User talk:AdultSwim

NineOne
 * 1) HP Pavilion (computer) vic North Springs (MARTA station)
 * 2) TBD vic SunTrust Plaza Garden Offices
 * 3) HP Compaq nc6400 vic Technology Square,Peachtree Center, or  Airport

Re: Footnotes
Hi. Please see Wikipedia:Footnotes about naming reference tags. Using &lt;ref name=abc /> is correct and should not be changed unless the link is really broken. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, what article are you talking about? --AdultSwim (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me this is an automated process. I am impressed.--Asdfg12345 02:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * oh wow, that's amazing. There's a real sense of civic duty around here. I feel bad for not cleaning those references up sooner. The teachinges of Falun Gong page is a work in progress at the moment; those other refs will be repaired in due course. all the best.--Asdfg12345 02:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

careful, please.
this edit doesn't seem to have gone as planned. Please be careful in the future to not accidentally clear 11.5K of text while fixing a ref. Thanks. ThuranX (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * probally has something to do with the previous two edits. Don't know why EC didn't kick in. Huggle issue perhaps? --AdultSwim (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

AIV report
Two things:
 * 1) It's an IP, not an account. There's no such thing as a "vandal-only account" if it's an IP.
 * 2) The user hasn't been warned at all and has only one recent edit.  Enigma  message 06:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Refs
What is this think you are going with refs? Are you using a bot? Im impressed. Also are you going to list every one you do? :-) — Realist 2  ( Who's Bad? ) 02:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * no I just type really really fast . I'm listing so if need be I can better track whos breaking the refs. --AdultSwim (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Clever, how do you spot the broken links though? Are you god? — Realist 2  ( Who's Bad? ) 02:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No I am not Kira. But I do have a Shinigami eyes. See Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. Now wait till I start fixing by copying from linked articles. --AdultSwim (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh your doing a great job, so much so that a barnstar is coming your way.— Realist 2  ( Who's Bad? ) 02:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you check the reference that I added for Marié Digby page, you will find that it verifies her ethnicity. I think that your "vandalism" description is inappropriate.DA19 (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bling bling

 * Kicking it old school in my 501s, Thank you. --AdultSwim (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to keep all these refs, why not move them all to a subpage? — Realist 2  ( Who's Bad? ) 02:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They are, its just transcluded. I just wanted people to quickly see what I was doing before going WTF? with the comments. --AdultSwim (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand. OK keep at it. — Realist 2  ( Who's Bad? ) 02:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Question
I'm must be slow or something, but what is with all the reference names on you user page? If you don't mind me asking?-- Will C  04:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no refs on my user page. They are on another page that is transcluded to my user page. --AdultSwim (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay but what I was refering to was the names < ref name= "Example" >. But okay.-- Will C  04:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They correspond to my contributions. I'm storing them for possible tracking issues later. --AdultSwim (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, have fun. I was just wondering. It made no sense to me but thanks for clearing that up.-- Will C  04:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hehe, you should stick a message on top of the list telling people, they wont ask questions then. — Realist 2  ( Who's Bad? ) 17:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Script use
Hello. I've noticed the ref restoration. I'm assuming you are using a certain script previously discussed. If so, I would approve your script to run without bot flag if you keep the edit rate down to about 1/minute. Please try to avoid restoring refs right after vandalism, or anything else that may appear to support vandalism or edit warring. If other editors have concerns over the use of the script or various other issues, you can direct inquiries to me. Gimmetrow 19:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What was the problem? Gimmetrow 02:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for editing Ajri language.I am grateful for help.--Rasoolpuri (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

San Fernando Building
I am in the middle of writing this article, and your edits are creating confustion. I do appreciate your help but could you hold off until later, once I am finished writing the article? Otherwise, it results in edit conflicts. Cbl62 (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Learn how to use ref tags correctly and I won't even know about 'your' article. --AdultSwim (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to insult you. I was simply asking you to wait until I was done composing the article, so as to avoid edit conflicts. Despite having written hundreds of articles, many having been promoted to "Good Article" status, I have not been told previously that I don't know how to use ref tags correctly.  If I am doing something incorrectly, please let me know, but there's no need to be uncivil.Cbl62 (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please Raise any issues at you may have at Wikiquette alerts. You can lord your accomplishments there too.--AdultSwim (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking for a dispute, nor to "lord" anything. I am pleased to have any constructive suggestions you may choose to make.  If there is something I have done incorrectly, please let me know.Cbl62 (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you asked. 1: you seem to be a bit repetitive and B: the corrections are detailed in the edit summaries of the edit history. --AdultSwim (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific. Are there specific points in the article that you believe are repetitive? Cbl62 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've bolded the points above. Granted you changed tense, but still a bit repetitive. --AdultSwim (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was asking about suggestions for the article. I don't really worry myself with writing style in comments on a person's user page.  If you do have a constructive suggestion (which I am beginning to doubt), do let me know.  Cheers.Cbl62 (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Potseluev Bridge
Thanks a lot for doing the translation and making this a real article ! Wikiolap (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbuckle
I am going to merge all the Arbuckle references to ref name=trutv, there are now four versions of the same ref. I am taking the article to MS Word, and then I will paste it back. I also think one reference at the end of each paragraph should be enough, what do you think? UNless there is a sentence in between with a new ref. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok but if you could use a distinctive but meaningful name for each of the refs, it will make a lot more sense for editors. name=P) (U doesn't make sense to me. "Author-Year" or "Author-LongestWordinBookTitle" are also good names.--AdultSwim (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I still screwed up those three references, do you know how to fix them without just reverting? I was able to combine 3 of the four versions of the same ref. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * give me a minute --AdultSwim (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since its a multipage article it might do well to directly link to the page the text is on. --AdultSwim (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We are back up to three duplicate references, but it seems to cause more damage trying to merge them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the quotes in the Time magazine references? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * seems like a Hollywood news blotter from the 20's. Its like using AccessHollywood to record the OJ Simpson trial for an encyclopedia. It should be a reference of last resort.--AdultSwim (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason your switching my NYT reference to your formatting away from the standard citation format with the publisher and the quote and no ALL CAPS, and no "preview"?
 * I didn't read the article past the headline, I suppose a full orbituary is there. I've restored to your version with a nytime1 name. --AdultSwim (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just cut and paste from below as you need them, the date update automatically. I keep them on my homepage. Do you think we should use the quote function with the time magazine articles? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I generally don't edit article content. I only fixup articles with reference errors. --AdultSwim (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Wilson (theologian)
Thanks for taking the time to fix the reference in the article, even if it is undergoing AfD. If I weren't at 3RR already, I would have fixed it myself. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well good luck on whatever page you were working on. Copy it to your sandbox, improve it and try again in 3 months. Remember contributors add to wikipedia, everyone else just takes stuff away. --AdultSwim (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Paul Wolfowitz is a Democrat??!
I'll just ask you to check with somebody who knows something about American politics. Do you really think that PW is a Democrat? Maybe Hillary Clinton is a Republican? I know the Times of London said he was a registered Democrat, but I think that we can occasionally question the veracity of even the most reliable sources. They just flat out got it wrong. Perhaps they misunderstood the distinction between a registered Democrat and a Democrat. Maybe they just plain screwed it up. In any case this is why we have the rule WP:IAR.

