User talk:Reaper Eternal/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

AFT5 newsletter

Hey again all :). So, some big news, some small news, some good news, some bad news!

On the "big news" front; we've now deployed AFT5 on to 10 percent of articles, This is pretty awesome :). On the "bad news", however, it looks like we're having to stop at 10 percent until around September - there are scaling issues that make it dangerous to deploy wider. Happily, our awesome features engineering team is looking into them as we speak, and I'm optimistic that the issues will be resolved.

For both "small" and "good" news; we've got another office hours session. This one is tomorrow, at 22:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect - I appreciate it's a bit late for Europeans, but I wanted to juggle it so US east coasters could attend if they wanted :). Hope to see you all there!

GOCE July drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors July 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Out of 45 people who signed up this drive, 31 have copy-edited at least one article. Lfstevens continues to carry most of the weight, having edited 360 articles and over a quarter of a million words already. Thanks to all who have participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, will be available early in August here. Progress report: We are once again very close to achieving in our primary goal—removing the oldest three months from the backlog. Only 35 such articles remain at press time. The total backlog currently sits at under 2400 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We are just two articles away from completing all requests made before July 2012 (both are in progress). Copy Edit of the Month: Starting in August, you'll be able to submit your best copy-editing work for palaver, praise, and prizes. See here for details. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

• Recent research: Conflict dynamics, collaboration and emotions; digitization vs. copyright; WikiProject field notes; quality of medical articles; role of readers; Best Wiki Paper Award

• News and notes: Wikimedians and London 2012; WMF budget – staffing, engineering, editor retention effort, and the global South; Telegraph's cheap shot at WP

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Horse Racing

• Featured content: One of a kind

• Technology report: Talking performance with CT Woo and Green Semantic MediaWiki with Nischay Nahata

• Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

• Op-ed: The Athena Project: being bold

• News and notes: FDC portal launched

• Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

• Featured content: Casliber's words take root

• Technology report: Wikidata nears first deployment but wikis go down in fibre cut calamity

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Martial Arts

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Banning policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm back!

Finally done with that quarter...waaaay too much work! Time to get back into the action again! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes! This is amazing! I'm so happy to see you back! Ryan Vesey 02:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Whale

{{whale}} Arcandam (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

His action was legitimate, you can't whale him for that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't, and I just did. Arcandam (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Spear that whale

	The spear that whale award
	I offer you this award in response to this highly inappropriate whaling.  Ryan Vesey 03:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice trolling! Arcandam (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Reaper Eternal. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I wonder why your conversation should be in private... Arcandam (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

So?

What to do now? Do I just have to wait? Are you going to read a bit, and then apologize to me? Arcandam (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been following the events as they have been unfolding, and I see no need for further administrative intervention. However, I will not apologize for your error or restore your rollback. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you ever find some clue, please come back to my talkpage and apologize. Arcandam (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read Reaper Eternal's comment again. You've already been warned by another admin for comments like that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please go find something useful you can do. You've probably already been told to go do something useful. Arcandam (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Arcandam (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Goof Troop Article

I just wanted to say thanks for protecting the Goof Troop article. A friend and I had been trying to figure out how to get it protected, but you seem to have done it yourself. Thanks. Strelok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokulol2 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem! A number of vandals have also found that their ability to edit any articles has been revoked.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

PERM

Thanks for that! I'd inadvertently closed the separate window on my computer thinking I had already done it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

No problem! Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Mentorship

Your mentoring duties are not over yet. :)—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 14:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Bosco

Hello, I just contested the deletion of Bosco di Ciliegi about a minute after you deleted it. I was going about taking information from the more comprehensive coverage about the company at ru.wikipedia.org but you killed the article. Travelpleb (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I do have a question though before I restore it: Do you have multiple independent reliable sources that can be used to demonstrate the notability of Bosco di Ciliegi per WP:CORP? Otherwise, even if I restore it, it will just get re-deleted at WP:AFD. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to express in terms of multiple independent sources that Bosco is the face of sports clothing in Russia and that it annually hi-jacks the branding of the Red Square winter ice-rink. Maybe some snaps of happy skaters in front of GUM?

ru.wikipedia has:

• The company is the general partner of Russian Olympic team, and the official equipment supplier to the Olympic Games, including Salt Lake City (2002) , Athens (2004) , Turin (2006) , Beijing (2008) , Vancouver (2010) London (2012) and Sochi (2014) .
• The company is the official equipment supplier Spanish Olympic team at the Olympics in London (2012).
• Bosco di Ciliegi is also the official outfitters Ukrainian Olympic team

I'd say that's pretty interesting.

