User talk:AdjustShift/Archive 3

DYK for Frederick Hamilton March
Shubinator (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

 * You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion of the American Civil War
Thanks for the edits you made to improve the article. Since you are very familiar with these events related to the American Civil War, do you have any suggestions for an Alt hook for this article, that is at Template talk:Did you know?--Doug Coldwell talk 13:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for the input at Template talk. I have added a Comment there and hopefully Bedford's ALT2 will be selected as I like that one best since it is the simplest and easiest to understand. I have several references at Conclusion of the American Civil War to back this up. --Doug Coldwell talk 21:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and I look forward to working with you on WP. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ It passed to GA status. Thanks for all your help.--Doug Coldwell talk 17:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator Elections
Nominations for Coordinator positions in the Military History WikiProject have commenced, and voting will begin on March 14, 2009. Make sure to get involved and ask questions to the candidates. Nominations for Coordinators goes until March 13. Then come out for the voting which begins on March 14. Thanks and Have a Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 23:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Congrats on the Great DYKs Lord R. T. Oliver   The Olive Branch 00:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!
On behalf of the Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Constance McLaughlin Green
Shubinator (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

 * You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to Kashmir
I have reverted your edit to the article, as well as a few edits before it, to a more stable version. Your undo was evidently intended to revert unproductive contributions, but unfortunately there was a vandalism anon edit before the one you reverted, so your undo didn't have the desired effect. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The edit by anon was not vandalism. My revert did have the desired effect. AdjustShift (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

About my neutrality
Hi AdjustShift, I admit to not easily being able to point to a single thing or a group of things that gave me the impression of weak answers. Overall, though, I found you a little terse and inelegant. For example, your answer to Question 4 ignores a crucial part of the question: what are the advantages and disadvantages? I don't mind that you have your opinion of IRC, but the fact that you won't be using it doesn't mean that you won't be involved in situations where it is an issue, especially as you intend to contribute at ANI, so I would expect you to be able to be a bit more thoughtful about potential pitfalls, negatives, and perhaps even point out some positives. It's almost like a shortcut: your answers to several questions give the impression of: "I won't be using it, or patrolling there, so it doesn't matter what I think." This is further a suspicion of mine since you have answered the optional questions, 11–15. Also, your answer to #14 is a little off-topic and circuitous—edit wars often occur between long-standing editors and they are not just "vandals", and you say that you won't block established editors unless the abuse is clear. . . the point being, then, what is clear abuse? Part of what I expected to see was your opinion on whether or not an edit war is abuse, and to help gain an understanding of how you interpret 3RR. Having also just read your answer to #15, if the editor is already reported at AIV, then I doubt that another usertalk template is going to help much. Informing them that their edits are not helpful has often been tried already, and sometimes has little effect, especially if it is a persistently clueless newbie. How about then? I would like to know how you handle the difficult cases, not the easy ones where a message on a talk page clears it up. I believe that this is the point of the questions, and although that means they often take a lot of time, effort, and thought, that is one of the things I look for in a candidate, someone who is willing to examine a question from many sides and put on show what their judgements would be in the line of fire. I just felt that, overall, your answers were lacking in the sort of completeness and thought that I look for. In any case, I still don't feel that it is enough to oppose over, and that you will probably make a fine admin, and I wish you best of luck in your run for adminship, :-)  Mae din \talk 18:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Maedin,
 * Thanks for your input. My answer to Question 4 doesn't ignore a crucial part of the question. I strongly believe that whatever happens on wiki should stay on wiki. IRC shouldn't be used. From what I've seen, personal friendships between editors cause all kinds of trouble. People make friends at IRC, but they also create enemies at IRC. We are not here to make friends; we are here to build a free knowledge. Editors should treat each other as colleagues, rather than friends or enemies. And when editors treat each other as colleagues, WP works better. Editor A will not support or oppose Editor B's RFA based on their off-wiki interactions. If two editors are fighting with each other at ANI because of their disagreements at IRC, I would ask both of them to stop talking with each other at IRC. You may say, editors can build personal friendship because of their on-wiki interactions. Yes, but when people talk with each other on-wiki, people tend to be formal. When we talk off-wiki, we are informal.
 * I know that edit wars often occur between long-standing editors. But, you've to be an experienced admin to deal with such situations. Edit wars has occurred between editors such as Ghirlandajo and Piotrus. See Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla for the background. Both of them are A++ editors. As a new admin, you can't expect me to deal with such situations. One needs some experience to deal with such situations.
 * I said that I won't block established editors unless the abuse is clear. Clear abuse means actions such as personal attacks or harassment. An established editor should be blocked if the WP community supports a block against the editor. If the crowd is divided, the editor shouldn't be blocked. Editor C contributes positively from January 2009 to November 2009. In December 2009, he loses his head and makes some uncivil remarks here and there. I'll block the editor if and only if there is a consensus at ANI to block him. I oppose the "bold" actions by admins. I believe that admins should be carrying out what the WP community says with regard to WP policy.
 * I've analyzed several reports at AIV. There are several reports which are not blatant vandalism. I've seen editors using or  to warn new editors or IPs, when they should used  or.
 * I may not have analyzed a question from many sides. Some of my answers may not have been perfect, but I'll try my best to became a good admin.
 * Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful response, and apologies for not having acknowledged it sooner, I was away for part of Easter Break. I appreciate your clarification on the points that I raised.  No one would expect you to deal with tough cases as a brand new admin—probably best if you don't!—but some of the questions are meant for you to explore your "future administrator self" and future pace the sort of judgements you expect to make in difficult situations.  But I am perfectly willing to accept that perhaps I set the RfA standard rather high, particularly when it comes to questions, so I wouldn't necessarily take it personally!  And, whatever weakness I perceived, doesn't mean you won't make a fine admin, and you clearly have the best interests of Wikipedia as your goal.  Again, best wishes, and thank you for your considered response, :-)   Mae din \talk 19:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Premature RfA congrats
Your RfA looks like an obvious pass as it stands, so allow me to take the opportunity to congratulate you in advance. :) --  Dylan 620  Efforts · Toolbox 19:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. AdjustShift (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

