User talk:Haemo/Archive 6

Block/protect page
You should also block the user:Moldopodo if you don't block him for 3RR then for this trying of him to hide thingsthis is pretty strong against him. Moldo rubo talk 19:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like an accident to me; I left him a friendly note, so hopefully this is sufficient. Blocks should be preventative, not punitive.  --Haemo 19:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Haemo, thank you for you your quick answer. Unfortunately User:Moldorubo keeps undoing all my edits everywhere, namely on the Balti page now. It's her/his first day on Wikipedia and he/she changed only those exact edits, where User:Dc76 was on dispute with me. Moldorubo at the same time actively "defends" User:Anittas, whereas the latter was silent since, just as Dc76 him/herself was silent since the litigation started and most users indicated on the Balti talk page that Dc76 was wrong. User:212.182.118.70, User:196.46.109.216 edited surprisingly only the disputed with Dc76 issues and vandalised one other page to create an impression that not only Balti/Moldova topic interests it, User:Moldorubo (created today probably in response to my name Moldopodo and to avoid 3-revert rule, as other anonymous users), User:Anittas, and User:Dc76. I do not have more information to give you as far as my suspicions are concerned, but I would appreciate if you can check who really stands behind all these nicknames. Besides he/she insulted me more than once during the day already on my talk page, as well as on the talk page of Moldova article, and on other pages of Wikipedia. I wonder why no NPA policy was applied to hem/her yet? Also have a look at Moldorubo's talk page, where he/she refers to me. Moldopodo 20:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
 * Haemo, more evidence, Anittas has deleted my answer to him/her on User:Anittas talk page, also the phrase where Moldorubo insults me, just like User:Dc76 used to do on Balti talk page, piling up my comments at the end of Dc76's, so that they would be detached from the actual phrase, leaving them (my comments) senseless, or modifying the names of the Section titles written by me. Moldopodo 20:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo


 * I'm not a checkuser, so I can't determine which users are which, and I'm not familiar enough with your local nationalist users to tell who is who from behavior. As such, I'd recommend filing a request for checkuser, laying out the editor's behavior and why you think the evidence as to why you think he's a sockpuppet.  Remember to keep things cool when you do this, and try to avoid escalating any ongoing situations if at all possible.  I sympathize with your civility concerns, but if this is an experienced user, it's probably not worth warning them since they already know what they're doing.  Sometime it's best to just avoid giving them attention.  --Haemo 20:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you I have made a request. Could you tell me what about NPA policy for what Moldorubo profers in my regard? Also, why User:Edokter refuses to analyse Dc76 statements even as possible violation of NPA? Thank you. Moldopodo 22:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
 * I'll be honest; WP:NPA is not really a super-productive means of getting what you want. In general, admins will not block users on this basis unless it's extremely abusive.  Personally, I would just turn the other cheek, as it were, and avoid drawing attention to it.  People make personal attacks because they want to upset you; if you do not appear upset by them, then they lose most effect.  --Haemo 01:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Haemo, please take note that my talk page was vandalised by Moldorubo . The image was created by User:Bogdangiusca, whereas User:Dc76 is also very fond of that kind of images. Another hint, do you think? Moldopodo 11:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo


 * Hi again, I have just posted all relevant documents to avoid unnecessary debate and interpretaion on Wikisource in Russian. The ones that are relevant to the present editing war are:

1) Constitution of the Republic of Moldova (art. 13),

2) Law on Functioning of Languages in Moldavian SSR (all 32 articles are relevant),

3) Parliament's Decision on Application of the Law on Functioning of Languages in Moldavian SSR (all 7 points of the decision are relevant).