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosco_di_Ciliegi cites four sources, including El Pais.Travelpleb (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Userfy for now? Ryan Vesey 15:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean we can reinstate the article and keep working on it?Travelpleb (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the ruwiki article does appear to indicate some importance of the subject. I will restore the page, but be aware that if reliable sources are not added, another editor may nominate the article for a deletion discussion. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

A7 Question

Thanks for stepping in and converting the CSD to PROD at Wilderness Rendezvous. I'm trying to get a handle on A7, which seems to me to apply to cases (like this one) that would generally be declined. You said you don't think A7 technically applies. Is that because it's a scout camp, and so there's a claim of notability due to its ties to another notable organization? Or, perhaps, its age is an indicator. I don't doubt A7 doesn't apply here, but AFAICT, the article is about a local boyscout camp with no media attention, akin to a local Chinese restaurant or a small D&D group, which seems to me would apply based on A7's wording. If you could clarify whenever you have the chance, that would be exceedingly helpful for me going forward. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

In this case, it is an event. Events aren't covered by A7. The company that runs the camp might be eligible for DB-Corp Ryan Vesey 15:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Reaper Eternal. You have new messages at Mrt3366's talk page.
Message added 13:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Need some confirmation and support (i.e. answers). Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 13:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please visit my talk page and review my first 3 rollbacks. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 17:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well yeah, of course you should revert those three vandal edits.... As regards to your questions, other users have already answered them for you. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

• Op-ed: Small Wikipedias' burden

• News and notes: Bangla-language survey suggests the challenges for small Wikipedias

• Arbitration report: You really can request for arbitration

• Featured content: On the road again

• Technology report: "Phabricating" a serious alternative to Gerrit

• WikiProject report: Dispute Resolution

• Discussion report: Image placeholders, machine translations, Mediation Committee, de-adminship

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

User problem

Hi. Do you think you could do anything about this user Almightyvegeta (talk · contribs) who has continuously removed mass amounts of text from articles as can be seen from his contributions, and has been blocked once for the same issue. He calls the text "promotional" and inserts blogs and other unreliable sources in their places. Secret of success (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Filter 422

Seems to have gone haywire. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I had noticed. It wouldn't let me disable it—my requests to disable the filter kept returning "The request timed out." >_< Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Know what you mean. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Because it's obvious this deserves one. :) jcgoble3 (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

And since I now have someone agreeing with me on ANI:

		You have been sentenced to the Village Stocks
		You broke Wikipedia! jcgoble3 (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

		The Destroyer of the Wiki Barnstar
		OH MY GOD WHAT DID YOU DO THERE'S MONKEYS AND FISH EVERYWHERE SOMEONE HELP I have to admit, I likely egged this on, but it was simply too good to pass up a trip to the Stocks. Congrats on your new found fame. :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

D: Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit filter 342

Any idea why edit filter 342 no longer runs? It seems like a useful filter. Has it been superseded? Ryan Vesey 16:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

King of Hearts (talk · contribs) deleted it because it appeared to have no real function and consumed a fair amount of server resources. IPs and new users should be allowed to create article from redirects too. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I had been patrolling redirects through Special:NewPagesFeed but I might stop because they won't be patrolled when they are turned into articles as a result. I don't think that IPs and users houldn't be allowed to create articles from the redirects, but they should be checked as any new article is. Ryan Vesey 16:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit filter "#Redirect Main Page"

