User talk:HangingCurve/Archive 5

An Amusing AfD Debate
Hey, I wanted to say thanks for your closing down the AfD discussions on "Zhi has hemmorhoids" and that poor kid with his "King Adam" article. There is another AfD debate going on that's actually somewhat amusing:. I thought you would be interested in weighing in there. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:User:܀܀܀܀
Stick with RBI, see this for more details.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

GE Real Estate
When you encounter an article that seems promotional but with a subject that seems notable such as GE Real Estate, it is often better to use the Advert tag than G11, or alternatively to cut the article down to a stub. See Google News coverage of the company. I have nothing to do with GE Real Estate or General Electric, but I suspect that a company with $79 billion in assets is probably notable. It might be worthwhile to restore the article and remove any text which you regard as excessively promotional. --Eastmain (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Scalise
I reverted your change, let me explain why. I have never heard that swearing in is retroactive... the bioguide lists election dates for inerim elected congressman but itdoesn;t say anything to the effect that swearing in is retroactive to that date... can you provide me with a decent source stating this... please bear in mind that other wikipedia elected offical pages using the election date as the staqrt date would not be positive evidence. Just because a mistake was made elswhere in wikipedia does not make it correct. Let me know.. Ithink you could be correct... I just need a citable source.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey again... I'm sending an email to info.clerkweb@mail.house.gov to try to clear this up... give me a minute and I'll further explain why I think it's incorrect.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I added some thoughts on Drwho's talk page. I think what we have is a conflict between two authoritative sources (Bioguide and the Clerk of the House/Secretary of the Senate) and no clear means of deciding which is "more authoritative." JTRH (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting on the Brownback page I notice it says he was elected on November 5, 1996 but his service (although retroactive) started on November 7, 1996.... it very sepcifically spells out that his service date is different than the election date unlike the other pages (which could be used as an argument both for and against retroactive start dates). I have sent an e-mail to info.clerkweb@mail.house.gov and I will let you know what they say.. I can also list my other reasons if you want me to (I don't want to come off as argumentative).--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Andeggs
Check his contrib history. He's a long time user. I think you've got this one wrong. --Dweller (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know...
Someone made a death threat pointed right at you. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't found it, the Tuscson Police contacts: Toddst1 (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WCBS-TV
I ask your assistance: a new user, Nickfaitos (contribs), has been unnecessarily changing the introductory paragraph in the WCBS-TV article, labeling the station as the "East Coast flagship". As we know, there is no such official designation for any television station, but this new jack utilized an IP address, 67.180.135.133 (contribs), to continue to prove their point. This continued after I made comments on their talk page on the content. I'll assume the IP got a user name, but they have been using both the IP and the registered account to revert back to their version, labeling my changes as vandalism. I've already reverted twice, and I'm not going to avoid running afoul of the three-revert rule. Thanks in advance. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Higgins
You have somehow accidentally left my comment outside your archival box, even though I made it before the decision to speedy delete was taken. JH (talk page) 19:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Now fixed, I see. Thanks. JH (talk page) 20:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Philadelphia Phillies
Thanks for your contributions and edits to Philadelphia Phillies. However, I reverted your edit which removed references to the Philadelphia Quakers. Please read the old discussion on the article's talk page regarding this issue. The references disagree, but the names Quakers and Phillies were used concurrently from 1884-1890 as evidenced by many resources provided by the Baseball Hall of Fame. The team history website, if that is your reference (which, by the way, you did not provide), is inaccurate in this regard. KV5 (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisting debates
Hey there Blueboy96, hope you're well. I apologize in advance if you already know this, but just in case, I'll leave a messsage. Yesterday, (the 11th), when you relisted Articles for deletion/Sandeep Johri, you didn't remove it from the May 6th log and add it to the May 11th log. I've now done this for this particular debate for you. Relisting means exactly that, relisting it. It takes three edits to do it -one to mark the Afd as relisted, one to remove it from that day's log, and one more to re-add it to the current day's log. Point of reference is located here (instruction #8). Again, my apologies if you already know this. I've forgotten myself a couple of times and was glad to get a talk message to point it out. Thanks for your editing,  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

POV deletion nomination
The article Instant-runoff voting controversies has been nominated for deletion. User:Abd has admitted that they work as an advisor for an anti instant-runoff voting group in a former deletion nomination for this article. User:Abd has a clear conflict of interest. I believe this person is wedging themselves into the nomination and shouldn't be there due to this. They have also tried to manipulate the nomination. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My Home
What was wrong with it? It was an article that I put a lot of work and local knowledge into. If you see my portfolio of contributions you will see why! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich nffc (talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have tried to explain on his talk page about notability and WP not being an indiscriminate collection of information. As the nominator, I have a different question: I'm pleased to see it go, and I would have speedied it if I thought there was a category to fit, but I thought A7 only covered people and organisations and web content? Broader cover for cases like this would certainly be useful. JohnCD (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The way I read A7, it applies to ANY article that does not assert its notability. Besides, the text of the criterion refers to "people, organization (band, club, company, etc.)" Blueboy96 19:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:InSessionlogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:InSessionlogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
Thanks for blocking User:Kjngjkn who has previously:
 * blanked the page at The Philadelphia Inquirer on 5 March 2008
 * edit-warred on List of sexual slurs
 * edit-warred on Mac OS X

Six minutes after you reverted his edits at Mac OS X, User:Crazypush planyour... reverted you. A review of his edit history shows that he has:
 * blanked the page at The Philadelphia Inquirer on 4 March 2008
 * edit-warred on List of sexual slurs
 * started edit-warring on Mac OS X by claiming your edits were vandalism.