4) Law on basic provisions of special legal status for localities situated on the left bank of Dniestr (Transnistria/Pridnestrovie)

Moldopodo 11:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo


 * Looks good, but I will be of limited help; I don't know anything about your content dispute, and I only speak English and pidgin French. If you think you have enough evidence to pin down the sockpuppeteer, try posting a request at requests for checkuser.  --Haemo 17:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello, just wanted to thank you, whatever your conclusions are, simply for your answers. It is a pleasure to see adequate persons on Wikipedia. I was about to start getting desperate. G.Night.Moldopodo 22:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Er, now that it was established that user:Moldorubo was a sockpuppet, could you please undo his last edit to this article? --Illythr 01:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries :) And thanks for the compliment.  --Haemo 01:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

International Peace Institute
I have just seen your comment "Speedy deleted per (CSD G6), deleting page per result of AfD discussion" please inform me if that is the consensus of the discussion Motegole 09:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeppers. --Haemo 18:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks. Motegole 08:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bălţi, Bălţi-City Airport, Moldavian language, Official languages, Demographics of Moldova, Gagauz people, List of official languages
Hello again, these are the pages where user 212.182.118.70 keeps undoing edits, intentionally desinforming the reader. At some of these pages the 3-revert rule will be soon violated. What could I do? Thank you Moldopodo 18:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo


 * Warn them, and then use the special noticeboard to report edit warring. If it's ongoing, you can try to make a request at page protection to get the article locked until the vandalism is over.  --Haemo 22:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Claudia Ciesla
Hi. Please can you protect Claudia Ciesla by editing from anonymous IPs! Thank you! Wiki-nightmare 00:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Naw, it's just one IP address and we'll just end up blocking it. I'm watching the article.  --Haemo 00:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The anonymous User:TommyNoe vandalised the article too! Wiki-nightmare 00:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * He's not anonymous and it's not vandalism. There's an ongoing discussion on the talk page about that, and I don't think her disqualification from a contest has much to do with her career as a whole, nor is it really relevant to the Wikipedia article.  However, I don't speak German so I'm not going to get involved; I'll just keep watching this article since it's walking a thin line.  --Haemo 00:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a source that can help to verify the article! So i add this reference: http://onunterhaltung.t-online.de/c/55/20/09/5520092,pt=self,si=0.html (German) "Claudia aus Bamberg darf auch nicht Miss T-Online werden" That means: "Claudia from Bamberg should not "Miss T-Online" "Auch von ihr sind Nacktfotos aufgetaucht." and that means: "she published nude photos" Nacktfotos = nude photos look at: http://www.google.com/translate_t?langpair=de|en Wiki-nightmare 00:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, I used BabelFish to check before I commented. However, there are many different kinds of nudity and which one it is in this case isn't exactly clear.  Furthermore, that's just a primary source for this; it seems like a totally non-notable incident.  --Haemo 00:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You have absolutely right! I think that the completley Article is totally non-notable content. But that is the only one source that is not a self-published source and that can be found. Unfortunalety the source says that she was disqualified for a german beauty contest because she made some "special" photos. Wiki-nightmare 00:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem I have is that she has a bunch of other sources written about her; this particular one doesn't seem to cover a notable event, even in her admittedly borderline notable career. --Haemo 01:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your position. Okay, i will not add this source in the article! IMHO probably all of this sources are not significant. Wiki-nightmare 01:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. i rewriting the Claudia Ciesla Articel. Please can you check my adds. I will not make some mistakes or vandalism the Articel. Thank you Wiki-nightmare 21:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that the Wikipedia:Deletion review was closed by User:Eluchil404 with result: Deletion endorsed. After reviewing this I feel that this cannot be the right decision, as at least 5 users are for Deletion closure (Dhartung, Ireferee, Garion96, Neozoonand and your person) only 1 is for Deletion endorsed (Wiki-Nightmare). I would appreciate very much if you could check this. Thank you. --Kadenpress 00:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstand; "deletion endorsed" means that the closure was a correct decision, and the article stands. --Haemo 00:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you - and thanks for your time to review this case. --Kadenpress 01:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Help
Hello Haemo. Could you help watching the Literary Inquisition article, upon which the same anonymous user who works on The Society For Truth And Light has been forcing his opinions? I am not very active here, I'm not an admin and I don't want to violate the 3RR rule. Could you help? Best Regards.--K.C. Tang 01:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You look okay, so far. I would just note that Chinese Wikipedia is entirely different from English Wikipedia, and we have no real relation. --Haemo 03:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Chinese Wikipedia is not related to English Wikipedia; and one of the things that annoys me is that some contributors use "X-language Wikipedia has this, so we also should have" to justify their edits. I fixed the Chinese article simply because I thought it needed to be fixed, not in order to conform it to the English version. Actually it's the first time that I got into a real edit war, so I'm looking for the advice of some experienced admin. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 07:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do is just to take it easy. Edit disputes only turn into wars when you have a couple of users perched over the "revert" button.  As long as you just stay cool and give it some time, it generally never escalates.  I sympathize with your X.wikipedia.org has/does not have this problem though; I get it alot. --Haemo 19:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion please
See here. Thanks Taprobanus 13:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Warcraft AFD
I'm wondering how you came the no consensus conclusion. As far as I can see there was not a single keep that sites policy. We were also told that they could clean the article up in an hour yet no one change was made during the 9 day debate. Since closing not one single source has been added. Ridernyc 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The "no consensus" was because no one could agree whether or not it could be sourced. Lots of people claimed it could be &mdash; this is a policy-based reason for keeping.  However, no one actually did, nor even clearly demonstrated that it could be, so I closed it as a no consensus.  Frankly, I think that it should be deleted, since it's totally unverifiable, but that wasn't the conclusion on the page.  It was borderline, I grant you that. --Haemo 19:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the people at my school are dumb.
Hey thanks for unblocking me. I'm at school right now (all the students have laptops) and, unfortunately, some people think it's funny to vandalize Wiki. I'm not one of them. But yeah... Any change they make is unfortunately linked to me.