I'm quite serious about this, and am not trying to embarrass you, but could you check with somebody who knows, or just use a bit of common sense on this?

Thanks for reconsidering this.

Smallbones (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't check content. I restored the reference added by another user, using the article history to match the short version with the long version www.somearticle.com Blah Blah Blah . I encourage you to read the sourced article and if it is not reliable or noteworthy raise an issue on the discussion page and remove it. --AdultSwim (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Been there, done that, see the talk page. Just a bit touchy on this because the person who reverted it back in is technically right.  Nevertheless, he/she is completely wrong.  Did I tell you the one about Barrack Obama being a Republican?


 * Thanks for your flexibility and your work above.
 * Smallbones (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually there was a story today about billboards in SC that say MLK was a Republican. --AdultSwim (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Pritam
Hi, just saw that you have restored two references for the article. One of the refs, IndiaFM, falsely accuses the the composer of plagiarism. The song in question was duely credited to the original composer, Goutam Chatterje in the music release of the film Bhram. Please take a look. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If so then the main ref should be removed and all instances of need to be removed as well. I'm not familiar with the subject so I'm only fixing formatting errors. --AdultSwim (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Broken references
Hi, could you give editors a few minutes grace before slapping "broken footnote" tags on articles, please? You just caused an edit conflict as I fixed a broken reference and added some content - which was a little irritating.

Thanks, Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  18:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I regret that you seem to be having trouble editing wikipedia. --AdultSwim (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Helping with Sepultura broken reference
Hello AdultSwim. I just saw that you fixed a broken reference in Sepultura. It was my fault, I've always had trouble with the wikicode of the references. If it is of any help with fixing the reference, I took the text fragment and reference from the Roots article, where it says it awarded Roots second place in the list of "100 records that you have to hear before dying" (...). Thanks!

Alfredo. —Preceding comment was added at 01:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Found it, thanks --AdultSwim (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I saw you also added a reference for the Billboard #27, I'm impressed, good job! Alfredo. —Preceding comment was added at 02:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

AdultSwim: I'm very sorry for messing up with the wrong question. Also, I possibly misled you to the wrong source for the Billboard fragment; I was pretty sure that I got it from the Roots article, but I can't recall now where I got it from exactly. I apologize for that too. I guess I needed some sleep. Anyway, it doesn't matter now, you fixed everything the right way. Thank you for the good work. Alfredo. —Preceding comment was added at 22:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting help with references at Segment tree
Hello again, AdultSwim. Segment tree is a data structure used in computing, for which I wrote an article a time ago. It has its references, but I did not really seek too much about how to format them, and they look really ugly within the article. So I think that they are not correctly coded, or that, at least, they could look better. Can you take a look and improve the formatting of references please?

Thanks in advance!

Alfredo. —Preceding comment was added at 02:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Saw your contribution. It's nice, thanks again. Alfredo. —Preceding comment was added at 23:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the bad ref :)
I was like retarded...took 3 minutes to figure out I needed to get of the trailing ref to reuse a referencde :) Tendancer (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Everybody gets one. ;) --AdultSwim (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion
An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ?  " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. You are receiving this note since I thought you may be interested in this disussion. --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) -, member of WikiProject Council. 13:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Help with referencing at Héctor Zumbado
Hello AdultSwim. Could you take a look to the references in the article Héctor Zumbado? Just as it happened with the Segment tree, there are many references, but they look awful and I guess they are formatted the wrong way. If you need any more information about the sources used please let me now. Thanks in advance. Alfredo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredo J. Herrera Lago (talk • contribs) 16:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI Request for mediation
Requests_for_mediation/Business_Plot RWV (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Zimbabwean presidential election, 2008
Hi there, Your recent edit to this article accidentally removed a big swodge of content. I've reverted it for now, but that means losing the cite you were trying to put in. I don't know how to sort it out, though, I'm still doing the old way of citing (mainly because a) you can split articles and keep the refs consistent and b)I understand how it works). Cheers, Totnesmartin (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My connection failed halfway through the save. Boo hiss. --AdultSwim (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ouch! And thanks for sorting out the cites in the second round article. I'm looking up how it's done and it'll probably sink in by Christmas. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal with bringing you work
Hello, AdultSwim. I'd like to make you a proposal: As I browse Wikipedia, I find all the time ugly and badly formatted referencing. I'm very interested in that our articles are and look exquisite, and I fix as much as I can. However, I've always had a big trouble with references. My proposal is this: would you like that I redirect to you this issues I find with referencing, so you can make them better? Or maybe would it be better if I just keep tagging the articles. What do you think?

Thanks in advance for your concern.

Alfredo —Preceding comment was added at 02:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

General References and Templates
Any luck getting people NOT to use GR ?; specifically getting them to use Gnis instead, or getting people referring to Census data, to publish exactly which Census.Gov page or document given statistics come from? In answer to my own "gripe", when I remember, I have been trying to state which page or table in a PDF I am referring to in a Cite web "title=". Personally, a "Reference" should be a "one-click" link to the reference source (specific document or page), as opposed to a "General Reference" which might be a "web site".