Do you think that I being overly suspicious in assuming that Crazypush planyour... is yet another sockpuppet of User:Knowhands enjoykeep?

You can add Erj411 as well. He's just hit List of sexual slurs, Battlestar Galactica: The Second Coming and my talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the RFCU and did a double-take when I saw the number of sockpuppets involved. At the SSP report AlistairMcMillan mentioned Primetime fairly early but it meant nothing to me. It was a good pickup. Hopefully they've all gone now. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Block on account '67.180.135.133"
Hello. At 16:32 on 9 May 2008 I was notified of the assessment of a twenty-four hour editing block for what was described as "abusing multiple accounts" or "sock puppetry." I fully accept this block, because I did precisely what was described, and for the purpose cited, but after ten days' passing I feel the need to at least make it known to you, the administrator who declared the block, that I did not know such a rule existed, and I would not have taken such an action were I aware of it. However spirited the exchange between another user and me regarding certain lines in a Wikipedia article, it was not my intention to breach any convention of procedure and good faith (although I see that the other user has in his history also received blocks under similar circumstances). I suppose there is no provision for appealing blocks retroactively, but I feel the need to make it public (or "Wikipedia-public" at least) that I did not know that I was officially doing wrong. This is a minor item in the overall Wikipedian community, but I thought I would notify you of this--a lesson well learned. Please respond to this message if there is anything you feel I should know. Thank you, Nick, also known (although not from now on) as "67.180.135.133".

User: Zippycup
Is actually a sockpuppet of previously blocked Yoshi525 86.148.164.181 (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

List of British Females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States)
I was just about to clarify my nom when you closed the discussion. Could you direct me to the criteria of inclusion for lists? --Ave Caesar (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:LIST is where you want to go, next door to your left. Blueboy96 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me, however I went ahead and put it up for WP:DRV to have the AfD reopened. Even after reading WP:LIST it still seems quite trivial and not very useful.  I think it's at least worthy of discussion.--Ave Caesar (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've re-opened the discussion with a note on how you closed it. I have no opinion on the list itself, but I ask that you give Ave Caesar a day or so to clairify the deletion rationale before considering another speedy keep.  Cheers.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is at DRV. See my comment there. Daniel (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleveland Indians
Nice set of edits. Thanks. Montco (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the club
Thought you could use a formal welcome ;) SirFozzie (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

On pourrait aussi...
...former un club de ceux qui ont bloqué un sock de Bogaert/MS/Lustucri! Merci en tout cas pour l'action rapide. I guess it's OK to write this in french considering your user page. Bradipus (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:KITVlogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:KITVlogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Dotcom Infoway Pvt. Ltd
Hi Blueboy! Please can you check User talk:Chrisdru to see that you're happy with my decline of this user's request to have unblocked? Thanks! ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Looking at this one where does that "block" template live? I'd seen it around & could have used it today - cheers -- Herby talk thyme 13:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Charismatic Wikipedians
I've proposed to rename the user category Category:Charismatic Wikipedians. Since you are listed a member, you may be interested in participating in the discussion.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Bart Versieck
User:Bart Versieck would like to draw your attention to a concern that he has on his talk page. I'm just the messenger though! Cheers, CP 01:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * These edits of his really bother me... perhaps not so much because they're blatant WP:TPG violations (they're not), but because he should not be undertaking any edit that could reasonably be construed as being disruptive in this manner (after all, the first edit did completely remove someone's comment off of a talk page). And since he's said that he's watching this page, I don't really feel like reposting this on his talk page with yet another warning. Cheers, CP 01:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently, in addition to his defence for the first diff, he's apparently decided that he can delete comments if he considers them to be vandalism. He's just not willing to stop testing the limits. Cheers, CP 00:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Let me know if/what you need from me. Cheers, CP 00:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Lindsey Graham and Gitmo
Hi. I'm not from the US, nor do I know enough to do any major editing about its political processes, but this senator's recent comments about the outrageously lax treatment of enemy combatants seems like something worth a "Political views" subsection in his seldom-edited article. If you agree, could you please look into this? Or alternately find someone else to bug about this? --Kiz o r  00:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dice
I'm not aware of any current socks. He may use IPs from time to time. See John_Conner, The_Resistance, Resistance_for_Christ, and so on. He finally become notable enough for an article under his real (?) name, and things have been quieter since then, mostly. At this point the promotion may be coming from fans rather than the man himself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was me who attempted to insert this "Controversy".
 * I'm not a sock of anyone (actually, I'm normally an SPA to policy, I don't often wander off my topic), and I'm on a time-zone likely quite different from Dice.
 * I was initially puzzled why, when we have a YouTube of Michael Reagan apparently inciting people to murder Dice, we can't have it in the article. On reflection, it does somewhat make sense because, it indeed appears that no RS picked it up. Here is another blog (?) and a guy claiming that Michael has actually apologised - but that's hardly conclusive either. PRtalk 18:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Moulton
Hi, BB. I've been trying to follow the discussion leading to Moulton's recent (re-)blocking by you. Could you say what specific action caused you to block? From this ANI discussion it looks like the link Filll objected to went to a redacted version without any of Filll's personal info. Was there some other offending post by Moulton? Thanks, Gnixon (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:Bart Versieck
Hi Blueboy96, can I ask you about your recent indefinite block of User:Bart Versieck? The diff you quote in your block message was from three days ago, and while it isn't usually appropriate to remove other editor's talk page comments, it doesn't seem to be appropriate to indefinitely block an account for that infraction. Indefinite blocks are for vandalism-only accounts, which this one is clearly not. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and given the editor has continued to edit without repeating the behavior, for three days, what is your block designed to prevent? Is there more to this story than I am seeing? Thanks, Gwernol 00:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Blueboy, that was the information I was looking for. Looks like a good block. Best, Gwernol 01:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You may want to check back in on the AN discussion you started regarding this block and a possible community ban. Several editors and admins, myself included, are opposed to a ban and support a reduction in the indefinite block. Thanks, - auburn pilot   talk  19:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