I apologize for any future vandalism that might be caused by one of my fellow students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallaway6554 (talk • contribs).


 * No problem at all &mdash; that's why we have user accounts, after all ;) --Haemo 19:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Polite reminder
I admit that I did get carried away but the part after the attack was valid. That isn't a Wikipedia article and I don't know how to propose a deletion. Seriously, read it and the discussions. Alex 202.10.89.28 07:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Now worries; just so you know, there are a couple of ways to try for a deletion. Firstly, you can use the procedural deletion method, which is faster but can terminate easily.  This is usually a good first step; it's easy to do, and doesn't take very much time.  If you don't want to, or if the procedural deletion is contested, you can file an AFD discussion, following the guidelines on the page.  It's reasonably straightforward, and there are always users around to help you out on the helpdesk if you have trouble.  --Haemo 20:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist (video)
A draft userspace article has been created. Please see Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8. Pdelongchamp 19:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've chimed in. --Haemo 21:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question re: Jpswirl
He uploaded a 'swirled' picture of himself which was then removed. I 'unswirled' it and posted a link to show what he actually looks like. Childish maybe, against the rules probably, but I thought it might be of interest to other users. It's not the kind of thing I make a habit of. SteveRamone 21:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see; it's just that the same image was used as an attack image against another person a while ago, and was deleted. Just checking.  --Haemo 21:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Yorkregionseal.PNG
Could you tell me what happened with Image:Yorkregionseal.PNG? According to Talk:Regional Municipality of York, Ontario a fair-use rationale was provided. I never saw any further debate on it. Thanks. Double Blue (Talk) 21:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The "rationale" was "Used in articles to symbolize Regional Municipality of York, Ontario, Canada.". This is not a valid fair use rationale.  If you want to write one, I'll restore the image for you, if you don't have a copy.  --Haemo 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Couldn't we say "The image is a logo for the main subject of the article"? It is appropriate for company logos. Double Blue  (Talk) 02:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that won't work either. See Non-free use rationale guideline for examples of valid rationales, and a template, for a valid fair use rationale.  It's actually a pretty technical legal thing, it requires a bunch of assertions and attestments. --Haemo 02:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, according to WP:NFURG, it looks like that is what's required to me so I have re-uploaded. Check it and comment on what's missing please. Thanks Double Blue  (Talk) 03:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good now! --Haemo 03:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Thanks for your assistance. Double Blue  (Talk) 03:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE
Hey Haemo. Can you please comment on the following issue here. Thanks Watchdogb 07:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done! --Haemo 20:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please
Please help

Why the pages are deleted as posted

"User Haemo (talk) deleted this article after you started editing it, with a reason of:

Speedy deleted per (CSD A7), was an article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject"

It has significant content, coming soon.