I successfully added "#Redirect Main Page" to my user talk page successfuly. I assumed that I should not be able to. Should I be able to add the redirect now? Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Redirect_Mainpage Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Your account has far too many edits to trigger the edit filter. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

for the cleanup. Bloody Metapedia! Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit filters

I went and glanced at the edit filters as you suggested but a lot - most are marked as private so there isn't much I can do to help. This is precisely the sort of reason I was trying to get the admin tools. I can't do anything to help if I can't even see it. Happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

173.80.105.69

Since you blocked 173.80.105.69 (talk) for 31 hours, he's been going insane on his talk page, including this snippet from this particular edit: "especially this Reaper Eternal who is scared to permantely block me the stupid mother fucker block me permantely i god damn dare you mother fucker". You think you should deal with it? ZappaOMati 00:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked and block lengthened. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, I don't think it worked. [1]. ZappaOMati 03:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like User:The Bushranger and User:TexasAndroid covered it. ZappaOMati 04:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

AFC Backlog

Articles for Creation urgently needs YOUR help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1526 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js which helps in reviewing in just few edits easily! We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, TheSpecialUser TSU

Thanks!

Hi.

Thanks a lot, for your vigilance and timely intervention.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

---

A record?

Which is more than Bullet Through My Head (Band) will ever make... I see you deleted it twice two minutes apart. If that isn't a record, I don't know what is... (I've just deleted it too. If I see it again, I'll protect it.) Peridon (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think what happened is that I deleted it right as the user clicked "Save page", resulting the page promptly reappearing with essentially the same content, so I deleted it again. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

However, I have deleted upwards of 50 pages in as many seconds, so... :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Still impressive if you don't know how the system works. I've left him a message explaining that they've no chance yet. Maybe if they actually got together and practised they might be something in time. Doesn't look like they've got the dedication. Peridon (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

List of captive orcas

Thank you for protecting the article for the time being. This editor has been warned previously about adding this information, and we've asked them to go to the talk page to present their basis for considering this site to be a reliable source. That said, I shouldn't be undoing things myself repeatedly, so I'll try and do better in the future. --McDoobAU93 16:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, hopefully the protection will force him to the talk page to discuss his edits and to learn that he needs reliable sources. Hopefully, this won't escalate into further blocks for him. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe in time. Another admin who's been following Wickedangry blocked him for a month since he returned to his behavior that got him blocked the first time. However, Kinu also said they would unblock if he gave a good explanation, which apparently he failed to do. We'll see what happens over the next month. --McDoobAU93 15:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about that, I've only been active on Wikipedia for the past few months and didn't know about that. --Activism1234 01:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I requested speedy deletion of a page that I merged instead of deleting and doing a redirect (which you later did). --Activism1234 14:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That's no problem. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

• Op-ed: Wikimedians are rightfully wary

• News and notes: Core content competition in full swing; Wikinews fork taken offline

• In the news: American judges on citing Wikipedia

• Featured content: Enough for a week – but I'm damned if I see how the helican.

• Technology report: Lua onto test2wiki and news of a convention-al extension

• WikiProject report: Land of Calm and Contrast: Korea

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

South African Navy

Hello. I'm struggling to see how protecting this article would be more appropriate than sanctions against the three editors who have been edit warring. I'd appreciate it if you would review this block, which is penalising uninvolved, established editors such as myself that have had no part in the dispute that's been going on. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, article protection is sometimes the only way to quell an edit war by forcing the participants to discuss on the talk page. Since there were four editors involved, it is hard to stop an edit war without blocking everyone or showing partiality. Furthermore, you might consider it a sort of "last chance" for Vghj526 (talk · contribs), whose other postings seem to range from highly disruptive to outright vandalism. I'm on the verge of giving him an indefinite block, considering that his "anthem" consists of phrases like: "Ο πούτσος του ήταν μικρός" ("His cock was small"), "τα τριχωτά του αρχίδια" ("the balls of [him] [are] hairy"), and "Τους ναυτικούς τους γούσταρε με τον μεγάλο πούτσο" ("The sailors, the [ones] liking my? big cock"). Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The collateral damage is too wide - sounds like you already know where the problem is, so please address targeted action where it's appropriate. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

He isn't the only person engaging in edit warfare—he's just the one likely to be blocked. I do not consider the collateral damage to be too wide, since the article was only protected for 72 hours. If you have any edits you want made in the meantime, you can use {{editprotected}} and an admin can make them. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk page block?