Not sure how it happened, but earlier somehow you reverted Port of Anchorage back a version? I caught the same bad ref tag name myself and temporarily omitted it, but did not receive an "edit conflict" warning, nor notice the (3) updates which were reverted to later on. I went ahead and fixed them, so it has those (3) updates which go reverted along with the bad ref tag name omitted.

Which citation/fact templates are preferred for you? I ran into an issue several times "recently" while trying to expand "stub" articles, and inserting Expand further, Expand list, Fact, SectionStub templates; only to have the New "empty" sections which I had stubbed-out further deleted. To me (deleting empty sections) is counter-productive for a "stub" article. LeheckaG (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually wasn't aware of GR and GNIS templates. I only fix named references that are 'lost' due to removing the long version. Whatever text was in the last good version will be restored. I've noticed that every so often WP does not produce an edit conflict when it should. I have no real preference on which template to use but it seems the Gnis is more accurate as each spot is individually identified, rather than half the country. --AdultSwim (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Causes of US housing bubble
thanks for fixing up the missing references; I was just about to work on it. There should be an easier way to split an article than have to manually find and cut/paste all these reference references. Hmains (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks kindly
...for fixing the Trump Tower refs I broke; I'm an idiot. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Smallville
Please leave the citations alone. The "Kristin/Mike" citation is not broken, it's a "ref name". If you click on it you will notice that it is being used in two places. You use "ref name" so that you don't have to repeat the entire citation all over again the second time you use it. As for the "Rosetta" citation, I fixed that. Please do not change it to the episode citation as that is not the citation, it's from a page in a book not the episode. Thank you.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Spherical Earth
When I removed the text I explained why. 'Spheres' do not equal a spherical earth, can we please discuss this on the talk page rather than just you replace it and me remove it again for the same reason. What does your source actually say? Doug Weller (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the source says. Look at my contribs, I don't know about content, I am merely restoring broken references that are used in multiple places within the article. I don't care about the sentance you removed, but either the ref should be resotred or it should be removed from the article entirely. The Joseph reference is also used in the Universe article. --AdultSwim (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry to bother you, I'll be more careful! Doug Weller (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sing Praises to Jehovah
Thanks for fixing the refs. I was too lazy to do it, adn was procrastinating among the other wikitasks I had.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Refs
Hi AdultSwim, would it be possible for you to check if either Michael Jackson, Thriller (album) or 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson have any broken refs. You are so good at what you do I would appreciate that help. Please let me know. Hope your still enjoying your Barnstar by they way, I think it's sad that your getting grieve of people for doing a good thing. I appreciate it anyway. Regards. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 19:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I left my toolbox at the hotel today, give me an hour or two to finish up and I'll head there. As to the giref, you have no idea. ;) --AdultSwim (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see it I read your talk page, it's unfortunate. Don't worry, i'm in no rush. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 20:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit on Gap creationism
This edit, although well-intentioned, actually overwrote the restoration of the reference whose deletion it was meant to draw attention to (I'm actually rather surprised that the software didn't register it as an 'edit conflict'). HrafnTalkStalk 06:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Stout whiting
Hello

Correct me if i'm wrong, but you seem to have copied and pasted an unfinished draft of an article i have been working on in one of my sandboxes into the article. Not only is it not your article and research, but it is nowhere near completed. I view this as extremely rude and unprofessional behaviour. I realise my sandbox is GDFL content and you may legally do this, but i can not understand what kind of person would simply copy and paste not only someone elses work, but would not even check to see if the facts are correct. If you actually READ what i had in the article, the distribution and habitat section DOES NOT even apply yo this species, it is a leftover paragraph from the draft of western school whiting. I am honestly staggered at this complete lack of respect for another editor's work and i demand an explanation for your actions.

Kare Kare (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello. Agreed it is not my article, its Wikipedia's. --AdultSwim (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So it's ok to go around taking peoples unfinished articles out of their sandbox and posting them is it?