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarjit2k (talk • contribs) 20:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Because the article in question failed our notability guidelines, and was nominated for speedy deletion by another user. I reviewed that request, and deleted the article.  --Haemo 20:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A7 and T-Rock articles.
Check the deletion logs - A7 worked fine last time. Will (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Rabble rabble; I'll go fix it. --Haemo 20:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Guidelines & Policy Help.
Hello,

Many thanks for your very recent help.

I would like to ask your opinion on the policy which says if an article has remained stable in its style for some time that it should not be changed on those grounds? And the mos bio guidelines which say they "should" be employed, but following them is not actually a requirement.

That was in essence the basis of my recent problems. The article in question, Katharine Isabelle has been stable in its style very nearly since its inception, before All Hallows Wraith decided recently that it must meet mos guidelines with no deviations whatsoever.

As I understand the meaning of the policy and the guideline, it means that the article should have been left as it was. I do assure you, I am not going to dive straight back into the fray, no matter what, but I I would seriously invite a good, impartial Admin's advice on that matter, if you can find a moment, please?

One more small, and unrelated thing; please could you tell me how I get the temporary category removed from my talk page? Lost Girls Diary 22:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Guidelines are recommended to be followed; they are the strongest editorial recommendations Wikipedia has. The only thing stronger are policies, which are determined by the Foundation chiefly &mdash; and generally have to do with conduct issues or legal matters.  So, the Manual of Style should be followed unless there is a serious and compelling reason not to follow it; this is, after all not a bureaucracy, so compliance is not set in stone.
 * The stability of an article is an indication of the consensus behind the current version &mdash; however, an article without a strong consensus is not really stable, it's just neglected. To put it another way, there is often a good reason why articles are in a certain form &mdash; however, sometimes it's just that it was written that way, and no one has ever gotten around to changing it.  As a result, many articles are not in line with the Manual of Style or other guidelines &mdash; bold changes to clean them up are very helpful.  However, there is a process if these edits are contentious &mdash; bold edit, revert, discussion.  As a result, eking out a compromise is important &mdash; however, Wikipedia guidelines should be followed unless there is a broad and cogent consensus not to.  For instance, WP:WTA implores us to avoid words like "terrorist", but many articles do because it is only a guideline, and the reasoning behind the guidelines refers to pejorative use of the term.
 * If you feel that a guideline should be ignored, then it's important to get broad support for it &mdash; if you are facing the problem of few editors, a request for comment can be helpful, or other dispute resolution venues. This can be time consuming, to be sure, but guidelines have broad support, so equally broad support is generally needed to ignore them.
 * I'm not sure how helpful this is, or if it answers your question, but that's my thought. To remove the category from your page, delete the blocked notice part that contains it.  You can find it by clicking edit, then doing a ctrl-f search for "Category". --Haemo 00:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Reconciliation barnstar

 * Thank you! --Haemo 05:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

CSD of Nicola Screen
You removed it by saying "Award winning --? asserts notability"... I guess I need to write myself an article because I won award in preschool because with your def I am notable. Additionally, I will not list any citation is my article! lame --Jerm (Talk/ Contrib) 21:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not saying she is notable. I am saying that the article asserts notability, in that it claims she is an award-winning producer with a resume of award winning films.  This is an assertion of notability, and thus the article does not qualify for speedy deletion.  If you think that she is not notable, then feel free to list it for procedural deletion or take it to WP:AFD.  --Haemo (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

More AfDs to close.
I appreciate your help in closing the previous AfDs I requested, and I am requesting for the next ones to be closed when appropriate:


 * Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft humanoid races
 * Articles for deletion/Alliance (Warcraft)

Thanks again in advanced. IAmSasori (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but I believe that I will be too busy to give these the proper attention they need at the moment. My apologies. --Haemo (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee   t / c  20:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons
Thank you for fixing my reference request. Ward20 (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries! --Haemo (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks.
Um just wanted to say thanks for cleaning up my talk page a bit, I do appreciate it and also what you said on the other topic, it is good to know that some people with power are nice and stuff and don't just put things from a template on a talk page. I kinda put all of my reasons and stuff into more detail on my talk page and I don't wanna fill up your page with all of that, so yea check out my talk. Phoenix741 (Talk Page)  05:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I replied on your talk page. --Haemo (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

user: Beh-nam
Hi. I am Behnam. I was very frustrated because if you see what I'm being blocked for it's ridicolous. Here is my proper response to the Admin that blocked me. Please place it on my Talkpage or unblock it so I can place it there.

