User talk:KieferSkunk/Archive 3

Adminship
Have you any interest in a nomination for adminship? Andre (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? I'd love that. :)  Though I feel I should ask: What's your reasoning?  And also, do you think this is a good time to nominate me, considering my recent dispute with JAF1970? &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 04:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I noticed you've been doing good work, have over 2000 edits, and have lately been accumulating a lot of praise and even barnstars. I'm not suggesting that there aren't others deserving of adminship in and around the project, though. I think you're right that the JAF dispute was a bit recent, so we can wait a few months. Keep up the good work meanwhile. Andre (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (nod) Understood. And thanks again. :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 04:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well deserved!

 * Wow, thanks! :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 19:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Email response to User:QuackGuru regarding WQA
For the record: I received an email from User:QuackGuru regarding a Wikiquette Alert involving User:Levine2112's editing habits. I am not posting the entire original email, but am posting my response to the email as a start for continued conversation here on Wikipedia. I do not generally welcome private emails about public disputes - in cases where I do, I will always solicit them first. It is my belief that emails such as this one only serve to unfairly skew the conversation, because there is no chance in that context for a mediated or moderated discussion to occur.

QuackGuru wrote: > Hi there, > > Levine2112 has a long history of a pro chiro and pro alternative medicine > point of view on Wikipedia. [Remaining text snipped] Hi there. I would prefer that we keep discussions about this issue on Wikipedia, as all this email really does is try to convince me of your side of the story without adequate opportunity for discussion by anyone else. I do not see anything in the diff you linked to that appears to be overly POV about Levine's edit. In fact, his edit was well formatted, properly cited, it allowed for multiple points of view, and it added a level of professionality to the article that I didn't see in the previous version before his edit. While I can't vouch for all of Levine's edits, I don't see that this particular one you used as an example really provides much evidence to support your claims. Please take all future messages about this topic to my User Talk page, or respond to the Wikiquette Alert, so that a mediated discussion can take place. Thanks. (I will be posting a copy of this response to my Talk page.) -- KieferSkunk

&mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WQA against Ludovicapipa
Thank you for the sanity check and support. One minor note: Ludovica's the girl. I'm a boy. =) Sorry, I couldn't resist. Teaches me to get some userboxes...--Dali-Llama 20:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoops, sorry! My mistake. :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Zelia

 * Hello Kiefer,
 * Can you pls look his comments. He reverted Zelia AFTER my justification and even left a comment saying I didn´t justify!!!! LOL.
 * Ludovicapipa yes? 11:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Intimidation

 * And here, although I provided justification, and no third opinion was involved so far, he said I will be block if revert him according to 3RR. The thir opinion came after he reverted.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#INTIMIDATION12:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you also explain why was Plano Collor protected?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plano_Collor Ludovicapipa yes? 12:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Plano Collor

 * Hello again, Kiefer:
 * Don´t you think political matters are TOO emphsized here? The article is abt and economic plan. All references to its economic policies were deleted by the user. And wihtout ask, discuss nor justify, he requested a page protection.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plano_Collor Ludovicapipa yes? 12:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Carefull with his request!

 * As you can see here, he agrees that Color ended hyperinflation [|here]
 * "It is correct (and indeed sourced) to say that Collor ended hyperinflation, but even then his inflation rates were no picnic and most of his reforms failed (see here)."
 * But later he deleted the word "END" (of hyperinflation). Ludovicapipa yes? 14:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Kiefer, if you'd like me to reply to any of these issues here, I will. Otherwise, I'm addressing them on their respective talk pages. Thanks!--Dali-Llama 15:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Another link

 * "Well, we already established she didn't end hyperinflation in Fernando Collor de Mello, so we can nix that."
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Z%C3%A9lia_Cardoso_de_Mello Ludovicapipa yes? 15:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Collected response to Ludovicapipa
Hi Ludovicapipa. I am not in a position to comment on the specific content dispute here, since I know nothing of the content and therefore cannot make any sort of judgement about who is right and who is not. In addition, some of the arguments are written in Portuguese, which I can only just barely discern any meaning from (I'm semi-fluent in Spanish, but no other languages). So unfortunately, I can't help you with the content dispute. Again, I'd like to refer you to WP:RFC - there, you should be able to attract the attention of some editors who have more knowledge about the content itself.