BenH
I figured you could help me out with 216.41.250.143, I suspect BenH is at it again with the WCYB-TV, WJHL-TV and WEMT-TV articles, amongst several others. Nicholasm79 (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I went ahead and reverted his edits on the three articles I mentioned. Nicholasm79 (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
...for reverting that (very annoying) vandalism to my user page :) → Christian .И  21:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars with ViperNerd
Hey, I've been observing your edit war with ViperNerd over information in Clemson-related articles. I too have been victim of this edit war in the articles I created about Clemson baseball and Clemson basketball. He's the posterboy of a one-issue editor, and that issue is to make Clemson look bad. I've been in the same position as you, arguing my case over the way things are worded and have had no success. The rules of wikipedia make it a very bureaucratic and lengthy nightmare to try and get an admin to do anything about it.

If you ever need someone to back you up against this fool, let me know and I'll help. Otherwise he's like a virus where you can only treat the symptoms. Good luck in the future and thanks for standing up for fairness and equality on wikipedia. -Jober14 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You guys are on the money with this. This guy is gaming the system to the maximum extent possible.  I've got your back.  Thör  hammer 21:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While you've "got Jober's back" don't forget to give him his reacharound, Thor. ViperNerd (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard
Do you think there's any consensus for unblocking with a topic ban on any and all editing of talk page comments? he's asking again on his talk page. – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 17:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin RFAR
Per ruling of the arbcom here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin an RFAR on Orangemarlin has been opend here: Requests_for_arbitration. You are invited to submit your evidence and statements.. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 16:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Question: what editor do you think may have been banned as a result of OM's actions? Thanks much! KillerChihuahua?!? 14:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning regarding personal attacks
Please do not add templates to editor userpages, such as you did to User:CarolSpears, or you may be blocked. Please regard this as an official warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I question putting a ban template on the user page, and would like input from others at AN/I on this issue. --Blechnic (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

*chuckles*
I know who added that info to the JB LTA article, and it's not JB. In fact, he's quite perturbed about being compared to JB. Hit my email if you need to know who it was. (no, not me) *grins* SirFozzie (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Two AfDs that might possibly merit early closure
Articles for deletion/OMGLOL!‎ and Articles for deletion/Bring em on‎. Thanks for the attention,  Enigma  message 06:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of David Southwick
Hi - you have the decency to delete the David Southwick article. I would like to know why did you not delte the Diane Teasdale, Richard Di Natale and David Risstrom articles which just like David Southwick were also failed candidates in elections?? If David Southwick goes, so does Diane Teasdale, Richard Di Natale and David Risstrom yet for some reason DGG won't let me. This is just unfair and really break my personal confidence in Wikipedia. CatonB (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bring 'em on AfD
Re: Articles for deletion/Bring em on: I don't think this qualified as a snow requiring/allowing early closure. It was a judgment call though. We lost two days of potential discussions about redirects or future rewrites. What's done is done and it would be pointless to continue the discussion for the sake of continuing the discussion. One thing we can all agree on: The previous version should be history. Whether it's replaced by a hard-redirect, a soft-redirect, nothing, or a brand new encyclopedic article is something future editors can worry about. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nicole Wray
An article that you have been involved in editing, Nicole Wray, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Nicole Wray. Thank you. 4.129.65.144 (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)