I think you are familiar with my previous two block were you were mistaken and ended up apologizing to me because the user that accused me was a sockpuppet of a previous banned user (user: NisarKand/user: Dilbar Jan/etc). I am very sure that once again this user: Hurooz is another one of his sockpuppets, again he edits the same articles and again he tries to get me banned. If you don't believe that, then atleast let me explain all of these edits and you'll see that whoever reported this is manipulating you.


 * 1) Although I did not reference it, the meaning of Durrani is common knowledge and it is also common knowledge that kings at that time had sex with young boys. Am I getting banned for just one unreferenced edit?
 * 2) This is an RV of vandalism! It is already sourced in the articles infobox that he was born in Multan.
 * 3) I explained that edit on the talk page here
 * 4) Putting Her Majesty sounds POVish
 * 5) This is an RV is very bad writing and vandalism!
 * 6) The president's website is already on the president's article (Hamid Karzai).
 * 7) I listened to him and asked for a guide on external links, see here
 * 8) I removed vandalism, someone removed REFERENCED content and there was concensus on this, see the talk page!

Conclusion, once again you banned me without proper investigation (this is the 3rd time). Now I have explained each of these edits and it's clear there is no reason for you to have banned me. Please unblock me or unblock my talk page so another admin can see my explanation.

-- 64.229.19.171 (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll add it for you, but I'm not sure if it will help. --Haemo (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I had to interfere because my name is mentioned! I explained before there is nothing that can said or done to justify the actions of Beh-nam. Calling national leaders of the world as child molestors clearly explaines to everyone what this person has in his mind. There is no doubt that this Beh-nam is an ethnic Tajik who is also Persian nationalist, and will do whatever his thoughts allows him to attack people of other ethnic groups such as Pashtuns, Turks or others. His contributions are ALL RELATED TO ETHNIC WAR from the day he created account until today. The other contributions he does is very very minor, just adding tags to articles or fixing a ling here and there or changing image sizes so that to fool others to think he is editing many articles. I strongly recommend for Beh-nam to stay away from all Pashtun and Turkic articles, that's where the major trouble is. Why does this user always patrol those articles and reverts edits by others who may be more expert? Finally, the first thing Beh-nam always does is try to change the subject of his block by trying to make administrators focus on User:NisarKand, who is banned but I can't see any reason why. It appears that he was doing normal edits and all of a sudden banned. There is no unblock history on his talk page.--Hurooz (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just relax. We'll sort everything out in due time. --Haemo (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I think you're helping an experianced vandal to come back and continue their actions. I think I'm going to have to report your actions to other administrators for allowing someone who was blocked and was immediatly caught evading one week block by using IPs., The IP was only allowed for him to edit on his talk page but NOT on articles and especially NOT edit-wars.  There is no way I will allow anyone to write that Nadir Shah was a child molestor and had Ahmad Shah Abdali as his sex slave , this is absolutly untrue and against the rules of Wikipedia to directly write such bad things about a world famous conquerer whom both were 100% straight people. That's the same as calling George Washington or Napolean Bonaparte being child molestors. Besides that, the blocked User:Beh-nam has harassed, insulted or personally attacked me as well as another user. ,  He was already blocked numerous time for this.  He is uncivil to everyone, removing other people's edits whether it's faithful (good contribution) or not just because he may not agree with it, even removing other people's posts from his talk page at a time when he's suppose to show his good charater , removing images from articles by claiming they have license problems or other nonsense  (this was done by him right AFTER his very recent block using annon IPs), helping banned user (User:Tajik) with edit war.  The list goes on and on, I will take the time to make a very long list of all his bad faith edits if I have to. Blocked people need to remain blocked until they serve time just like everyone else, especially repeat-violators such as him. All the listed items he made excuses for are ethnic Pashtun related, he removed the official website of Afghanistan's President from the Afghanistan article because the President is ethnic Pashtun, but yet allowed for blogs and other nonsense to remain in the external links there. If the Persian leader Nadir Shah was a child molestor or a homosexual as claimed by Beh-nam than that needs to be addressed in the article of Nadir Shah but not in the Ahmad Shah Abdali's article. Why isn't anything of such mentioned in Nadir Shah's article? The answer is because Ahmad Shah Abdali is ethnic Pashtun, so Beh-nam figured that in order to get ethnic Pashtun editors go wild and crazy, let's put things of this nature. I've wasted a long time preparing this argument to explain to you in details that this Beh-nam is not to be trusted. If you unblock him, he will immediatly continue with his normal activities of vandalising articles but at the same time feeling more powerful. If you let a killer go free they usually go and kill another person.--Hurooz (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think he's going to kill anyone, and he's promised to behave. --Haemo (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Russians
Ok, if those are different people, which i doubt since today with programs anyone can change his IP, could you at least make it that only registered user could edit the page? Most of the vandals are unsigned users and it will really make the thing better. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're looking for Requests for Page Protection, but they won't protect the page because the vandalism is not acute. People can change their IP address easily, but they can't make it migrate around the world like that.  Sadly, this is just one of those things you're going to have to live with.  --Haemo (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User Question...
Haemo,

