The various discussions are an intra-project dispute on a few minor issues. Is NE2 being obstinate? You could say that. Is he in need of sanctions? Certainly not. Try to think of the dispute as if you were an uninvolved user, not as someone in dispute with him: would NE2 really come across as needing sanctions from the arbitration committee? He doesn't to me. Picaroon (t) 05:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is ludicrous to believe that we must compromise with NE2. Consensus is against him; he has repeatedly stated that he will ignore consensus and be a disruption. ArbCom has been proposed by many involved, including our own mediator less than 6 hours ago. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Request

I request: it's possible to reduce ban of user:Giovanni Giove? He is a capable editor in 3 versions of Wiki: Italian, English-third level- and French-second level-! There are few capable editors like as Giovanni in Wiki!!!! I thnink so: 6 months of block is a balanced punishment; I propose 6 months of block then administrators can block Giovanni for 7 months and more but to ban indefinitly Giovanni is damaging action against Wiki!!!! Regards--PIO (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You may talk to Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs), the admin who blocked him most recently, or propose an unblock at wikipedia:administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Make sure to link to the previous discussion to ban for context. Picaroon (t) 22:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

T:TDYK screwup

this edit is incorrect. The dates go by when the article was created or expanded, not when the hook was created. Can you please correct it and any other similar edits you may have made.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Picaroon (t) 13:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis again

Hi Picaroon, I reported another Arthur Ellis IP at AN/I earlier today. Nobody has blocked yet, perhaps because user:Moreschi raised some questions. Could you please swing by and take a look? Thanks, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Likely him (he's used similar IPs, 209.217.124.237, 209.217.79.212, 209.217.79.235, and 209.217.79.35 according to the sockpuppet cat), but since he hasn't edited from that IP in over 24 hours, there isn't much point in blocking now. Picaroon (t) 14:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 19:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz

I did. I guess I did not set the time limit properly. Thank you for pointing that out to me. -- Avi (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:ETHICS.

Done. That subpage used to be at Wikipedia:Code of ethics. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-31t17:51z

Bishzilla

I thought the general rule was: one editor, one account, however alternate accounts are permitted in certain circumstances. Wikipedia:SOCK#Legitimate_uses_of_alternate_accounts mention "Segregation and security", "Doppelganger accounts", "Clean start under a new name", "Bots" and "Role accounts" as appropriate justifcations. But then I may have interpreted this incorrectly so correct me if I am wrong. Martintg (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69

I'm not even gonna count on how many articles. "there is no such thing as Artsakh except armenian name of Azerbaijani region. It is clear attempt to legitimaze illegal entity" See here VartanM (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference between "Artsakh", "Karabakh", and "Nagorno-Karabakh"? Why does the tag say "WikiProject Artsakh", link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Karabakh, while the template itself is named {{WPNK}} (clearly standing for Nagorno-Karabakh). Picaroon (t) 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the process of renaming all those to Artsakh. Artsakh is the historic name of the region. VartanM (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

cite paper

I see that you changed the {{cite paper}} template to accept multiple authors. I used the template today and it does not print the coauthors. can you take another look at the code. thanks.--Ccson (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Responded on the template talk page. Picaroon (t) 20:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren ^(talk) 22:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 5 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Usman Nagogo, 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.

--Royalbroil 21:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 6 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Ezzidio, 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.

--Archtransit (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You have mail

Please check your email. Thank you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 1	2 January 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "John Lasseter"	News and notes: Stewards, fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Scouting
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 2	7 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Stepping in after delay
New Wikipedia discussion forum gains steam	WikiWorld comic: "Goregrind"
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim Shell

I understand. I will reclose the AfD as no consensus. Thanks, GlassCobra 23:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Your comment seems to have set my new messages bar on a loop. Now it won't go away! Gah. GlassCobra 23:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Soludo

I sincerely doubt his name is "Charles Chukwuma Soludo". Do you have any evidence to support this?
Even his CBN bio page refers to him as "Prof. Chukwuma C. Soludo".
I expect the original entry you removed (i.e. Chukwuma "Charles" C. Soludo) is much closer to the truth. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am increasingly wary of the CBN bio, and hope to phase it out with more reliable sources.

I agree.

I utilized "Charles Chukwuma Soludo" because that is how he is credited as an author, as shown here;

Yes, but...

presumably he is credited as author in the manner he records his name.

Perhaps. There doesn't seem to be an obvious way to verify it, does there? Also, how he choses to have his name recorded doesn't necessarily mean that's his name. But it's his name, and if he wants to record it that way, it's hardly my place to disagree!

Do you consider the CBN bio better than his credits on numerous works spanning 1993 through 2008?

No!

I don't. Picaroon (t) 02:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(I think you made the better choice.)

My rationale is that I assume that "Charles" is the anglicisation of "Chukwuma", so "Charles Charles Soludo" is a bit unusual, and hence, unlikely. That's why I said: "I expect Chukwuma "Charles" C. Soludo is closer to the truth." However, parents have been known to give worse names to their children, so I guess it's possible ...
(I'd be more comfortable with one of "Charles C. Soludo", "Chukwuma C. Soludo" or Chukwuma "Charles" C. Soludo, but when it comes down to it, my comfort in this matter isn't really a very high priority!) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is an anglicization, as I'm unaware of any southern Nigerians (Igbo, Yoruba, or other) going by anglicized names in the 21st century. Spelling might be standardized so all uses of a traditional name in English speaking contexts will appear the same (sh to just s for example), and PNA characters are always omitted, but I don't think names are fully anglicized to something Westerners will be familiar with nowadays. Picaroon (t) 19:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I guess that's the best we can do with the current evidence.
So that resolves that one! (Two down; only one left?) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

419

(BTW: I'd like some feeback on my Talk:Charles C. Soludo#419 info comments.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Will take a look shortly. Picaroon (t) 19:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Have replied there. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Subportals of current events MfD

A discussing about several of the Current events subportals has been opened at Miscellany for deletion. You are invited to participate in discussing the fate of these subportals --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)