Can we get a talk page block on this guy? 77.255.102.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk page access removed for the disruption. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

77.255.102.142

I think this user deserves to be blocked from editing his/her own talk page because he/she keeps duplicating the block message that you put on it for no reason. MadGuy7023 (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

See above. :P Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!, but they have now moved to 178.37.91.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

...who is also blocked. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

thanks! -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

GOCE news and September drive invitation

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events: The August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best August copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC). September 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit the articles tagged longest ago and to complete all requests placed before the end of August. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top six in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged longest ago", and "Longest article". This drive features a much easier signup process. We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Why did you delete DBigXray's SPI

You deleted DBigXray's SPI and I'm trying to understand why. Why delete it instead of letting it run to its natural conclusion? This is not a frivolous attack either as this Archive of previous SPI's against DBigXray show that others have shared these same concerns and the previous closer holds suspicions of meat-puppetry. I have real suspicions about DBigXray's and Vibhijain's editing behavior and deleting this topic instead of closing it makes things even more dubious. --Joshuaism (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on, you're being ridiculous in this case. Pakistani and Indian topics are two very popular areas (or unpopular depending on how you look at it, I put on a hazmat suit before I open up one of those articles) where people have strong views. It is natural that editors who think the same way will be editing the same articles. Even if you ignored people from outside those countries who have an interest (like Boing! said Zebedee) Pakistan and India have a combined population of 1,418,237,324 (by Google's count). There are 2,378 editors in Category:Indian Wikipedians and 352 in Category:Pakistani Wikipedians. You could make an bogus SPI case for most of them because of strong nationalism in the two countries. Ryan Vesey 15:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll also note that the previous SPI's were made by a Pakistani POV pusher (not to say that DBigXray isn't pushing POV for India as well). Ryan Vesey 15:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Pakistanis and Indians are free to edit war on Indian and Pakistani topics. But when they bring their advanced edit warring strategies to topics strictly concerning American policies, I take note. My interest was in finding out why two editors with a Pro-Indian slant suddenly have taken an interest in Guantanamo detainee articles at about the same time.--Joshuaism (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, why was this SPI deleted?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a little odd. SPIs can be, and often are, declined. Deleted, as far as I know, never. Rich Farmbrough, 03:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC).

Agreed and restored. However, my point remains that that case seems extremely pointy to be a borderline violation of WP:NPA, because it accuses two long-term editors of socking without any proof other than that they both have the same POV. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It's now been blanked and had the history removed since DBigXray's last investigation in February/March. I'm new to this. Is there some kind of explanation? --Joshuaism (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see section #DBigXray SPI below. Your SPI was blatantly bad-faith and disruptive, so Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) has selectively deleted your revisions, leaving only the earlier SPI. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

DBigXray SPI

Selective restore is your friend :) T. Canens (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I was rather frustrated because I knew that that SPI should go as a highly bad-faith SPI, but I was deleting the history of the previous SPI. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Filter 56

What the heck caused these false positives ? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed that. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for the history merge. JOJ Hutton 16:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Filter 422

Another FP? [2]. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

 Filter fixed. Technically, that wasn't an FP, since the vandal(s) this filter is designed to stop had been maliciously un-redirecting templates. I've removed that check since that hasn't happened for awhile. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia contributor status and advice

Just looking at your page, a person can see the top-righthand-corner just packed with all the accommodations you have received, including the great WikiGryphon. I was wondering, how did you get to be such a great contributor, and do you have any advice on how a person could one day be like you? - Haon2.0 17:43, Aug 22, 2012