Forgive me, I am new to Wikipedia. I am trying to do a series of articles on some American born guitarists, but I am having trouble figuring it out. I started to put together the article on Jordan Lunardini, I didnt finish it and it was deleted for copywrite violations. How do I successfully complete a page while not committing copywrite infringement. I have permission from all of the artists to do this, but I'm not that good with computers so I am struggling. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks again,

musicman1324 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicman1324 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there's a difference between "permission" and "granting copyright". Lots of authors will permit you to duplicate things they've written, but wish to retain copyright over their work.  Unfortunately, Wikipedia is set up under a legal licensing agreement known as the GFDL, and such agreements are incompatible.  What you need to include text like that in a page is a statement from the copyright holder that they release their material under a GFDL-compatible license &mdash; the page requesting copyright permission outlines how to do this.
 * Anyways, if you can't do that, you'll have to re-write the material in your own words so that it no longer violates their copyright over it. You can certainly cite the sources you use, but just not duplicate it off hand.  Hope this helps! --Haemo (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yamashita's gold - Request page protection extension
Haemo…you protected the Yamashita’s Gold Talk:Yamashita's gold article on November 19, 2007. The other party in the “edit war” has made one statement directly after that on the 19th, as well. Other than that has not commented, discussed or made any positive forward motion to help find a resolution. I request you keep the article protected until these editing disputes are concluded. (Posted on talk:Yamashita’s gold and talk:Haemo)Jim (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you guys look like you have a good discussion going, and it might be of some benefit to just allow y'all to get going on making some of the changes you've discussed. However, if the edit warring starts up again after the protection is over, feel free to leave me a note and I'll extend it.  --Haemo (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You guys? That is why I asked for the extension, the guy who requested page protection isn't discussing! Good greif. Jim (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant you and some other people on the page, not you and him. His non-response could mean a couple of things &mdash; he's not going to discuss, in which case you need to up the ante or that's he's given up.  Either way, I think it might be a good trial to see what happens after the protection is over.  I don't like protecting things when there could be good work done. --Haemo (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotcha...thanks. Jim (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jim is again engaging in unilateral edits of the kind that first caused this dispute. Can you reinstate the protection please? Grant  |  Talk  01:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as he's willing to compromise and discuss, I don't see a problem &mdash; at least wait for him to reply! --Haemo (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Haemo, it’s me again. I have taken your advice, and upped the ante. I have asked for, and got help/suggestions from the Fringe Theories notice board and the guys from over @ Third Opinion. Some rather useful stuff too, I might add. One of the guys made sections for the article, that looked nice. One suggestion from 3O was to do an audit of the citations. Low and behold, one of the “references” used had a “fiction” warning right on the copyright page! Needless to say, I removed it.

As you can probably tell by now, Grant is getting very upset that I am making these corrections to the article. That is what brings me here, today. I am a bit concerned that Grant will use his “administrative powers” towards me (or on me) because I am removing statements, references and sources he has deemed as being useful, even though they do not fall under the WP guidelines of reliable sources or fit into this article.

Well, that’s a wrap for now…catch ya later! Jim (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be a clear violation abuse of my powers. It isn't going to happen.