WP:3RR is a strict rule regardless of who is involved. If you're in a content dispute, you are NOT allowed to keep reverting a single article over and over again, even if your edits are later determined to be completely correct. (The exception to this is if you're reverting obvious vandalism - then, 3RR does not apply.) The intent to that rule is that if you're in a content dispute and your changes are the best ones according to consensus, other people will likely step up to help you by making the same reverts. Whoever is battling against you in the edit war would then be more likely to hit their 3RR limit if they keep it up. Of course, ideally all issues will be discussed on the appropriate Talk page before an edit is made to the main article, but that doesn't happen as often as we'd like.

Basically, Dali-Llama's warning against you was to let you know (as a matter of courtesy - he wasn't required to do this) that you were at your 3RR limit, and that another revert in that edit war would get you blocked. It doesn't matter what the state of the content is - if you revert an article for non-vandalism reasons more than 3 times in a single day, you can and likely will be blocked. Like I said, it's a strict policy, meant to prevent edit wars, and it does not discriminate.

As I said, I can't help with the content dispute itself. My purpose here is to help you and Dali-Llama get back to a civil discussion by removing personal attacks from the discussion. Criticize the content, not the editor. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 15:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfounded Warning

 * If you can´t read potuguese sources, then you can´t comment. But yo udo understand all msgs above. You still hva eno comments for that? I provided links that show his warning has no basis, sncie I didn´t revert. Did you read the msgs above? Can you comment~the msgs instaed of HIS warning? Ludovicapipa yes? 16:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if you could provide links to diffs instead of just links to the entire conversations. I do not have the time or bandwidth to research the detailed histories of each article and talk page to determine what's going on.  If you can point me to specific diffs that show the pattern of abusive or offensive behavior that you're reporting, then I can respond more specifically to the situation.


 * To link to a diff:
 * Navigate to the article or talk page in question.
 * Click "History"
 * Find the particular edit that you want to point out, and click "(last)" to see a diff between that edit and the previous edit.
 * Go to the Address Bar in your browser and copy the URL to the clipboard.
 * Paste the URL inside an external link ( descriptive text if you want it )


 * Voila! Now I can go directly to that edit and see what happened. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 16:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No Faucher for a Zelai article!!

 * I didn´t cite Faucher for Zelia´s. Only for Collor. Ludovicapipa yes? 15:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol. So he's good enough a source for Collor, but not for Zelia?--Dali-Llama 15:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

AS YOU can see...
AS YOU can see, you a´re the one not reading sources!!!! You dn´t even look for them --you are using all my link, sources, citationS to build yr versin --YR POV!
 * You thought this SCIELO was a Faucher --but it´s NOT!! It´s ANOTHER ARTiCLE!!!!
 * http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0034-71402005000200001&script=sci_arttext
 * Ludovicapipa yes? 15:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

VERY UGLY: MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 * hAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA 15:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC) YOU ARE THE ONE WHODOESN´T READE SOURCES.
 * FAcuher´s artcile is abt POLITICS --this one abt ECONOMY!!! MY GOOD GO'.15:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)~

No sources -- ONLY POV!

 * You see, you don´t read sources. You used WRONG sources, that don´t justify. And you didn´t read, and didn´t chekc, and even after all this, you said Iam the one not to read!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAhahahahahhaa Ludovicapipa yes? 16:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ludovicapipa yes? 16:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 2
Ludovicapipa, please stop spamming my Talk page. You're missing the point entirely - half the stuff you just posted here shows your tendency to personally attack other editors, and it's only going to get you blocked from Wikipedia. You need to cool off.

Future spams on this page will be recorded as diffs, deleted, and reported to the Admin Noticeboard if necessary. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 16:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack?