 * Congrats! — Rlevse • Talk  • 20:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Rlevse. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! :) – Juliancolton  | Talk 20:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Carioca (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I love thankspam. Chocolates? Yum! :) Good luck with the mop, AS. --  Dylan 620  Efforts · Toolbox 21:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats..Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!--  Michael  (Talk) 21:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! I didn't have any objections other than experience. I'm sure you'll do a good job and learn anything you didn't know, Look forward to you being around. Enjoy the mop. Best Dr. Blofeld  White cat 21:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually its good see a new admin who actual cares about content and writing articles. Keep those DYKs coming. I;m rather bogged down with getting the third level divisions of countries started on here to have much time for serious writing at present but I do what I can! Happy Easter! Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats AdjustShift! Your highly-supported RfA still kind of amazes me. Being on Wikipedia for only 7/8 months, I figured it would pass but for some reason expected it to receive a bit more opposition. But you were quite a solid candidate, deserved the bit. :) Good luck with everything. P.S., that stuff you sent along looks yummy. ;)  Jamie ☆ S93  21:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!--Res2216firestar 22:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wish you luck in becoming and admin! You thoroughly deserved it. HAPPY EASTER ;)  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 22:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Aaroncrick. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to be tardy with my congrats! Well done! -- Ged UK  20:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

About your RfA
Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 23:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey you'd think they'd give you a better tee lol. At least one with a logo on and a cooler color! Dr. Blofeld White cat 00:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, you can use to test the new buttons. --  Dylan  620  Efforts · Toolbox 00:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Let me know if you have questions. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate your comments and support. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done! Wikipedia will surely benefit from your promotion. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA thank spam
It's not necessary to put a huge message on my talk page, and, since I didn't support you, nor strongly oppose you (only the latter having an impact) it was kinda off target. I spent a lot of time looking through your contributions and considering whether or not I thought you would be a responsible admin based largely upon the comment DGG made. It would have been courteous to put some thought into anything you put on my user page.

In general, don't thank people for an RfA is my motto. But you only got to do it once. --KP Botany (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!
On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment
After looking at your RfA after it closed, I probably would have joined KP Botany and DGG in switching to neutral (I did not keep up with it long enough to see that happen). I think the best thing to do is to start a working relationship with some experienced admin and seek a second opinion (not for them to reinforce any thing you have done, mind you) on your actions and follow their advice. Second opinions never hurt. Keep that in mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. AdjustShift (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the chocolate! :) -- can  dle &bull; wicke  03:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thankspam