 * For the record, Jim, I appreciate your contributions when they are constructive and aimed at expanding the article, but you seem to have very rigid and narrow ideas about certain things such as historiography, how Wikipedia should deal with controversy, and the use of sources. This can be very frustrating to experienced editors such as myself. Anyway, I am confident that, if you continue to edit articles, you will get the hang of it eventually. Grant  |  Talk  07:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have thought anything else :) --Haemo (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Haemo. As predicted, Grant65 is trying to abuse his administrative position to prevent others from editing. Grant is adding his own personal opinion(s) to the article, without providing a specific reliable source. In addition, Grant may contest in his own mind a ruling that occurred in a court case back in 1998, but there is no documentation provided to support his opinion. "However, that interpretation of the Roxas litigation is contested" Grant65 continuously tries to use is simply his own point of view

Provided for you viewing is the warning I received on my talk page: “Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Yamashita's gold, you will be blocked from editing. Grant | Talk 11:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)” I think blocking other editors from contributing to an article, when one clearly has a vested intrest is far fetch from any sort of professionisum.

Please advise on the next step to “up the ante” and report this abuse of position. I think Grant65’s constant reverting the artilce back to his last edit shows they clearly have an agenda, even editors (other than myself) have warned him of using false referencing, original research and dubious sources. Jim (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not an abuse of administrator's power. He's warning you about it &mdash; he will not personally block you, but rather act like any other editor, and get an outside view.  He is not abusing his position, so I wouldn't try "upping" anything.  --Haemo (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is Edward Carpenter
Hello Haemo,

As you can see in the edit history, I've tried to point out before that a fundamental mistake is made in the movie that makes the explanation of the stars positions in the sky the night of 25th December an absurd claim, because of a misunderstanding of the actual fact. However another argument about the same issue, a valid argument, is found in the book that has been used in the film of the source of that information. I wanted to put the link there also. The mistake is too serious and pseudoscientific to not be pointed out and clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvcephei (talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand but you might want to consider that external links need to follow our external linking guidelines and I'm not sure that one does. --Haemo (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Request proper procedure
What is the proper procedure when an editor moves an article to a new name when such a move is under discussion on the talk page and no consensus has been achieved? Anoshirawan moved Dari (Afghanistan) to Dari (Persian) in just such an instance. He had been warned about edit warring in that article and as Kavaiyan pointed out on 2 November 2007: "There he goes: Anoshirawan continues his edit war." I don't want to edit war, and previous RFC's have gone relatively un-responded-to. See for example: RFC on Template:History of Afghanistan or the slightly better, but unsatisfactory Request for Comment: Persian Cromwell, fact or fiction?. --Bejnar (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I'm not sure; you should ask on the admins noticeboard since I'm not very experienced with page move problems. --Haemo (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll try that and another RFC, for what it is worth. --Bejnar (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Beh-nam
Upon being unblocked today, 25 November 2007, one of Beh-nam's first edits was in the article Tajiks where he said he "restored [from] vandalism by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.202.115.142)" which he did. But in the process he removed the edits that I and LeeMulod333 had made.  Fixing the vandalism should have been simply changing the pop1 figure in the info box from 209.202.115.142's 6,315,129 back to 8,610,279.  Beh-nam is an experienced editor and knows the effect of grabbing an old version, and ignoring the intermediate edits.  Since my edit was more than four hours previous to Beh-nam's, Beh-nam must have seen it in order to (1) identify the vandalism as belonging to  209.202.115.142, and (2) select an earlier version to restore.  He chose his/her last version, 11:16, 23 November 2007 Beh-nam, even though LeeMulod333's version was before the vandalism. Something is not right, and mere inattention does not seem to be it. You warned Beh-nam in his restoration and Beh-nam replied in part: "Well another suggestion I would have for myself is to be more patient. I have a tendency to loose my patience and edit quickly. I think that's the main thing that might get me into edit wars sometimes." --Bejnar (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd chalk it up an honest mistake; I know I do it. It's worth watching, though. --Haemo (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh my gee...
can you help me make the images on Good Hair Day smaller... i dont know how I can resize them on wikipedia :S xx Iamandrewrice (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks fixed now; change the px entry in the image name. --Haemo (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:RodentofDeath
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/RodentofDeath. -- edg ☺ ☭ 15:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

wow
haemo how are you finding all those GHD quotes?