 * Iam glad to see "how it works". You don´t even read msgs. Ludovicapipa yes? 16:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you cite where was the personal attack? Ludovicapipa yes? 16:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you show me where is the personal attack? According to you, if there one can´t understand portuguese, then cannot comment? so, how come there a third opinion on the artciles? Will you read above msgs? they are all in english. Ludovicapipa yes? 16:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Hahahahaha, YOU DON'T EVEN READ SOURCES!" part is quite enough. And yes, I have read all of your messages.  Please see my response further up, regarding how you can help me understand the conflict - all I've seen so far is a sincere effort on Dali-Llama's part to remain civil with you, while you seem to consistently attack him.  If you can point me to specific diffs that show otherwise, perhaps I can help you more.


 * Also, you missed my point earlier: You are asking me to comment on a content dispute about which I have no knowledge or experience. You're correct in that large portions of the conversations are in English, so lack of understanding of the language is not the problem.  I do not have any experience with the actual content being discussed, so I cannot give you any judgement as to whose content should stay and whose shouldn't, nor can I comment on the sources being provided.  To do so, I would have to invest a lot more time and effort into becoming an expert on the subjects at hand, and I do not have that kind of time, or quite frankly, any interest in doing so.


 * Regardless of the content, I HAVE been commenting on your behavior specifically, as has Dali-Llama. The issue is not whether your content is correct - Dali has mentioned several times that he considers your points valid.  The issue is that you are NOT remaining civil during these discussions.  I don't know how else to put this, to be honest - you can have the best, most factual and most well-thought-out arguments on the face of the planet, but if you're going to resort to attacking another person's character while making your arguments, people will still not listen to you, and further misbehavior will eventually get you blocked for violating Wikipedia policies.  Please take a moment to understand this, and please go read the policies I've pointed you to several times.  Thank you. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 16:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not language, but editions

 * Can you cite WHERE was I attacking him? WHERE???
 * Msgs above are mechanical --not content related. His editions are blatantly made, regardless of any WP policy. If you read msgs above an try to understand you will see. AS for the warning he left, the justification concerned a "not justificated" edition thta would allow him to revert since "I didn´t justtify and besides I didn´t respect third opinion". If you check links, you will see thir opinions came AFTER he reverted --not before. Ans even so, I DID justify (do you remember yesterday´s PND, Plan Collor and all the link I cited....so...thta was it, my justification!!). Ludovicapipa yes? 16:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So, if you´d like to see at least the TIME of each msg you will see that AFTER yesterdaý´s discussion he reverted and said I didn´t justify (yes, I left all citations, the very same ones on the talk page). THEN, AFTER I LEFT the justification he left the block 3RR warning saying I didn´t justify. AND THEN AFTER that he called a thir opinion. What kind of WP rule he broke? Ludovicapipa yes? 16:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Copied from the Wikiquette Alert (initial comments left by Dali-Llama):


 * User talk:Dalillama: Ludovica threatens me with a block (somehow): "If you insist, I will ask and administrator to block you, so you can refresh yr mind."
 * After I make a spelling mistake in Portuguese, she states: "Por aí nota-se que nível temos aqui", roughly translating to "that shows the level of person we have have here" (Google translate is similar), questioning what I'm assuming is my educational level.
 * Talk:Fernando Collor de Mello - " I dont´know how old are you..." Is it really necessary to insult me by questioning my age?
 * Talk:Plano Collor - User tells me to go "find a doctor"

These are all examples of the type of personal attacks that I've been pointing out. In addition, I will cite the rather rude "Hahahahahaha!" messages that you pasted above, here on my Talk page. Whether you see them as such or not, they are rude, disruptive, uncivil, and they attack Dali-Llama's character rather than addressing the article content.