 * You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 06:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for your participation in my recent Request for adminship. Congrats on your successful run as well. :) Oh, and also congratulations for getting the last piece of spam regarding my RfA - voting late pays off? ;) BOZ (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar
A little recognition is always appreciated. :) Everyking (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sections
College educations are usually put in "early life" because one's career starts after college, if one goes to college.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 10:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's usually the case, but I'm confused whether to include the education received at West Point in "early life" or "Military career". AdjustShift (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

re User:TomCat4680, and the articles Aspergers Syndrome and Autistic Spectrum, on my talkpage
Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I don't know what happened on George III of the United Kingdom.I M A new user as of February. Thanks Again for being so helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.52.175 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you have any question, please ask. AdjustShift (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent unblock
Some advice from someone with (literally) years of administrative experience on this topic: this is a toxic area of Wikipedia and your recent unblock may have dumped you right in the middle of it. If you really want to get involved its probably worth clearing the rest of your weekend and reading the extensive history before wheel-warring again, lest you find yourself in front of ArbCom (because that is where this will be before too long). Rockpock e  t  20:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The rights or wrongs of this block notwithstanding, my advice would have been to avoid getting involved (as I am doing). Too late for that now. Going forward, undoing another administrator's block is generally a ill advised for any admin. Doing so in a dispute involving Giano and/or Vk is spectacularly ill advised. Rockpock  e  t  21:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I unblocked VK after doing some analysis. I felt that unblocking him may help to reduce future disruption. AdjustShift (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As indeed it has done. Really Rocky, don't go dragging me into this, I merely opine, as do you. Hopefully one day BrownhairedGirl's behaviour will be looked at by the Arbcom. Giano (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Way to taint fresh eyes RP. --Vintagekits (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on, guys. I'm just telling it like it is. Both know that a new admin unblocking like this is like a lamb to the slaughter should the blocking admin choose to make an issue of it (and, lets be honest here, if AdjustShift had unilaterally taken action that either of you disapproved of you would be calling for his rookie head right now yourselves). AdjustShift is trying to do the right thing, but he deserves to know what he has stumbled into. Rockpock  e  t  22:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No you are not - you are trying to taint a fresh pair of eyes. You certainly havent a clean slate when it comes to this subject and you dare to come here and try and blacken peoples names!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm purposefully staying out of this, Vk, beyond trying to help AdjustShift avoid the inevitable shitstorm. Before trying to lump me in with Kb and BHG on conspiracy charges, please do some research. I too have expressed concern with the naming convention that they prefer so am hardly against you on this one.  Rockpock  e  t  22:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wheel warring is always a spectacularly bad decision. An admin, but especially a new admin, unblocking without discussion probably shouldn't have gotten the bit in the first place. If you don't know that it's a drama magnet then you aren't experienced enough to be an admin, and if you do, then your doing it in spite of that knowledge. This has nothing to do with whether the original block was good or bad. It has everything to do with your comportment as an administrator. I really do hope it blows over. Do you have any idea how much time we waste dealing not with vandals and content disputes, but with the mess caused by admins as a side result arguing with each other because one decided to act unilaterally to undo another's action? You should have sought consensus for unblocking. What part of the boldfaced sentence at Wheel war is giving you trouble.—70.19.69.27 (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I didn't unblocked Vk without any discussion. I discussed with editors at ANI. Giano supported the unblock request. That was one of the reasons why I unblocked VK. I made a blunder by not consulting with the blocking admin (Mangojuice), and not analyzing the case better. I will try to analyze the future cases better, and talk with fellow admins before making any decision. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth I think you made a good unblock and showed qualities of being able to think for yourself and not the sheep mentality that a lot of admins have here. BigDunc  Talk 13:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, BigDunc. AdjustShift (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Your question
Yes, it would probably be fair use, but I'm not an image expert, and fair use is often challenged. Good luck. :-) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

South Korea is NOT a developed country
Dear Sir/Madam,

I just now checked with the CIA World Factbook on the page https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html. South Korea is NOT a developed country. It is an advanced economy. Japan is the only developed and industrialized country in East Asia. There are few other Newly industriallized countries (this category comes under advanced developing countries) in Asia namely China, and India.

