User talk:Averruncus/Archive 2

Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Home Guard (New Zealand), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blackout (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Shay Carl
Thanks for doing the revert on Shay Carl I was just about to revert it when I saw you grabbed it. Thanks for the help! --Canyouhearmenow 14:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Anything I can do to help. :)  Arfæst Ealdwrítere   (talk)  14:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Please take care
Hi there! I was just reviewing edits by two IP editors on Bad Girls Club (season 10). I realized they had reverted a vandal's edit that you had accepted here. Even though the section's citation had a dead link, it was easy enough to plug it into the Wayback machine and see the archived version. Careful investigation is often required when reviewing; articles are often placed on the list because they're subject to the more subtle forms of vandalism. Thanks for your time -- reviewing is mostly a thankless task, so I do thank you for your efforts. &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I promise I'm not stalking you. It just so happened that at the next article I reviewed I found this reversion you made. From your edit summary it looks like you didn't notice that you were looking at a diff that covered seven edits from four different editors -- it was the first edit by an IP that put the next six also under pending. Reviewing isn't like using Huggle, the edits you're checking aren't visible to the general public until they're accepted, so you can take the time to do it right! &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to notify me about this. I see what you mean. I'll keep it in mind.  Arfæst Ealdwrítere   (talk)  13:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of the United States
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:History of the United States. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit
Hi, could you please help me understand the nature of the edit you made here? Mike V •  Talk  00:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, unfortunately it looks like someone in my dorm ( I am at Durham university) used my account after they had gotten themselves blocked as an IP. I have used public computers until now without any problems (I must admit I don't usually log out after myself). I have a pretty good idea who it is so let me come back to you in about 24 hours time when I know what is happening on my side of the line. Thanks for bringing this to my attention and I will be in touch.   Arfæst Ealdwrítere   (talk)  01:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Arfæst. I'm, a CheckUser here at the English Wikipedia. Since this is technically a compromised account, I have a few questions I have to ask. You can always send your answers privately to me via EmailUser. 1) What type of computer and web browser do you use? 2) What time do you normally start/end classes/studying? 3) Do you have a personal computer you use other than a school computer? 4) Could you explain how you were able to detect the issue within a minute of the edit being made with your account? -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  02:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I can answer here.
 * It is a communal apple computer / Safari
 * I mostly edit in the late afternoon/evening - classes ended 2 weeks ago so I (and my my mates) have no schedule
 * I do have a personal computer at home (also note that after I go home in 4 days I won't be around my mates for 3 months)
 * My friends were on the shared computer and were giggling so I knew something was up - they vandalised other stuff such as my yahoo answers and facebook as well

Hope that helps (I'm sorry for the trouble this has cause, I really must learn to log out of communal computers).  Arfæst Ealdwrítere   (talk)  02:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Block
Please block this account temporarily: it is much worse than I thought because my 'friends' have compromised almost everything of mine.  Arfæst Ealdwrítere   (talk)  02:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

December 2014: Request for Unblock
Could this request, or a link to this page, perhaps be put on the Check User noticeboard since it is a Check User that I need to consider my request rather than an Administrator?  Arfæst Ealdwrítere   (talk)  14:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the time it took me to stop by here. I haven't had a chance to fully sit down and review the case. Ive seen some of the case I remember from the initial event, but there are many things I dont remember about the case that i need to review including the CU log and maybe my email before commenting. I have the day off tomorrow and should be able to post something then. Please hold tight for the time being. -- DQ mobile  (ʞlɐʇ)  22:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to let me know. There's no urgent need to hurry because I am rather busy off-wiki so you can take your time.  Arfæst Ealdwrítere   (talk)  22:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarification and Simplification of Unblock Request
I realise that this appeal has been very messy and that it spans across three different talk pages. I hope that this edit will simplify the process for everyone involved and that it may allow better communication between us all.

For those who were not involved with my original block, I was blocked almost half a year ago for good-hand bad-hand sock-puppetry as well as for personal attacks, and legal threats. I was stupid and fully regret everything I did and I apologise to those whom were offended by my remarks and deeds. I believe and know that I am capable of changing and once again becoming a constructive editor on Wikipedia.

I pledge that I shall not use any other account other than this one for any reason whatsoever and that I shall not make any personal attacks nor shall I make legal threats. I have also determined to spend more time editing in the Main Space, hence actively building an encyclopaedia - previously most of my edits were more focussed on minutiae.