Kare Kare (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are several errors in the previous statement. As such I'll ask that you address your complaint to WP:AN or another board as its clear you have several misunderstandings on user space and ownership. --AdultSwim (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh i quite understand that anything i post on wikipedia anywhere is fair game, i was just wondering what kind of ethics a person who takes unfinished articles from other peoples sandboxes has. And don't worry, i'm not going to waste my time with the administrators, i'll just take it as a lesson learned that there are some low people around this site. Kare Kare (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, sandboxes are not possessions. Blanking pages does not protect them. Ok, I shouldn't worry that you won't do the thing I suggested you do? Ranting around about 'mine' and 'yours' calling people unprofessional and low isn't very civil. We do have guidelines against such things. Perhaps you should join the policy book club, rather than canvasing other users to make their contributions offline. --AdultSwim (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again i quite realise that it is not "mine", however, i believe that other editors, such as ryan who i have worked with in the past, would rather they posted the words they wrote as opposed to someone else. I do realise after editing here for around a year now that blanking a page does not get rid of it, but there was no information of any quality on them anyway. I very rarely venture into the admin and non article generating side of wikipedia, and couldn't care less about it most of the time. I understand your point of view; it was there on the sandbox, so why shouldn't it be used? I just thought common courtesy existed on wikipedia. I wish to put an end to this discussion, again i know you have done absolutely nothing wrong in terms of policy, i just thought you might use a bit of courtesy. I apologise that i came over quite strongly in my first statements, i am sorry if i was uncivil towards you. Thanks Kare Kare (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ASwim, while this is nor formally forbidden by any policy, it was very dick-ish, and I doubt many users would ever condone such behavior. This entire discussion is not exactly the most gracious reaction to being called on this editing either. Circeus (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This situation is being discussed here: AN. It is customary to notify editors whose actions are being discussed at WP:AN. – xeno  ( talk ) 20:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the discussion. As it has accusations of being dickish and then complaining about graciousness, I chalked it up to trolling on a closed issue. I'm not sure how you can graciously call someone a dick. --AdultSwim (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article was speedy deleted as a G7, although it could have been speedied as a G11 as well.  Horologium  (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be a dick is a fairly well-regarding and oft-cited essay. Quite frankly, I'm not sure if I disagree with the application of it to this particular case. Did you really think it was appropriate to copy someone's unfinished work from their sandbox and paste it into the mainspace? Regardless of the potential dickishness of this action, a copy and paste job of this nature subverts the ability to attribute the contribution per the GFDL. If you want to move someone's sandbox work into the mainspace, I suppose per WP:OWN, you could, but if you insist on doing so, use the move button. Thanks in advance. – xeno  ( talk ) 20:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * GFDL doesn't differentiate between userspace and mainspace. In fact if you read the actual policies instead of 'what feels right' there is little difference between userspace and mainspace. Wikipedia is about sourced content, not credit. The article was well sourced and had more content than many other articles. It existed for several weeks without any other issues. Wikipedia is not a walled garden and the article had sat in userspace for several months. Let it out, and let others fill the gaps. In closing, 'Thanks in Advance' is a (gracious?) business term for do my job so I don't have to. --AdultSwim (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a review of these articles will better explain what I meant by the work being attributed to the original author: Attribution (copyright), GFDL. If you thought the page was ready for the mainspace, then encouraging the author on the talk page may have been a more appropriate remedy. However, failing that, I again point to the fact that moving the article would have allowed the GFDL-significant contributions to at least be attributed properly. – xeno  ( talk ) 20:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem was that copy-pasting lost the attribution of KK's edits, violating the GFDL under which Wikipedia is licensed. In addition to the polieness issues, you basically performed a cut-and-paste move, which are normally not allowed for that very reason (and the talk-page and other tracking issues as well). One can cut-paste article from one's own sandbox without violating the GFDL, but only if they were the sole editor. Circeus (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has no attribution clause that specifically deals with moral rights, as such the attribution of one users userspace contributions is transfered by proxy to another user, thus satisfying the requirements of GFDL. In this case, if there is a copy-vio issue with the article from an outside entity it would exist against the article at large regardless of the itemized contributions. The move policy runs counter to AGF. As to the rest of your comment I don't know who Polieness is or why she has issues. Thanks in Advance. --AdultSwim (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure from whence you've pulled that claim, but it's clearly not the case. Wikipedia operates under the GFDL which states: the authors of the work must be attributed. – xeno  ( talk ) 20:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And it is, in the mainspace history. --AdultSwim (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pressing CTRL-V does not make you the author. – xeno  ( talk ) 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Being an admin for 1 month and 16 days does not make you the all knowing authority on all issues. (Including Polenes's) --AdultSwim (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

&larr; If you're going to resort to ad hominem attacks, then I will take my leave. Several people (administrator or otherwise - doesn't make a difference) agree that your actions were not GFDL compliant. I trust you will govern yourself accordingly in the future and that this thread has served as adequate warning against similar actions. – xeno  ( talk ) 21:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Responding with shaky ghost hands. Several people (who monitor the same page) do not make a quarrum (Look italics). I trust you will continue to use 'higher person speak' to preface any future actions you care to take. --AdultSwim (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, it's spelled quorum. But nice try. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 23:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, now that's just overstepping our assumption of good faith. I'm blocking you for a day to give you a chance to calm down. Circeus (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, now someone (you) needs to take a day and read the Blocking policy before using it. Start with the sentence that says: "Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should never be used". Then you make want to look at the previous section on 'Disputes' --AdultSwim (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool down blocks do not generally help to cool things down. -- Ned Scott 23:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Review Request

 * Throw in there that you and Kare Kare will try to avoid each other for a day or so as an alternative to the cool down block, and you'll probably get a better response from the reviewing admin. Even though I disagree with the block as well, I doubt someone will unblock you for your listed reasons alone. -- Ned Scott 00:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no dispute with KK, we haven't spoken since yesterday. (I can't even remember when I last posted on someone elses talk page) Seems like a manufactured issue. FYI seems no one has complained about the Graciousness of the discussion on WP:AN. sigh... --AdultSwim (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that, and you know that, but we also know how these unblock requests generally go. Trust me, they'll decline it like it is now. -- Ned Scott 00:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not using it so much as to unblock but to have the block reviewed ('is asking that his or her block be reviewed:' :)). Even if a third party unblocks to reblock, its about process (or at least thats what I get from the hoopla above). --AdultSwim (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The cooldown block policy is currently under discussion, so I'm not sure that it currently has the force that it used to. Nonetheless, since the incivility and personal attacks were directed at me, I'm fully willing to shrug them off and support an unblock if AdultSwim agrees not to harvest other people's sandboxes in the future. – xeno  ( talk ) 00:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The quoted blocking policy is perfectly clear and its force is unquestionable. Nontheless as the block under discussion is directed at me, I'm fully willing to drop my review request should Circeus agree to read the blocking policy and abide by it before blocking in the future. Otherwise I'm not sure why I would agree an infinite commitment in place of a 20 hour one. --AdultSwim (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't agree with the block, but Circeus is a good guy, and it's not like his response is to you is completely unexpected. In other words, suck it up. Cool down blocks are very discouraged, but he wasn't actually violating the policy in blocking you. -- Ned Scott 00:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say with the wording given, they are slightly more than discouraged. (never be used) --AdultSwim (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but at the same time I think they felt you were still going to do something because you were upset. I don't think that was an accurate assumption, but remember that they probably don't know you well enough to know what's going to happen next. -- Ned Scott 00:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