Well, for starters, I'm nobody particularly special—I've just been here for a little under two years, and people saw fit to trust me with the administrator tools. Furthermore, the "great WikiGryphon" is just a humorous page, and anybody can add that icon to his userpage. The three good articles and the featured article were things I wrote with the help of many other editors. Basically, a good article is an article that complies with all of the criteria listed in WP:WIAGA. Specifically, the good articles must:

• Read well
• Not use ambiguous words or words that are misleading (commonly called "weasel words")
• Be fully referenced by reliable sources
• Be neutral
• Be complete in coverage yet still concise
• Be stable (i.e. people aren't currently changing the content dramatically)
• Be illustrated with images if needed

With regards to the request for advice on being a "great contributor", I really don't know, since there are many more people with far more recognized content than I have. I'd just recommend that you edit wherever you feel you do best, and feel free to ask for advice if you need any. If you work hard enough on an article to get it up to the criteria mentioned above, you could try nominating it at good article nominations to have it checked over to see if it is ready. Happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that was very concise and extremely humble to boot. A great contributor if I've ever seen on. Hope to see you more later on! - Haon2.0 18:34, Aug 23, 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I rangeblocked for 2 weeks. Left a note here but not sure if your newer block on the single IP will reduce his block time.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't know about the rangeblock. I blocked him for disruptive editing when I saw the edits. I'll clear the block since it is pointless now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you very much for putting through my unblock request. Best wishes! Rob T Firefly (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for blocking the vandals whom I have reported today. I have also requested protection of the Empire State Building shootings article and will watchlist it until it is protected. Electric Catfish 15:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Filter

Hi Reaper! I requested a few changes to the edit filter a month ago and no changes have been implemented yet. What do you think about...

• Unticking the "Flag the edit in the edit filter log" option on the Wikilove filter.
• Adding the "Possible spambot" filter to User:Mr.Z-bot/filters.js.
• Modifying the regex on the Section blanking filter to make it detect if an edit summary was provided.
• Modifying the regex on both the Multiple obscenities filter and filter 460 to disallow "fuckk" (please excuse my language).

Thanks, Electric Catfish 13:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC).

1. I did. A WMF employee then informed me that this was not allowed and turned it back on. Prodego then did the same thing with the same results.
2. They're mostly false positives (but still vandalism, so the filter isn't disabled)
3. Why? The automatically filled-in text that comes from editing a section counts as an edit summary.
4.  Done for filter 380;  Already done on filter 460. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Reaper! Electric Catfish 14:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Filter 422

Could you take a look at these false positives? Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support at my RfA. Your advice is duly noted and appreciated.—Bagumba (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

• News and notes: Tough journey for new travel guide

• Recent research: New influence graph visualizations; NPOV and history; 'low-hanging fruit'

• Technology report: Just how bad is the code review backlog?

• Featured content: Wikipedia rivals The New Yorker: Mark Arsten

• WikiProject report: From sonic screwdrivers to jelly babies: Doctor Who

• Discussion report: Sidebar and main page alterations; Recent Deaths; Education Program extension

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

My recent edit

Nothing, that I have no respect for land thieves. Nienk (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your comments in the refdesk thread about guns, followed by a self-identification of being in the IDF, followed by claiming "wish you were a Palestinian" looks like you are wishing you could engage in violent action. Is that what you meant? Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

He deserved that response, because I wasn't trolling, and because he considered my homosexuality as trolling, what a homophobic Wikipedia is this? and yes, I serve in the Israeli Defense Forces but treat land thieves with respect. Nienk (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you add the homophobic part which caused my response? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nienk (talk • contribs) 17:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Reaper Eternal. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

GOCE September activities

Reminders from the Guild of Copy Editors A quick reminder of our current events: The August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight September 14 (UTC). The September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight September 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin. The September 2012 Backlog elimination drive is now underway! The event runs until midnight September 30 (UTC). The goal is to copy edit articles with the oldest tags and complete all requests placed before September. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who participates, with special awards given to the top five in the following categories: "Total articles", "Total words", "Total articles over 5,000 words", "Total articles tagged longest ago", and "Longest article". – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Filter 422