Ludovicapipa, I have been as straightforward with you as I possibly can. I've tried to help and I've tried very hard to remain civil with you myself. But I am starting to lose my patience on this matter - I should not have to repeat myself time and time again. I have referred you to alternate forums that can better help you, I have told you I cannot help unless you can provide me with specific examples of cases where you believe Dali-Llama has been uncivil toward you, and I have referred you to the relevant Wikipedia policies. I don't know what else I can do now, so if things are going to keep going the way they're going, I will have to ask you to stop posting to my Talk page entirely. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 17:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The msgs above you call personal attack are just comments --never personal attacks. Iam also loosing patience, since you don´t read any msgs I leave and keep repeating this WP rules. Ludovicapipa yes? 17:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you're mistaken. I am reading your messages, and several times now I've asked you to give me more specific information.  Your apparent refusal to do so (or your ignorance of my requests) is making it very difficult for me to help you.  And I keep telling you about the Wikipedia rules and policies because you keep breaking them. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 17:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, as I said, whether you think they are personal attacks or not, those messages are personal attacks against Dali-Llama. If you had read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA like I asked you to, you would understand WHY they are considered attacks. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 17:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Time

 * Can you see? I left a JUSTIFICATION at 18:05.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Z%C3%A9lia_Cardoso_de_Mello
 * Later, his warning was left at 23:15, which said:
 * You've reverted from a change without specific justification on the Zélia Cardoso de Mello article. If you revert again, in whole or in part, within 24hrs of this first revert, you may be blocked for a violation of the WP:3RR. I will no longer edit the article myself for 24hrs since my first edit (as the rule applies to both of us). Please respond to my issues on the talk page for the article.--Dali-Llama 23:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * After I wrote my justification (HOURS BEFORE), he said I dind´t justificate.
 * Don´t need to know portuguese to read that. Ludovicapipa yes? 16:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

On process: You claimed in that Talk page that if a paragraph has citations, nobody is allowed to delete it. That is not true: Just because a paragraph is cited and sourced does not mean it's automatically appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. I cannot speak to the specific nature of that content, but the content dispute in this particular case appears to be whether or not someone is allowed to remove sourced content. Please read WP:V and WP:NPOV, and the related articles linked from those policies. Those policies and guidelines address in a general sense what kind of content is appropriate and what is not, regardless of sourcing. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 17:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is half of the answer. OF COURSE sources my not be approoriate --you are not reading the msgs. Ludovicapipa yes? 17:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I read the entire conversation on that Talk page, and I saw nothing wrong with the way Dali-Llama responded to you. Again, give me more specific information if you want me to be able to help you. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 18:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You saw the msg above citing the time and his warning abt blocks and even with the time cited, you don´t see anything wrong? And his commnents, with his tranlsation, you think they represent personal attacks? So you are not worried abt editions? but attacks? Ludovicapipa yes? 18:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You read all link above, and you think it´s OK to use wrong citations in the wrong article (one of politic other of economy), you are OK when he says "we agreed on Collor´s talkpage that hyperinflation didn´t end", when I cited he AGREED Collor ended?; you are OK when he leaves a mgs to warn me of a possible block because of not justificated reversion of mine, when the justification was made HOURS before (see "TIME" subtitle)? Ludovicapipa yes? 18:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I should not have to do your research for you. But here goes:
 * The 3RR warning was in this diff. Dali-Llama was telling you that you were at your revert limit on that article for the day, and also acknowledged that he was at his limit, so neither of you were in a position to continue edit-warring on that article.
 * The edit history of Zélia Cardoso de Mello shows that you regularly do not include edit summaries explaining your edits and reversions. That is what was meant by you not justifying your edits.  It is important that people understand WHY you are reverting another editor, and you can easily explain this in the edit summary.  Also, regardless of the reason for reversion (justification, whatever you choose to call it), WP:3RR still applies - even if Dali-Llama had not mentioned a lack of justification (which may have been incorrect in that case), his warning was still correct because he was addressing the revert war, not the content dispute.
 * Therefore, Dali-Llama's 3RR warning was done exactly as it should have been: He let you know that you appeared to just be reverting his edits for the sake of reverting - by all appearances, it was nothing more than an edit war, and the actual content dispute was secondary.