Please look up yourself and verify the sources. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svr014 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ismail Shammout
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.
 * Replied. AdjustShift (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, my bad. Hook's been approved. :) Carpet Crawler  message me  06:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've unapproved it again, as I have doubts about saying that an artwork has "iconic status." Can you please respond on Template_talk:Did_you_know? --Orlady (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thank You

 * You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to comment on my talk page
Thanks for your expression of confidence -- and thanks for your contribution of Ismail Shammout (soon to be at DYK). --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User:76.15.135.44
We've had a message in at 2959189 concerning your block of this user. So that I can reply to him and clarify the reasoning for the block, I would be grateful if you could explain why you felt this series of edits warranted a level 4 vandalism warning to a previously-unwarned user. I would agree that his action subsequent to the warning diff removed a maintenance template without addressing the issue, but I would just like to clarify why you felt his actions deserved a block. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have seen IPs getting away after repeatedly making unconstructive edits. If I see IPs making two or three unconstructive edits, I tend to block them for 24-48 hours. I block the IP because it seemed that his edits were not constructive. The IP could have made an unblock request. I have unblocked the IP. If it makes unconstructive edits, it can be blocked again. AdjustShift (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Like DGG, I find the fences you've set up on your talkpage quite intimidating. :-) I hope you read my reply here. I have unblocked the IP, so we can move on. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Note
I've generated a report here for you. Regards.  Syn  ergy 12:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Synergy. AdjustShift (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:198.146.33.10
You blocked this user but he/she is using their talk page to vandalize (copy-pasting text from websites, removing warnings). I tried to request protection at a noticeboard but my request was removed I don't know why. Thanks Amplitude101 (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for informing me. I've reblocked the IP with a new setting; now the IP can't edit his/her talkpage. AdjustShift (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Adminship
Thanks for the offer! I guess I'll run again after I follow up on the concerns that were brought up on my RfA and get a better grasp on policy. Do you have any suggestions for me right now? Thanks,  - down  load  ׀  sign!  00:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any suggestions right now; you should keep on contributing positively, and get a better grasp on policy. AdjustShift (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Increbibles Changes
I removed the reference in Critics section of The Incredibles article because it didn't mention the claim it was supposedly supporting. Read my comment in the FF Controversy section of the discussion page for more information. 24.225.106.239 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC).
 * When you are erasing any references, please provide your rationale in the edit summary. AdjustShift (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar
A belated thanks for the barnstar, AdjustShift. It's nice to be appreciated. I hope this doesn't commit me to a steady diet of DYK reviews from now on!

By way of explaining my belatedness, as a general rule, I'd rather do useful stuff with my limited time -- rather than converse about things like barnstars -- and my time here has actually been pretty limited since you sent it. --Orlady (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied. AdjustShift (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As Orlady said many thanks for your kind barnstar. It means a lot to be appreciated. Regards! Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Block of User:BUCHANKO
You blocked BUCHANKO indefinitely and s/he is requesting an unblock. I don't see any contribs between your warning and block, other than his/her attempt to ask you a question. Am I missing something? Thanks, -- auburn pilot  talk  20:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. He created Buchanko (see deleted contributions). After I deleted it twice, I asked him to not to create such articles, and ask me questions. He asked two questions: . It is pretty obvious that he is here to create disruptions. His edits were not positive, and his questions were trollish. You can unblock him, and ask him to not to be disruptive. If he continues to disruptive WP, he can be reblocked. AdjustShift (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your warning and his second creation of the page were within 30 seconds of each other, meaning he very likely had not received the warning prior to recreating the page. The page appears to be a poor attempt at creating an article about himself or some other non-notable entity and not vandalism, disruption, or nonsense. I also see nothing trollish about his attempts to ask you why you deleted the page. In the future, please attempt to assume that others are acting with good intentions and try not to bite the newcomers. Educating a new user is much more productive that greeting them with a threat that they will be blocked; that should be the last resort. I've unblocked. -- auburn pilot  talk  05:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Educating a new user is much more productive, but BUCHANKO doesn't seems to be a productive editor. How is creating a page like this not causing disruption? He didn't ask me why I deleted the page. His first question was "Questions? yeah... only one... why? =.=". His second question was "== So i asked you a quetsion =.= == Why? where's teh answer?". His questions has nothing to do with why I deleted the page. If he were to ask me, why did I deleted the page, I would have explain him the reason. None of his edits were positive. Even if one of his edits were productive, I won't have blocked him. I do my best to not to bite the newcomers, but I strongly don't believe in feeding the trolls.
 * I don't object you decision to unblock him. If he continues to create inappropriate pages, we can reblock him. AdjustShift (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no need to draw this out, but there was absolutely nothing disruptive about this user's actions. New users create pages about themselves so often that we even have a standardized warning to match the issue: uw-create1. They should not be met with a threat that they will be blocked, but a note explaining why their article was/will be deleted and how to constructively contribute new content.
 * As for his comments on your page, they were poorly formatted but fairly typical for a new user who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's processes. You left the comment "If you have any questions, please ask me" and he responded "Questions? yeah... only one... why?". How is that trolling? Hell, a quick google search for his username turns up a 17 year old Buchanko who is interested in learning flash and breakdancing (exactly what his attempted article stated). I apologize if any of this comes off as condescending, but blocking is the ultimate off switch. It turns somebody off to this project quicker than anything else and should be used with care. -- auburn pilot  talk  16:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I misread the question. If he would have asked, "why did you deleted my new article?", I would have explained him the reason. I do my best to not to block good-faith editors. You have been an admin since March 2007, so you are a more experienced admin than me. Your explanation was useful. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Rohit Sharma
Actually he did take a hattrick, although the wickets were more through slogging by the batsman in the death overs than bowling skill  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for informing me about Rohit Sharma's hat-trick, YellowMonkey. Yesterday, Yuvraj took his second hat-trick; it seems anyone can take hat-tricks in T20. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. They were in the 16/17th over or so when they had slog everything. First ball, Abhishek Nayar walked across the stumps and tried to paddle sweep. Bowled leg stump. Next, Harbhajan went for a booming off-drive for six first ball - inside edge bowled. Then Duminy went for a sweep, caught behind off a leg side wide. All the balls were either wides, half volleys. None of them looped, spun or drifted.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 06:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In Test matches and ODIs, taking a hat-trick is a big achievement. Wasim Akram took two hat-tricks each in Test matches and ODIs. He was a truly great bowler. Now, we have T20 were even the likes of Rohit Sharma can take hat-tricks. I didn't saw that match where Sharma took his hat-trick. When I read that Sharma took a hat-trick, I thought that it was a hoax posted by a mischievous individual. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