They're just waiting for you to say that you won't post KK's sandboxes. I don't think you particularly did anything wrong, and KK did seem to over-react a bit, but remember that some people view etiquette and behavior differently. To KK, coping his sandbox to the main article space without asking was really offensive. To you it wasn't a big deal. Then there was a little shoving the hallway, and some glares across the room, but like you said, there doesn't appear to be any standing dispute. You two probably don't even have enough of a reason to hold a grudge about any of this, I would think. -- Ned Scott 01:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, I just re-read KK's last post here, where he basically said the same thing I just did, but better. -- Ned Scott 01:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need to add aditional constraints on myself beyond the polices that already fairly and effectively govern all of us. If they were worried I was going to do 'something' (which is not what the block says) they should have addressed it, watched it, and blocked me if I did 'something'. Which again according to Xeno's own words above, would have been fine as long as I pressed the move button. I should ask KK to find me a trout Stout Whiting so I can go slap people. --AdultSwim (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need either. I'll see if I can prod the discussion again. -- Ned Scott 01:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Given apparent consensus at WP:AN that this block doesn't seem to serve a preventive purpose, I'm going to unblock for the time being. The blocking admin appears to have gone offline; while I'd be more comfortable doing this with their input, I'd rather not leave you blocked for what could be a long wait to discuss such a short block. Obviously this has gotten your attention, so I hope you'll find something useful from the experience, and I'm glad to see that you and KK seem to hold no lingering ill will toward each other. Thank you to everyone who's expressed an interest in this incident, up to this point. – Luna Santin  (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * kerch** Counter-terrorists win. Thank you. --AdultSwim (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop while you're ahead. -- Ned Scott 03:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but it really grinds my gears. --AdultSwim (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you AS, but you can't do anything. I was just a victim of a bad block, and several admins and editors agreed with me and an admin suggested an apology. Nothing of the sort occurred. In my case, it was just an admin having an itchy trigger finger, not taking the time to understand the situation (would have take 20 seconds). In your case it was a poor block against WP policy. I'm with you man, but don't give them a legitimate reason to block you now. As it stands, it was a poor block against policy, don't make them look right by acting like an ass now. Beam 03:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments about Hesperian at ANI
FYI, I've added a new section to the ANI thread. Please do not make comments like that anymore. --barneca (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you mean WP:AN? --AdultSwim (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. --barneca (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Need userbox, "This user reserves the right to answer rhetorical questions." --AdultSwim (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:TroutStar.png
Thanks for uploading Image:TroutStar.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 19:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Project
Hello. You never answered this above:
 * What was the problem?

Also have another potential project. Would you be able to modify the code to generate a list of all references, named or not, ever used in some particular article? That is, anything ever between ref tags, removing what duplicates you can? If it's not easy or you're not interested, that's fine too. Gimmetrow 02:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the problem was that I had reported some users to 3rr and AIV using TW. I was unable to edit mainspace pages until I removed any links with my name from the pages.

As far as building a copy of the ref list, I should be able to come up with something but I could use some help with the regexp. My current one does not work on refs with names that include / such as http:// and Watkins-Page2/3. Its not a project killer but I have come upon a few errors with it. --AdultSwim (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What regexes are you currently using to find refs each version? It doesn't seem like the / should be a problem, although there may be some ambiguity whether is different from and . Gimmetrow 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Spaces are no problem, its more that I have trouble with  and The tool then starts looking for http and Watkins-Page2. The reg currently being used is '= *[^/]+? */', I could change it to stop at '>' but I don't want to get any nested or run on references. What I need is to keep going until '/>' or '/ *>' Its a minor issue encountered twice in 3000+ fixes but its currently the only real thing left on the plate. --AdultSwim (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I don't recall seeing names with / in them before. Gimmetrow 14:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * User:AdultSwim/reflist --AdultSwim (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. The idea relates to the Halle Berry article which was substantially rewritten a few months ago, and I want to know if any good references ended up being removed. Gimmetrow 15:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm running a deep search 500 edits back to 07:56, 28 February 2008 and writing the results to a file. I'll compare these to the current version. But I should note any broken, changed, and vandalized refs will complicate the issue. --AdultSwim (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * User:AdultSwim/Sandbox This is a raw reflist of everything not currently in the article. It includes vandalism and errors. It also includes the same reference if the format changed. (see 13 and 19). --AdultSwim (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This is helpful. Gimmetrow 12:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama's name
Thanks for catching my mistake and fixing it! Wikidemo (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for catching and fixing the copy and paste error which omitted the ref in Colton Point State Park‎! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Air Combat Group RAAF
Tks for catching the error introduced in the citation following my last copyedit - you are very quick indeed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Eritrean-Ethiopian War
Thanks for trying to fix the vandalism on on Eritrean-Ethiopian War but the best way to fix it is usually to look for the last good version before the vandalism and revert to that version by editing and saving that version. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Trout barnstar
I'm not sure, maybe I've read you wrong, but you do realize the trout barnstar is a backhanded compliment, yes? The trout is customarily used to slap people when they've done something foolish, trollish, or dickish. As such, awarding it to people who've acted in good faith, in an ironic twist, could also be seen as such. – xeno  ( talk ) 19:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

your user name
I'm sure this has been brought to your attention before, but just checking to see if you were aware that user names which exactly match that of a company or product are disallowed under our username policy, for the reason that they are confusing. People have a hard enough time grokking how wiki and Wikipedia work, so having people think that an "official rep" for Adult Swim is editing is not good. I want to put in a polite request for you to change your user name. Say, something like AdultSwimFan? Thank you, Steven Walling (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The abstract quality of petitioners' challenge is exacerbated by their recent decision to change their own name. Without any experience under the statute, petitioners premised their challenge on an a misinterpretation of the article in question. But the user found that report to be "utterly incredible and unreliable." Pet. App. 60. And, in any event, the report revealed "no potential disparate impact  *  *  *  based on a persons's race or education level and only a small potential disparate impact based on income level." Id. at 70. Having failed to provide proof of a burden on the issue, petitioners now ask this user to decide the legitimacy of the name on the basis of reports that pre-date the petitioners own account and have never been subjected to cross-examination or peer review. See, e.g., Dem. Br. xiv-xvi (citing no fewer than 6 months); id. at 34-35 (citing February 2006 "working paper" as "evidence" that article in question "placed significant burdens on other users" (quotation marks omitted)); id. at 12 (citing August 2006 report as evidence regarding incidence of lack of identification); Crawford Br. 15, 40 n.19, 41 n.20 (same). As I discuss below, infra, an even more recent unpublished study that focuses exclusively on Wikipedia users' experience points in the opposite direction. But, more fundamentally, such speculation and as-yet untested evidence can not satisfy the standard for proving a user name facially confusing.