you must be using some really good search or something... I tried everything on google, but couldnt find hardly anything

Iamandrewrice (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mostly Google News, and I searched for "Jemella Group" because it gets fewer hits. --Haemo (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hi Haemo. What does your note on "Live Issue Prematurely Archived" mean? Sorry, but I don't speak "admin". -- Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 23:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like the mystery is solved, and nothing else needs to happen. I thought the joke was funny :( --Haemo (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I got the joke; but the guy has admitted a string of different IDs, not necessarily socks. Now do we take him at his word, or block these accounts, or file an RFCU to make sure there aren't any more lurking around? I did try emailing but, huh, it got bounced. Not sure what to do with this. If I were an admin I'd block the lot -- Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 23:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as they aren't disruptive, socks are actually permitted. --Haemo (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I have two socks? As you know, one sock is of no good use....well hmmm, one is good for cleaning the dust off the TV and miniblinds, but two can make you look sane and fashionable. :p - Jeeny (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have one sock, so I guess that makes me crazy. --Haemo (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi
 Hello Haemo, Jeeny has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. But, it ain't resolved, not in my emotional, human, dare to question authority, mind. :) - Jeeny (talk) 09:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Feel free to remove the "resolved" tag, then. --Haemo (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Japanese citrus
See Deletion review/Log/2007 November 26 Badagnani (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hurooz
I see no justifications in you blocking User:Hurooz. He did not abbuse sock puppet account. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you unblock him. He emailed me and told me about this. He said you were very unfair administrator, and that he will not make any more account names if you or other administrators stop blocking him.--Panjshiri-Tajik (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, he did. See Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand.  He was blocked for using multiple accounts; this is yet another account.  If he wishes to be unblocked, then he can request unblock on his main account. --Haemo (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD close
Hey Haemo, I see that you closed Articles for deletion/Joel Ledgister as delete. Looking at it, I notice that it was a double nomination but that no-one has really commented on the second person Matthew Day. Do you think that article should be deleted or renominated? Thanks Woodym555 (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, I just overlooked him. It looks like the discussion would be pretty much the same for both. --Haemo (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, just wanted to ask you so as to not step on toes. Woodym555 (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding reversion of Edit
Hello,

Could you explain what was inappropriate about the links on my two recent edits to "Jehovah's Witnesses'?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorvesapostate (talk • contribs) 07:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read our external linking guidelines, you can see that those links are probably not appropriate for the Jehovah's witnesses article. --Haemo (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Update and comment on post directly above.
Hello,

I am new at this so I am trying to make sure I have edited correctly. I think I saw what I did wrong, so I made that correction.

I will also register and e-mail address tommorrow to make future communication easier.

And suggestions and help is greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Vorvesapostate.Vorvesapostate (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a great plan. Tell me if you need any help in the future. Just remember to try and follow our guidelines when editing on Wikipedia. --Haemo 03:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc and AN/I
When you get a chance, I'd appreciate your input on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The discussion was initiated by Callmebc using an IP and relates to 's blanking and protection of User talk:Callmebc. - auburn pilot   talk  01:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Houston jewelry revisited by creator
Hello Haemo.

The creator of this deleted article left me a message last week. He seems to be asserting that Houston Jewelry should not have been deleted. I replied here, saying that the articles he said were no more notable than Houston Jewelry were probably actually notable and asking him to contact you as deleting admin. Other events intervened, and I was wondering if he got back to you. Cheers,  Dloh cierekim'''  01:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, never heard a word. --Haemo (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look
Thanks for commenting on this issue earlier. It would be much appreciated if you can vote here Watchdogb (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'll pass on voting; my position is pretty clear and voting is evil. --Haemo (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh I am sorry I did not know about your stance. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Best regards Watchdogb (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD to watch over: Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft characters (2nd nomination).
As you were the one who have closed the previous AfD Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft characters with a speed-related note, I would appreciate it if you watch over its renomination that I have recently started.

If six days are plenty for closing an AfD, I will inform you then. Thanks in advance. IAmSasori (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)