SPI
Are you still working on the Molobo case at SPI? You left a note that you were analysing it about 5 days ago, so if you could provide an update (or indicate that you can't get to it, which is no problem) that'd be great. Thanks, Nathan  T 00:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep! I'll provide an update. AdjustShift (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam


FlyingToaster Barnstar Hello AdjustShift! Thank you so much for your support in my  recent RfA , which passed with a tally of 126 / 32 / 5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust.  Flying Toaster 
 * You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by Abecedare
Dear Sir,

A user of WP named 'Abecedare' removed the message I posted a day ago in the article 'India'. Please reinstate the information. Please issue warning to Abecedare.

Thanks, Svr014 Svr014 (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I will analyze this. AdjustShift (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I analyzed the issue and here is my conclusion. AdjustShift (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is very imperative on your part (Abecedare) not to 'negate' important addendums made by others. There is no need for any consensus. Obedience and respect is what is required by you (Abecedare). Look at the introduction paragraphs of the country South Korea. It mentions that South Korea is a member of United Nations, WTO, OECD, and G-20 (major economies). Likewise, I want to mark India which is a country in South Asia. India is member of UN, WTO, and G-20 (major economies). All scholars in the US know that not all information posted on WP can be trusted for obvious reasons. Please don't try to teach me some information. Thanks for your time. Svr014 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.

That edit I made many days ago was a minor edit. Just a sentence was added. Thanks and have a nice day...Svr014 (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.

Ashkenazi Jews
Hello everyone I'm Passee, and I added some images on the "Ashkenazi Jews" page, which I hope you are alright with. If you would to discuss them, please say so! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passee (talk • contribs) 09:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

re spi
Since I opened the case, I felt somehow responsible to add Peterlewis and leave him a notice when Dapi89 posted that he suspected him to be the same user. I never had any interaction with Peterlewis and would not have suspected him to be involved. I just felt obliged to name him as "suspected" after he eventually was suspected - primarily to make sure Peterlewis knows. When I was subject to a checkuser case, not knowing that I was named bothered me much more than being named. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence against Peterlewis. If no evidence is presented before May 24, I won't take any actions against Peterlewis. AdjustShift (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Rugbymania
I'm sorry if you aren't the right guy to write, but I don't know where and to who write. I'm a italian user that sometimes adding the link in english voice to italian twin page. Some week ago i create a page in italian wikipedia for a on-line game (Rugbymania) because i have seen that on wikipedia there are page to other game of same kind, and i know this game I play. When I had finished to translate my Italian page I created the page in english wikipedia but now I see that It was be cancelled. I write you because I found a notice that said I can ask to an admin news about it... I would an e-mail with the page (if it's possible...but I read that it's possible) and I also want understand why the page was be deleted. I write it because I have found page like Hattrick, Football Manager Live, Goal Line Blitz or Blood Wars, Hattrick, Ogame, Pardus, Travian, Twin Skies and Urbandead.I thought that I could write a similar page...what differenze are there among this page?thank you very much for you time an sorry for my bad english.--Cenzin (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted because it doesn't meet our WP standard. I'm busy with another complex case, at the movement; so you can contact other admins. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks--Cenzin (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