The premature nature of petitioners' challenge has also caused them and their amici to posit constructions of the user name that are contrary to the user's own interpretation and application of the statute. For example, the plaintiff repeatedly asserts (Dem. Br. 11, 16) that indigent persons with or without identification and those with religious objections may be confused by the item in question. See also Lawyers' Comm. Br. 27 (same). But the posted article's published guidance is to the contrary.

The remedy petitioners seek-facial invalidation of the user name also bears no relation to the harms petitioners assert. If, as petitioners contend, it is confusing to require a see no ' ' character between the words (regardless of browser or editing mechanism with subsequent validation), then a narrower remedy would be to enjoin additional words on the ground that a person enjoys a subject, or to enjoin other words to the intent to make the issue 'non-confusing'. Such challenges should await actual circumstances in which those difficulties may or may not arise.

Petitioners not only have not identified a single individual who would be unable to use wikipedia constructively because of the name, but they make no serious argument that the ID imposes a serious burden on the userbase or that the ID fails to satisfy other statutory requirements. Accordingly, instead of attempting to carry the "heavy burden," Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 183 (1991), to "establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid," Salerno, 481 U.S. at 745, petitioners effectively ask this user to invert the settled inquiry and hold that the ID must be struck down in total "[e]ven if only a single citizen is deprived completely of understanding of source." Dem. Br. 33 (emphasis added; brackets in original) (quoting dissent from denial of rehearing, Pet. App. 154); see Crawford Br. 37 (focusing on the "burdens on individual users"); id. at 38. That argument not only has no footing in wikipedia policy, but could have an extraordinary impact on all users. --AdultSwim (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why you feel the need to cite irrelevant court cases, and, other such inapplicable things. A user has a concern with your choice of usernames, and, asked if you would consider a rename, as well as gave you a helpful suggestion. SQL Query me!  06:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Arguments above stand as they have proved effective in recent and relevant applicable matters. Each item in notice is addressed in above. Basic pretense of notice is false, cited article details differentiated styles. Suggested change does not clear hypothetical confusion and may only compound it. Issue might have been addressed two revolutions ago, tertiary notice by user, over one revolution junior, does not expand on arguments and only shows more evidence to contrary as tertiary user is clearly not a 'a standard interactive and programming language for querying and modifying data and managing databases' nor a direct representative of editing on its behalf. Therefore in the interest of clarification and perfect harmony of all wiki-policy I hereby unilaterally suggest, in absolute disregard to obvious common sense and completely ignoring the identity to which the community has become accustomed to, that a user with over 10K edits and a 14 month history of contributions to this project change his name to 'SQLFAN' or 'SQLUser' to which user page would be User:SQLUser to clear up an unproven hypothetical confusion that user is in any possible way the "official and incarnate representation of" an inanimate international standard/protocol. Perhaps MySQLFan, DB2-SQLFan or T-SQLFan to clear up any confusion on user sequential orientation/'preferred flavor'/focus of standard. Failure of user to address this suggestion in complete seriousness, unquestioning subservience, acceptance and devotion will result in further nag messages functioning as evidence construction of social deviation and anti-wikipolicy behavior. So say Policy, So say us all. --AdultSwim (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

While the TV lineup is the first thing to come to my mind when I see this username, we should remember that Adult Swim uses their name because it's also a common phrase. So it really shouldn't be an issue here. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder, Does the Gotcha policing of users contribute in any way to other ongoing issues? WP's recent difficulty to pass RFA's, Proposals, or BagNoms? Perhaps an over emphasis on 'HaHa Gotcha' has left us all too embittered to contribute civilly to WP:Space and we are left always scanning, hunting edit summarys and diffs, reading policies instead of articles, waiting for the next Gotcha. --AdultSwim (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Emperor Uda
You recently edited the following paragraph in Emperor Uda
 * Three years later, he entered the Buddhist priesthood at age 34 in 900. <:ref name="b290">[see above] Having founded the temple at Ninna-ji, Uda made it his new home after his abdication. Uda is amongst six other emperors entombed near what had been the residence of Hosokawa Katsumoto before the Ōnin War. His Buddhist name was Kongō Kaku. <:ref name="b290">[see above]  He was sometimes called "the Cloistered Emperor of Teiji," because that was the name of the Buddhist hall where he resided after becoming a priest. <:ref name="b289">[see above]

Where/how/when did you learn that this in-line citation format is now preferred or better than what I'd created? I wonder if what I've done here has always been wrong, or perhaps it was once correct, but the format has been re-visited and now "your" approach is preferred? If you can, please point me in the right direction so that I can find answers to questions such as these?
 * <:ref name="b290">[see above] --> <:refname="b290"/> ...?
 * <:ref name="b289">[see above] --> <:refname="b289"/> ...?

Assuming yours is the preferred standard, must I contemplate beginning to correct the many articles in which I've repeatedly typed out similar (presumably wrong or "flawed") in-line citations? --Tenmei (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the ref template instructions, (WP:Foot 1.2 Naming a ref so it can be used more than once), any references that are named only need to have the first ( or in reality any single) instance contain the full source. All other refences to that souce can be stubbed by using the closing slash at the end. This stubage is useful as it shortens article size (both from a loading and an editing standpoint, and makes the wiki text easier to handle in edit mode, especially when long cite tags are used.) Its not a major issue currently because the reflist only looks at the first instance of the long version and ignores the rest of the references, however if an editor reorders the paragraphs to where the first one is, then "Source Data, Source Link" will not appear in the Reflist, only the text 'See Above' which really isn't useful. As to re-doing your edits, don't worry I'm sure I can fix them automagically. --AdultSwim (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fellatio
AdultSwim, I appreciate what I think you were trying to do to the Fellatio article, however, it resulted in the reference section being messed up, so I have undone it. Skoojal (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Query
You're doing good work - thoug to me it would seem more natural to define the reference in full on its first use, and then refer to it subsequently in the short form. Is there a technical reason for doing it your way round? David Underdown (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes!. If a ref is used in an infobox in a field that does not transclude to the main text, it appears as a broken reference. Setting the last as the full use increases the chance the ref will not be in the infobox. --AdultSwim (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see that would make it easier from a technical perspective. I think I'll carry on doing it my way when I'm doing it manually though.  14:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Duplicate Named References"
Please stop. What you are doing is making articles unstable. After your editing, only the first reference would have to be removed by someone to break the references. What you're doing is short-sighted. Please revert. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 12:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI,  Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 12:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unstable? Any article with broken refences automatically appears in the category [:Category:pages with incorrect ref formatting]. Where another tool searches the article histroy to fix the offending reference. --AdultSwim (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific? Which other tool? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 11:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