Just a heads up - Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#Filter_422_again. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'll deal with it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Just as an information

It IS vandalism to revert new apps in articles especially if there was clear agreement within the Egypt´s project to use the new boxes. Wut is it that you might not understand? --Nephiliskos (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't vandalism—read WP:NOTVAND if you cannot comprehend the difference between a content dispute and outright vandalism. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, it IS. The user was informed by me about the project´s discussion, despite that he continues to revert. Wat shall it be else if not vandalism or, at least, edit-war??? --Nephiliskos (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is edit warring, and why don't you consider dispute resolution rather than spamming various administrators' talk pages with claims that GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) is a vandal? Furthermore, the correct spelling is "what", not "wut" or "wat". Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Uuuuuuhhh, big bro is watching me. Hope, it doesn´t become your new hobby. It is my ful right to please for help, you know. See ya.--Nephiliskos (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

IP addresses and edit filter

If it's practical, I'd like to put a filter together that disallows edits based on a combination of page content and IP address. Can you tell me if I'm right in assuming that the username for non-logged-in editors is their IP address, as a string? If so, I can generate an expression that matches the complete set of IP ranges used by one particular abusive user... -- The Anome (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You could also use the ip_in_range(ip, range) command. For example:

(user_age = 0) &  /* Is this even an IP? */
ip_in_range(192.168.0.1, 192.168.128.0/17)

Hope this helps! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It certainly does! I was unaware of the ip_in_range() function: that saves me from having to write a small program to turn a prefix list into a giant IP-matching regex. -- The Anome (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

• News and notes: World's largest photo competition kicks off; WMF legal fees proposal

• Technology report: Time for a MediaWiki Foundation?

• Featured content: Wikipedia's Seven Days of Terror

• Op-ed: Dispute resolution – where we're at, what we're doing well, and what needs fixing

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2) Your review is required and will be greatly appreciated :)

Hi Reaper Eternal ! I have started my second editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. I see you also evaluate possible candidates for Adminship as you had chosen to do so on Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination, so do evaluate me too! As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't respond to mass-postings. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for any misunderstanding Reaper Eternal, but i was just asking some users i know and trust including you for an Editor review. User:Amalthea had also expressed a similar concern regarding this but i believe i have clarified everything. I had contacted all the users on Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination for a editor review and to review and give their comments regarding Adminship on the editor review page. Please do not misunderstand me and if you have any misunderstandings or doubt regarding this i will be happy to clear them out. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I'll have a quick look through. I won't take much time, since you have invited ~40 admins to check over your contributions, which amounts to a large number of man-hours. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am glad i could clear the situation Reaper. You can take your time though as you wish :), there is no rush for that. The editor review is open for quite a long time. TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The MfD you just closed

I don't know if it's within policy, but User:NUMB3RN7NE/list was created during the deletion discussion as an attempt to "save" it. I have no idea whether WP:CSD#G4 would apply, but it's worth looking at. Achowat (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it per G4, since it falls under content created solely to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy. "This excludes...content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Achowat (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

May I ask what was the reason for deletion of the original list ? --POVbrigand (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The MFD had a consensus for deletion citing the policies WP:BLP, WP:STALEDRAFT, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and your topic ban. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The BLP issue was raised at the BLPN with no consensus for deletion, and there was no consensus about the BLP issue at the MfD either. Furthermore the scientists that were discussed have explicitely stated that they do not object being on this list. Kindly consider that the BLP issue was not correctly concluded and should not be named as one of the reasons for deletion.

I think it is important to highlight that it is not a BLP issue.

For me, that would leave staledraft and notwebhost as reason for deletion. However, considering that I had worked on the list until my topic ban a few months ago citing those two policies seems a bit over the top to me.

It all looks like a consensus triggered by Wikipedia:Overzealous_deletion.

Every editor is trying his best to do the right thing, but in the end some things go horribly wrong nevertheless. Thank god it's only wikipedia.