I hope that, after my time away from Wikipedia, I may return with a fresh perspective and new enthusiasm for making the Project, and its community of editors, much better.  Arfæst Ealdwrítere   (talk)  14:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To the reviewing administrator,
 * After reviewing what I have on this case, I found the best explanation of the events to be at Sockpuppet investigations/Arfæst Ealdwrítere/Archive. There was no threat or indication of compromised accounts at any point in time during the investigation. The user seems to be admiting to the original reason why this investigation occured and that the comprimsed status was a hoax. Therefore, i'm satisfied with allowing the user to return if the reviewing admin feels that the block is no longer needed and that the user sufficiently admitted his mistakes. Feel free to contact me if you have further questions. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  17:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to go through all the Check User logs.  Arfæst Ealdwrítere   (talk)  02:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Who is the reviewing administrator?  Arfæst Ealdwrítere —   talk!  02:58, 24 June 2 07:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The reviewing administrator is any uninvolved admin who decides to look at your case. I'm not an admin, so I can't, and DeltaQuad is involved. Someone will be here shortly, though. Origamiteⓣⓒ 16:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight, my accounts are: this one, Dmcl404, DJAMP4444, and Stewart of Appin.  Arfæst Ealdwrítere —   talk!  19:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there anything else you need to know? If you want to know, for example the types of edits I would like to make - this seems to be a common pre-unblocking question - I would like to edit the following articles at least to start with:
 * James Whyte (bishop) - a past New Zealand Catholic Bishop's article which needs a pretty significant rewrite
 * Ross Bay - the current Bishop of Auckland, the article is very short and needs updating


 *  Arfæst Ealdwrítere —   talk!  13:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems good. If you put another template up, another admin can come and review this. It won't be brought to their attention if you don't. Also, your case may wait a little longer than others; because you were using other accounts, an admin with WP:CHECKUSER has to make sure that you currently don't have any other accounts. Origamiteⓣⓒ 15:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

- would you object to an unblock? PhilKnight (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No issue as I mentioned above. If you could also just view the comment at my talk before you do so. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  06:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks DeltaQuad. PhilKnight (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gojoseon
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gojoseon. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Chawinda
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Battle of Chawinda. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Kosovo municipalities
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Kosovo municipalities. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Atlantis
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Atlantis. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

please review about Draft:Church of the Creator
Hi Arfæst Ealdwrítere, thank you for reviewing Draft:Church of the Creator for Articles For Creation. However, could you please revisit that? You are mistaken that there exists an article on this topic. It is quite a sore point actually, for editors who have been trying to fix a bad situation. There is a redirect currently at Church of the Creator which, absurdly, directs readers to Creativity (religion), a racist organization which is not named Church of the Creator, but which previously fought for the name and lost all rights to it (and so cannot be named that!). There was a major court case, as described in the Draft, which gave all rights for the name to the (Oregon-based, peaceful and racially tolerant) church described in Draft:Church of the Creator. The situation is noted in legal literature, even, per the draft article, for the disparity between beliefs of the two organizations. It seems horrible that the actual, live, continuing Oregon church is in effect slandered or something by Wikipedia directing readers to the opposite, hateful white supremicist group that does not and cannot use the name (and which I think may be defunct, and which has an absurdly long article about its crazy racist beliefs).

You don't need to read them all, but there are:
 * a standing request at Requested_articles/Social_sciences/Religion for this article
 * a recent discussion split between User talk:Nyttend and User talk:Bohemian Gal/Archive 1
 * recent discussion at Teahouse/Questions
 * a request for third opinion at third opinions -- see "Active Disagreements" section
 * recent treatment at Articles_for_creation/Redirects/2014-12
 * and back in 2010 there was Articles for deletion/Church of the Creator

Despite some frustration on the way, there has been some good-in-my-view understanding created that the legitimate, current holder of the name (which happens to be the peaceful church in Oregon) would get the article title, but that an article with reliable sources must be drafted first, which has been done. Please comment on the draft in terms of whether it meets Wikipedia requirements for an article on this entity, not its opponent in lawsuits. Editor User:Cullen328 was one editor participating in previous discussion, who has in fact assisted in the new draft. I got involved because I perceived editor User:Bohemian Gal, a newish contributor, to have been sorely treated. What is needed to remedy the situation is to move the Draft:Church of the Creator over the redirect. And then I and perhaps others may edit both articles a bit further to link to each other properly to be especially sure not to misdirect readers. Readers are wholly misdirected, currently. -- do ncr  am  17:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, i see you have moved the drafted text to change the redirect to an actual article. And I see there is substantial past edit history there.  Okay, thanks! -- do  ncr  am  17:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:PERM Request
Hi Arfæst Ealdwrítere. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — xaosflux  Talk 18:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