University of Florida
Since you seem to be taking grief for your current project from other users, I will extend a "thank you" for your work consolidating duplicated named references in this and other articles. It's a tedious and time-consuming task that improves the articles.  Horologium  (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Welcome back to the Samuel Johnson page. I'm sure you will notice some major changes. :) What do you think? Most of the work right now is during a peer review for a possible FA push. If you want to comment, feel free . Copyediting would be very helpful. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Name
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: Username promoting Adult Swim TV channel. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:
 * If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
 * If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
 * You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 16:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See above @ –  xeno  ( talk ) 16:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome Ainlina. I got one of those 4 years ago, but its always nice to say hello. --AdultSwim (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
Tiptoety talk 00:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And that is not an uninvolved user. You've already declined, so there really isn't any point in clarifying. I'll just have to do myself later. At somepoint we really need to start paying attention to WP:FAME and refrain from putting WP:beans up our collective noses.

I was originally blocked 'until assurances are made that unapproved bots will not be used' which I'll argue was really open to interpretation. Therefore I got the bot approved, used it for about a month, received all kinds of happy little praise, and it was cut out from under me not because of any errors on its part but because of an over-concerned admin that the account would be used for nefarious purposes. This time I didn't get the bot approved in spite of requests by BAG members for someone to revive the bot, instead letting it run open with no flag, hanging its edits out there in the recent-change-breeze where they face the same scrutiny as everyone elses. This time it gained over 5000 edits. The most of any account, can you find one that is really so bad that it qualifies for an eternal ban ('Eternal' should really call into question the Foundation's long term IT strategy.)

Unlike all the other socks out there I don't vandalize, POV push, or attack maliciously. I'm not changing templates or putting a cornucopia of phallic images everywhere. My edits have won the praise and thanks from dozens of users. By looking at this and other talk pages out there, obviously several administrators have been aware of my editing. At 5000 edits with similar edit summaries in RC how could anyone not be. Simple fact my edits have restored the verifiableness of referenced material, reduced page size and increased the readability of edit space.

The continuation of this 'Gotcha' style of enforcing sock policy ignores the basic intent of the policy; to prevent harm to the pedia, the project, or its users. It instead will allow the most edited, and most changed pages to slowly lose their verifiability due to the loss of sources, thereby violating the very heart of one of the most core tenants of the project.

Now I tell you that to tell you this, (Jimbo's always loved a good southern draw), I have a big ego. Of course, I could file a notice with Arbcom, stop editing and wait around 3 months and be back. But arbcom isn't the only way to be unbanned. The best way, I think, is to prove you add value. At some point the 'good' I provide should outweigh the 'bad' of my very existence. There is not some, microscopic 'sock sin' attached to each and every one of my edits. More frankly, I simply don't have to file an appeal. There is no thing that I can't do now while on this banned user cross. I have no reason to wait the 3/6/12 months probation someone would invariably ask as a condition of return (always with the conditions as if someone has to win something). I logout, login, woot I'm back in. If I wanted to hide I could change the edit summary, avoid pages edited by certain users, or run multiple accounts concurrently as some kind of 'ref fix project'. But I'm a man with a big ego, I actually love this cat and mouse game, and at this point instead of bowing to 'unban conditions' far in excess of the policies that fairly and equally govern us all, I'm the one holding all the cards.

I hope that clarifies things. --AdultSwim (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (Not sure why am not "uninvolved", just because of that sandbox thing? That was ages ago. I know nothing of this refbot stuff or history surrounding it) So you want me to make an AN/BON thread requesting we revisit the original blocking? – xeno  ( talk ) 01:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let your judgment guide you Xeno. Your an Admin now, its really the best policy you've got. --AdultSwim (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thy will be done. – xeno  ( talk ) 02:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The advocate of the underdog appears. Anyway, it's difficult to perform a cogent review without all the facts. What was the original block problem, what was that account, etc? I really hate it when a sock-block leaves out these details. Is this another one of those "history of wikipedia" things that it's assumed everyone will know? Am I simply being more dense than usual? - brenneman  02:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * *facepalm* RTFM, brenneman... Just saw the usepage box. Reading up now.   brenneman  02:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please contact me via email, if you see fit. - brenneman  03:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am willing to respond to messages posted here and those I've received via Email, but as I just returned from drinking I'm going to refrain from doing so at this time (self policy). I'll likely respond around this time tomorrow (11:50 EST/04:00 UTC) when I get back home. Let me say if you happen to be in the Charlotte area, stop on by RiRa's on 5th and Tryon. Its on my 10 best list. Nice bartenders, nice bar girls, and the Thursday band just played the song(why am I dressed up like a pirate) from the FreeCreditReport.com ads, fricken hilarious. --AdultSwim (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, good. Nothing sinister or sneaky, I wanted to ensure that, in the event that you expressed yourself *cough* freely *cough* that this was not used as further "ammunition" against you.  I'm much more liberal than most with how much I believe people should be allowed to sound off on their own talk page.   Enjoy your evening. -  brenneman  03:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I must say, AS, you're a refreshing change from most of the socks I see. And yeah, I would've liked to have been there when they played the song from the ad. Funny stuff.  Enigma  message 04:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Block summary
Not sure if I got all this right, but here's my attempt to summarize the situation so far:

You were User:Mitrebox and got blocked for using a bot in an edit war. The blocking admin says that you're blocked until you will assure them you won't use that bot anymore. That is the original block, I take it. However, on the same day they protect and blank that talk page. This happens on Feb 11th of this year.

To get past this you become User:Lemmey a few days later (Feb 17th), and run a bot called User:LemmeyBOT, which was approved. Then you made a joke that someone didn't like and got blocked for two weeks. At this same time the first checkuser is run and they find out that Lemmey is Mitrebox, and indef the Lemmey account, despite the fact that Mitrebox's ban was in relation to an unapproved bot.