Thanks, --POVbrigand (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You are correct about there being no consensus to deleted at the BLPN discussion. However, I did not base the consensus on the BLPN discussion; rather, I based it on the MFD discussion which clearly had consensus for deleting your subpage. Furthermore, I highly doubt that every single one of those scientists has expressed his desire to be on this list, given that one at least posted on Talk:Cold fusion. The list also had several unsourced and poorly-sourced claims, hence the delete votes based on WP:BLP. I understand that you did work on it until roughly the date you were topic-banned. However, since you were indefinitely forced to leave it untouched, it eventually became a stale draft. The list also clearly violated WP:LISTPEOPLE, as one of the delete voters mentioned. Taking all the reasons presented for the deletion of the page together, and the clear consensus to delete based upon those policy-based votes, I chose to delete the page. "It all looks like a consensus triggered by Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion." I don't think so, and accusing the people advocating deletion of being eager to "win the game" isn't particularly helping your case. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I know you based the deletion on the "delete" votes on the MfD and that the consensus was to delete. The problem is that there were many different reasons mentioned why it should be deleted.

"BLP issue"

You did notice that the actual "list of lenr researchers" is only the top section of that page ? That list did not have unsourced claims. The rest of the page is just a working sheet, maybe that section was causing the BLP concern, but it is nowhere claimed that people mentioned on the working sheet are lenr researchers. I should/could have hatted (or deleted) that working sheet section, but I was still collecting references.

Many of the researchers on the list have there own wiki article, where it is clearly stated that they indeed do LENR research. No BLP issue there.

I can poll each of the mentioned researchers if they are ok to be on that list, if that would solve the issue. But I really doubt it is worth the effort. There is probably a policy against polling people somewhere and the consensus is not going to change anyhow regardless of how solid the evidence might be, so why bother ?

I conclude that several editors claim there is a BLP violation and some examples are highlighted. Those examples are clearly shown not to be BLP issues. Yet it is still concluded that there is a BLP issue, in contradiction with the outcome of two separate BLPN discussions. Well, that's strange.

"Listpeople" is an argument I don't understand when I compare to List_of_climate_scientists, List_of_cosmologists, List_of_physicists, and any other of the 102 lists of scientists [3]. Please explain. Have all those scientists expressed their desire to be on such lists ?

Should my list have been cropped to show only the researchers for whom wiki pages exist ? But other lists seem to have a similar situation of "red links" see for instance List of geneticists

"Staledraft" by your rational every indef topic banned user should always immediately get all his subpages deleted. The "staledraft" guideline was certainly not written with that in mind.

--POVbrigand (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

True. The job of the closing administrator is to gauge the consensus and close appropriately. When administrators close against consensus, it is commonly taken to be a "supervote", or a claim of "My will is law."

The BLPN discussion did advocate deletion (only one person participated, however).

WP:LISTPEOPLE did not weigh much into my decision; there were far more compelling reasons for deletion than one manual of style guideline.

Uh, no. Many topic bans aren't indefinite, unlike yours. Additionally, most subpages only have problems with notability, not BLP issues. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The 2 BLPN discussions did not end with a consensus for delete due to BLP issues, on the contrary. The first BLPN (3 dec 2011) [4] only received one single comment which did not go into detail about BLP issues of the list, but instead discussed LISTPEOPLE. The recent BLPN [5] did not have any consensus for deletion due to BLP issues, on the contrary.

All the researchers on the "list of LENR researchers" are sourced, there is no BLP issue. On the contrary, the researcher that was provided as an example of the BLP issue on the MfD discussion [6] replied there and explicitly stated that there is no concern whatsoever.

Where is the BLP issue ?