 * And yes, I've made myself clear multiple times that I am not addressing the content of the articles, but rather how you are behaving toward Dali-Llama, and now toward myself as well. Behavior and content are two separate issues, and my involvement in Wikiquette Alerts is to help people deal with behavioral issues with other editors, not content disputes. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 18:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, so his warning should have been made MANY DAYS BOFORE --not yesterday, since you yrself just said I never edit summaries.
 * Besides, all msgs above are trying to show you that his behavior towards my editions are malicious:
 * You read all link above, and you think it´s OK to use wrong citations in the wrong article (one of politic other of economy), you :are OK when he says "we agreed on Collor´s talkpage that hyperinflation didn´t end", when I cited he AGREED Collor ended?; you are :OK when he leaves a mgs to warn me of a possible block because of not justificated reversion of mine, when the justification was :made HOURS before (see "TIME" subtitle) . Ludovicapipa yes? 18:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For the last time, Ludovicapipa, I do not have any comment on the actual content of the article. That includes citations.  I am addressing the fact that you have been uncivil toward this editor, you have refused to acknowledge your uncivil behavior, you do not seem to understand how to separate your behavior from the content issues, and you do not seem to understand or be abiding by Wikipedia's civility policies.
 * It might have been appropriate for Dali to give you a 3RR warning earlier in the dispute, but the reason to give such a warning would have been that you reverted the article three times or more in the same day - it would have NOTHING to do with the actual content of the edits, or any justification you give for the reversions.
 * At this point, there is nothing more I can do to help you. You are apparently so singularly focused on the content dispute that you are completely ignoring everything that I and Dali have said about your behavior.  Therefore, you do not appear to be willing to go through any sort of mediation, and therefore I cannot help you.  I ask you now to find another editor who can help you on the content issues, and once again, I point you to WP:RFC to find that sort of help. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 19:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment on User Ludovicapipa
Kiefer, I've ended up filing an RfC/U hoping to get it bumped up to ArbCom. You can find it here. I'd appreciate your endorsement and any questions, comments or concerns you may have.--Dali-Llama 03:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Heya. Thanks for the notice - I endorsed your RfC and will add more detail to it tomorrow.  Don't really have time now. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 05:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. Thanks!--Dali-Llama 05:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. One thing I'd add to your RfC/U if you feel it's appropriate would be WP:3RR to the applicable user-conduct policies, and a mention of your warning to Ludovicapipa about it.  While 3RR is somewhat trivial compared to the other policies you've cited, it may help to note that this user is treading on thin ice in that department as well. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 17:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Kiefer, In response your comment ^^^above, I would not object to it. Ludovica actually has broken the 3RR several times before. If you look at the edit history of the WP:AN3 page you'll see that I reported 3RR violations in two separate occasions ( and ), but I withdrew them before they were ruled on. I felt if I protected the page instead of blocking her, she would not take it as "personally"--she was already attacking me and I felt protecting the page would force her to focus on the issue in the article talk page instead of inflaming a nother round of personal attacks by blocking her. In retrospect, that didn't change the result of events. If you feel I should mention this in the RfC, let me know, otherwise, I have no problems with your depiction of the 3RR issues you witnessed first hand. And about the notices to Ludovica, you actually caught right in the middle of writing that up on the RfC talkpage. Once again, thank you for your continued help in this case. It has really helped me navigate the maze of the DR process.--Dali-Llama 20:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem! :) On the 3RR: Yes, I'd mention that.  I was not aware of past 3RR violations and your attempts to work through them, so it'd be helpful to note that.  On the RFC/U notices to Ludovica, looking forward to seeing what you write up. :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

My sandbox
I use my sandbox to remind me of things since I am disabled. I just went there and a bunch of editors have posted on my sandbox that what I have there is against Wikipedia policy. I don't understand why others are posting to my sandbox and some of the post are rude to be honest. I thought the sandbox was for me to use for many things including learning how to do things and to put reminders for me. Why is there so many using my sandbox and making comments about deleting it? I don't understand any of this at all. Please explain what the problem is if there is a problem? I just use it to put links to problems and links on how to do things plus I don't know most of the editors who have posted never mind who they are complaining about. I am very confused with the behavior. Thank you,-- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it looked like I accidentally copied the stuff to my sandbox instead of the one reminder I was trying to put there. I deleted all the posts that didn't belong, I hope that's ok since I don't know how to archive and have a bot do it for me. Thanks and again sorry for wasting your time. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC) (I cut and pasted from my response to my mentor so I didn't have to rewrite this. Thank you for looking into this.-- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Delldot"