Then you create User:Samuel Pepys and attempt to run the bot on that account, along with it being your new account. There seems to be some slight overlap in activity this time by a few days. Lemmey got blocked on June 11th, and Samuel started editing on May 31st. This results in the first checkuser listed at Requests for checkuser/Case/Lemmey on June 16th. The very first checkuser (L + M) seems to have been done without a request. They also find out that you are User:Charles Babbage (running June 14th to June 16th) doing some non-bot ref fixing.

User:LemmonBoy, who also appears to be you, is blocked on June 17th, since its only edits were to sub pages of LemmeyBot on June 4th.

June 21st, you return as User:AdultSwim. Someone sees a connection between you and the past users, requests the second checkuser listed at Requests for checkuser/Case/Lemmey on July 31, resulting in this account being blocked. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, now I'll see if I can speculate on some of this. The multiple accounts are due to frustration at the process wonkery of the entire situation. Bottom line is that you haven't really done anything that would warrant a community ban on you. At this point you're just getting blocked because some other account you used got blocked. You're not innocent, but you haven't murdered anyone. I'm sure we can figure out some kind of slap on the wrist that people will be happy with, so that we can move on. Something like "pick one account, agree to use just that account" and "only use approved bots, and never in a content dispute" (which goes without saying).


 * Given the attitude of some admins here, I can understand your frustration, so I can't really see the multiple account thing being something done to hurt the wiki. You just didn't bother to get the original accounts unblocked, and pushed forward. Or something to that extent? -- Ned Scott 05:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything Ned says. - brenneman  06:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Response
Statement: This user agrees to refrain from editing while the issue remains in active discussion.

Origional Block
Feburary 2008, the user mitrebox, having contributed for over 4 years, grew tired of multiple SPA users making changes to election releated articles. The addition of canidates(keyes), removal of candidates(gravel), and reordering of caniddates(Paul,Obama) in Repulican, Democratic, and General election articles contraty to the consensus of the discussion page. A bot was developed to protect (by reverting changes) of candidate lists / galleries in specific election articles. The bot only reverted the changes to the candidate sections while allowing changes to other sections. It was intended to prevent the page from having to be locked.

The Great GroundHog day war
The WP:bot was set to run, and Mitrebox went to bed. Visions of Rudy Giuliani danced in his head. While he slept, a precarious little scamp known as a WP:SPA came along. He looked at the article and said "This is all WRONG." "Where the hell is Alan Keyes?" he yelled in the night. "Its Ok, I'll make it right". And he added Alan in, inspite of the talk page, "What do they know?" he said full of rage. After he his save, the SPA reflected on his work, but now Keyes was gone, removed by some kind of jerk. The SPA scremed "Who the &$^# changed this?", "I'll fix it again", the SPA shaking his fist. And he changed and he changed for over 3 hours, each edit reverted by magical powers.

"Oh Rudy", mitrebox spoke, but the sun was up and slowly he woke. "Lets see how the page is" our hero said, but when he looked now his bot was dead. "Blocked for edit waring" the talk page exclaimed, but I was trying to help, "This is so lame". But young mirtebox did not worry, for the SPA too had also been blocked in a hurry. "I'll take this 24 hour block and get some rest, Yes these blocks may have been for the best". And with that our hero went back to bed where now Giluani was dressed as a lady in red.

Summary of accounts

 * Mitrebox - the origional, appeal poorly handeld, likely toxic and unblockable
 * Lemmey - named for the lead singer of Motorhead, a foul mouthed editor that quickly gained a rep over at (oldschool) ITN for hard charging statements that were generally accepted as crude, funny, and if not always right at least entertaing.
 * LemmeyBOT - the appoved champion of referencing, mentored into existance by the good folks at BAG, "BAG, its whats for dinner". Blocked out of 'concern' it could be used for nefarious purposes.
 * Samuel Pepys - name taken from This day. Focues solely on ref fixes and article improvment, avoided ITN as it had been contetious, cleared nearly the entire broken ref cleanup category and focused on the last remaining hunk, userspace.
 * Charles Babbage - name taken from This day. 14 edits using approved wikimedia tools.
 * LemmonBoy - sole edits to LemmeyBOT sub pages so source code could be posted
 * AdultSwim - avoided all not article space subjects until dragged into AN by another Userspace item, Policy is very clear, userspace is not personal space inspite of widespead opinion.
 * Doppendangl of above accounts never used for editing.

Civility may be a concern, but any contributor with 4 years of history blocked indef while an obvious SPA (same name as user on keyes forumn where he encourges others to edit WP on campaiagns behalf) has his block reduced, will likely be a little ticked. Appeal was poorly handeld all around. Other accounts have been increasing in civility by deciding to self inflict topic bans: elections, ITN, user space. Latest account only 'hard' edits were to his on userspace or in reaction to comments posted on same. (cool down blocks rarely cool people down.) Account is self regulating and becoming more civil with each generation. Look its even making kitchly little Christmas story pariodies, now isn't that what Civility is all about.

Bot policies
User consulted polices and BAG members to ensure scripts met with policies and guidelines for usage, rate, summary, and flags. To note arguments on AN, there are several users who edit using bots without bot accounts WT:BWhat is the threshold for manual edits being covered under bot policy?.

--AdultSwim (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Block update
Sorry this is taking so long, but I'm sure we can finally get this resolved. User:East718 was the original blocking admin, and supports an unblock. He thinks we should wait a couple of weeks so that people calm down. I'm not sure you should have to wait at all. -- Ned Scott 07:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No proab, I'm committed to refrain while discussion is taking place, and likely will taking the rest of the month off from Mainspace anyway. I'll build up some local databases and work in a different direction. Thanks for the adamant defense. --AdultSwim (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been over a month
Should we try for another unblock request? -- Ned Scott 07:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive159 - I wish someone would have told me about this. I've blocked and unblocked some of these accounts. It was obvious who this was back in June and thought it best not to block this one. And the bot use on this account was not unapproved. Gimmetrow 21:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)