I agree with you that the majority of editors advocated deletion on the MfD. Most of them for BLP issues that are simply not there. Others advocated deletion for reasons of my indef topic ban / staledraft. IMHO that could be the only remaining reason for the deletion, although I think that staledraft only marginally supports such explanation and was certainly not written with indef topic banned users' subpages in mind. (as user Ken Arromdee noted in the MfD)

Thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for reviewer

Hi, could you please look at my reviewer request, I've been waiting 2 days and people after me have had theirs done. Thanks.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  20:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've declined it for poor judgment. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

So, have you never made a mistake? I clicked the wrong button, and?  Adam Mugliston  Talk  20:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

He's not referring to that, he's referring to the entire page. That said, shouldn't the reviewer userright be based on an editors ability to identify vandalism? I don't believe WP:BURDEN is particularly relevant to reviewing (outside of reviewing edits that had previously been reverted) and the second was dumb, but again not related to reviewing. Ryan Vesey 20:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The additions of poorly-sourced content are not acceptable for somebody dealing with reviewer, since WP:BLP requires a good understanding of WP:RS. However, after noticing the blatant vandalism of another person's userpage, I decided you are not trustworthy enough for this privilege. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

As Ryan explained, poor sourcing has nothing to do with reviewer and only was there for an hour or so, after which I found a source anyway. If you look further down in my history, you will find i don't tend to vandalise, I adopt new users and help them and I quietly get on with other work.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  20:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll expand on this and say that I was particularly surprised by Adam's userpage vandalism; however, having seen his work, I am certain that he can identify vandalism to the point that he could be trusted with the reviewer tool. Ryan Vesey 21:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I consider those to be highly relevant to 'reviewer', as I have already mentioned. With regards to your statement, "i don't tend to vandalise", vandalism is so obviously inappropriate that even one incident calls your whole trustworthiness into question. You are welcome to request review of my actions from other admins (e.g. WP:ANI), but I doubt that they will overturn my decision. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I will request a review of that, but not via something as drastic as ANI. I'm pretty sure several editors have vandalised somewhere and still became excellent editors. Ryan here, is an example of that. For that matter, so is User:Rcsprinter123. I'm sure there are many others.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  21:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Can someone explain what benefit there is to getting the reviewer flag? Since pending changes is offline, what does it allow you to do that rollbacker won't? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes is coming back in December.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  21:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Reaper Eternal. Reviewer is not just for identifying vandalism. That's what is rollback is for. Reviewer requires a good understanding of a broad variety of policies such as, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, and much more. The user would need to know which edits follow the editing guidelines and which ones don't. Obviously vandalism is one thing, but reviewers need to identify WP:BLP violations and other WP:GNG editing guidelines and reject such edits that do violate editing policy.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Am I ready?

Do you believe I am ready to close open AfDs or do you still want to test me?—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 16:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't think there is much more information I can give you, so the rest will have to come through experience. I would encourage you, if you are interested in AFDs, to become more involved in commenting, nominating, and rescuing than in closing. Non-admin closures are relatively uncommon, but that isn't to say that if you see an old AFD where the consensus is an obvious keep (10 keeps and 1 delete, for example), you can save administrators' time by closing it. Remember three things, however:

1. If a closure looks like it might be in the slightest way controversial or if the topic is heavily participated in (indicating strong opinions and controversy), do not close it. If you feel that any person might object to your closure, leave it. These discussions are best left for admins.
2. Don't endlessly relist something that has no participation. Eventually, an admin will have to close it as no consensus.
3. Remember WP:INVOLVED, which is enforceable by blocks! If you have participated in an AFD, do not close it.

Finally, my talkpage is always open for questions. I hope this helps! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

My first deletion review.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Filter 489

Hi, I'm working on filtering the Croatian vandal, and I've got a logging-only rule going at the moment to just catch edits from certain address ranges: could you please take a look at my comments at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#Filter_489? I'm used to the filter log firing every single time a rule is violated: is there possibly some sort of throttling going on for similar events that is preventing all these hits being logged, or am I missing something here? -- The Anome (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Replied there. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

(Moved from top)

Just saying Thank you. Please forgive any improper placement of this message.Michael V Gold (True) (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem! Good luck editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

One question added after your vote

Thanks much for voting. When we put the RfC together, one thing we were all agreed on was that it should run a week, so that it didn't take too much time away from more central questions ... but we decided not to put that in the RfC, I think because we didn't want to force a cutoff in the middle of a good debate. At this point, I've added that question, if you'd like to vote on that one too. - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)