 * You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Email
Relpied  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo
You are a CU clerk. But, please understand that I've analyzed this case for the past 20 days. How can a clerk close this case if he doesn't have an extensive knowledge about the wiki-history of Molobo? The secret evidences are very strong. You can ask Avraham if you like. If clerks can let me handle this case, I will close the case before 6:00 UTC on 30 May. I have a clear idea about how to conclude the case. It might have been better if I was allowed to handle this case. If I could have done nothing by the time I mentioned above, you guys could have taken the case. AdjustShift (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Two things to note, at this point I think it is best to leave this up to a checkuser to do the investigation and the closing, which I believe Avraham is doing currently. Secondly the case has gone wildly off track, with lots of drama, arguments and has dragged on for more then 3 weeks now. My advice to you as a fellow admin is to try doing a few less complex cases first, and leave this particular one to a checkuser. Most cases on WP:SPI can be done as a WP:DUCK case, and should take no more then 15 to 30 minutes of analysis. ——  nix eagle email me 17:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a general analysis. Do you know why the case went wildly off track, with lots of drama? Some Eastern European editors didn't discuss the case; they were busy fighting with each other. It turned into a mini Eastern European fight. I expected them to behave better than they did. For the past three weeks, I analyzed this SPI case, the off-wiki evidences; the past disputes where Molobo was involved, and the editing patterns of Molobo and Gwinndeith. I also talked with an ArbCom member and a CU. I was supposed to close the case on 29 May. Today, I would have posted the off-wiki evidences and ask the community to analyzed it. If I was allowed to handle this case, without any interference by the clerks, I would have finished this case by 29 May or before 6:00 UTC on 30 May. AdjustShift (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not advise, that you take action on this case. I feel you are a bit too involved, and we are going to let an spi admin, or another admin who is unrelated handle it.  Sy  n 18:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bit too involved? About 20 days ago, I was a neutral admin. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just work with Avraham on the final call, your analysis isn't wasted - we just needed to get the case back in hand. Nathan  T 18:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Nathan. AdjustShift (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to post the private evidence (provided whoever provided it is ok with it (you do need their permission to post it to the site as they will need to license it to GFDL.) you may do so.) The problem here is this case has gone on so long and yes editors got into a fight which did not involve the case (which is why some of the clerks put that stuff in collapse boxes). Please do work with the checkusers, any case closing should be clear to all why the case closed with the result it closes with, and the evidence used should be clear/easy to follow. Next time just copy the whole response over to my talk page to save trouble :). ——  nix eagle email me 19:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, editors fight. But, these Eastern European editors, they fight whenever they get a chance. See Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes. I had a headache when I read that ArbCom case. I expected them to behave properly, but they didn't. I'll work with the CUs. AdjustShift (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So you understand and for future reference on SPI, admins generally don't reserve cases, we sometimes stick a note on them saying we intend to close in a day or so, but no longer then that. Additionally all behavior evidence should end up on the case page, if there is not enough evidence for an admin to do something, but there is enough to raise suspicion, we call on checkusers. Generally if a case takes longer then 7 days to close, its probably not being handled in the best manner, or the evidence provided is not strong enough for an admin to do a WP:DUCK block. In the future if you cannot complete a case in a day or less, that usually means you should investigate, and report your findings and allow others to build on what you have found. (I have done this several times myself).
 * When you close the case, be sure to clearly explain all the evidence you used in forming your opinion. Try to stay away from "after private discussions with XXX". Generally the only private evidence on SPI cases is the exact technical details of the checkuser results, but the checkusers often try to shed light on what relations exist (eg "editing from 2 ranges, one mobile one home based"). ——  nix eagle email me 19:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the very nice T-shirt, which I will treasure. :-) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)