RFC filed against User:Epbr123
I noticed your discussions regarding the etiquette of User:Epbr123. Due to events that have occurred since then, an RFC has been filed and you are invited to participate in determining the course of action that should be taken regarding resolving the issues that surround the user and his contested actions. --Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice. However, since my only involvement was to initially comment on his "Editors should fix their own mistakes" comment, I think I'll be sitting this one out. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. Just though I'd let you know in any event. Thanks for your time and consideration! :-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 20:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and clarification on the RFC. Georgewilliamherbert 21:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm commenting more on process than on the original dispute, since I haven't been involved or watching the original dispute.  I definitely see some of the complaints spilling over, though. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Requesting your help on a couple of Wikiquette alerts
Hey, I seem to be having some trouble with the last couple of alerts I've taken on (I must be losing my touch), and I'd appreciate it if you could have a look at them and inject another voice into the discussions. They are WP:WQA and WP:WQA.

(My apologies if this note is redundant - personally, once I see that another volunteer has taken on a case, I usually stop paying attention to it. Since I assume that everybody else is the same as me, I'm assuming that nobody else is reading those alerts anymore, and that this sort of active solicitation of help is required.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs) 17:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi SI. I'm sorry, but I'm way too busy right now to help much with those WQAs.  I took a look and didn't see anything I could really contribute without taking more time to research the problems, and I don't have time to do that right now.  If they're still active when I do get time (might be a day or two), I'll see what I can do then.  Thanks for letting me know. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 22:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak
I'm taking a bit of a wikibreak right now, due to some personal and business matters I need to take care of, and while I'm recovering from recent dental surgery. I'll check in from time to time, but please don't expect a quick response from me for the next little while. Thanks. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 17:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In Pop Culture Proposal
Just letting you know I formally proposed the standards we talked about back in June on the Pong talk page. You can weigh in here. --Marty Goldberg 19:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Vgrationale looks to be broken.
At present, Template:Vgrationale shows "Non-free / fair use media rationale - NEEDS ARTICLE NAME" and "Article " any time I try to create a new fair use rationale. I've seen some users take advantage of this and slam anyone that's using the template with WP:NFCC. I don't know how to fix it, but I don't appreciate that someone broke this template. SashaNein 17:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like User:Masem already fixed it. Apparently the main Fair-Use Rationale template that vgrationale is based on was changed recently so that an Article parameter was required.  Masem took care of this by integrating the parameter into vgrationale.  No syntax changes needed in the template calls as a result.  Thanks for bringing this to my attention. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 22:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4
Notified you since you commented in the wittiquette. Please comment or endorse if you feel it is necessary. Viridae Talk 02:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for checkuser
You have reported the vandalism in the wrong place; checkuser serves to identify an IP address of a registered user in case of long-term abuse (for privacy reasons, most users, including a majority of administrators, cannot view this information). If a user continues to vandalize despite warnings, you can report him at administrators' noticeboard; if a particular article is a target of vandalism, you may request it to be protected. Regards, Mike Rosoft 09:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the thing, though. This person HAD been warned several times, we had reverted the article at least half a dozen times, and I was simply following the procedures described on the IP-Check page.  I had also requested semi-protection for the page before, when it was getting repeatedly vandalized, and the impression I got from the admins at that point was that nobody was particularly interested in helping keep the article under control.
 * C'est la vie, I suppose - the IP check request was made weeks ago at this point. Guess I'll just know not to bother anyone next time we have a persistent vandal attacking the article.  Thanks for responding anyway.  If you'd like to avoid having people report IP addresses on the IP Check page, perhaps the rules and procedures for that page should be rewritten in a way that clears up the apparent confusion? &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 19:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)