WP:PERM Request (PCR)
Hello, I have declined your PCR request at this time, please see the notes on the request page. — xaosflux  Talk 18:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Trees of Dartmouth College
Hi - I read your comment about the Trees of Dartmouth College. I'm not sure what the criteria are for notable versus non-notable. The Dartmouth College campus is known for its trees and has one of the largest collections of American elm trees anywhere - particularly since the spread of Dutch Elm disease has killed off so many elms. I thought that both the historical value of the older trees and the work that the college is doing to save and/or replace trees on campus made this a worthwhile article. I did cite to several Dartmouth on-line publications for the facts - is the issue that you're looking for other, non-Dartmouth sources in addition to those? Or is it the topic itself that you find problematic? The buildings have their own article and I didn't want to clutter up the main Dartmouth College article with information about the trees and multiple photos that would be better suited to a separate page. Msact (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the topic itself which is problematic. If the article could be condensed to one paragraph, it could probably be put into the main Dartmouth article as its own section.  Arfæst Ealdwrítere –  talk!  14:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Bad edit?
Hi, I'm HackedBotato, and it seems you undid my edit on Yee (I was editing through IP, sorry!). "Yee" was a popular internet meme and was put probably as a practical joke/vandalism. Could you explain my wrongdoing? Sorry! Sources of proof: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/yee Thanks a lot! ~HackedBotato Chat with me ♽ Contribs 02:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I incorrectly believed it to be a joke edit thinking "since when do dinosaurs say 'Yee'"? My apologies.  Arfæst Ealdwrítere –  talk!  03:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing it up! ~HackedBotato  Chat with me ♽ Contribs 03:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Mop not a big deal... to get
Hi, Arfæst Ealdwrítere. I saw on Rcsprinter123's latest RfA about the mop not "being a big deal". I think you are using that in a backwards fashion. Wales was not saying that users shouldn't want it much because it's not a big deal. He was saying that getting the mop should not be a big deal. This is why he went on to say that he thinks he should go around and just promote a bunch of long term users to admin. So if anything that quote gives reason to support Rcsprinter123's RfA request. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. My interpretation of what Jimbo said is that he meant adminship, both its procurement and use of associated rights, should not be seen as something to exceptionally mark out one editor from another. In the context of an RfA, I understand it to mean that, ideally, someone should not be desperately gunning for the mop like Rcsprinter123 was.  Arfæst Ealdwrítere –  talk!  22:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how you interpret Wales message to mean that if somebody really wants to be an admin, it's a bad thing without assuming bad faith on the part of the candidate. All Wales' message basically says is that good editors should get the bit and we shouldn't put sysop status on a pedestal. His message never directly discusses candidate motives or use of the bit at all, and, if anything, seems to suggest indirectly that motives and use shouldn't usually even matter so long as there's good faith (that's what "semi-willy-nilly" is suggesting). As for Rcsprinter123, you are being unfair to him/her: the phrase "desperately gunning" is rhetorically loaded and assumes at least some ill motive otherwise it's pointless to mention. The editor wants to be an admin, has so far not succeeded, and has not giving up hope. Maybe "aimed for years" was slightly unwise phrasing but surely most admins were "aiming" to be an admin for a year or more before than ran for RfA. The candidate is not a perfect one (I'm not even saying a good one) but they do seem to want to be a good editor. I think that, in isolation, using the fact that a candidate wants to be an admin against them is a bad and vacuous argument, one I would hope any closing bureaucrat would discount. I wouldn't even care if a candidate wrote that "I desire more than anything in life to be an admin and will try a million times if I need to to succeed". It's only if a case could be made from a candidate's past edits that their persistence is due to their desire to harm to the encyclopedia that I see this becoming a valid concern and a sticking point. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My position is that people should be convinced by others that they would be a good admin. Your position is that people should convince others that they would be a good admin. The two positions seem to be irreconcilable. Therefore further debate has been rendered pointless.  Arfæst Ealdwrítere –   talk!  23:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless of that, my point (not position) is that you are misusing Wales' quote to the extent that you are sometimes making it mean almost the opposite of what was written and intended, even if interpreted under your sysop philosophy. If you are fine with that, okay, but I'd personally be bothered by it. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Bachner draft
Thank you so much for your valuable input. I'm currently working on the suggested revisions. TimHitchings (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.  Arfæst Ealdwrítere –  talk!  23:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)