User talk:Malinaccier/September 2008

Just to let you know...
...my userpage is now a bright shade of yellow. I think it legible now, do you agree? ;) I'm feeling rather wiki-confident now so I've just adopted two newbies. I've been wanting to do so for a long time now, let's hope I don't regret it! Best, --Cameron* 13:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OMG, people read my hidden sections! I was going to add "wikipedians I admire" to the section. I'm not sure whether to unhide it, it could come accross as "sucking up". I can't believe so many people are leaving... :( --Cameron* 20:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What are your views on adding image of yourself to your usepage? Surely it makes (admins in particular) seem more friendly and approachable (providing they have friendly faces...!). --Cameron* 20:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. :) --Cameron* 10:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FORUM discussion
Hello, Malinaccier. Since you're an administrator, I would like to ask for your advice on the recent actions I made to this article talk page. I recently reverted numerous edits by three users who were, as I see it, violating the WP:FORUM policy. I reverted their edits and placed a notice on the talk pages of the involved users and the article talk page as you can see from the diff above. Ijanderson977 disagrees with my decision to revert arguing that he has placed a warning on the article talk page, which was addressed to the two other parties involved. He has reverted my edit but chose to strike his comments this time. I have reverted his edit again arguing that he can place the warning on the usertalk pages of the individual users involved, with which he disagreed and again reverted to the previous revision. I would like to ask you whether I did the right thing reverting in the first place or not. If so, I would like you to explain the WP:FORUM policy to Ijanderson977 and undo his edit. Otherwise, please explain what I'm doing wrong. Thank you in advance. A Vand talkcontribs 22:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * User:AVand, disagree with my point, I have reverted up to 3 times. I have made it clear with my edit summaries that intent not to revert any more, see here, therefore I have not violated the WP:3RR. If you look at User:AVand talk page, you will see my reasoning for reverting his edits and I will stand by them, however I know that I am not allowed to revet any more, therefore I won't, Regards Ijanderson (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I also know wikipedia is not a forum and that I a not to revert more than 3 times within 24 hours. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
--SmashvilleBONK! 23:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello! I just wanted to pass along my thanks for your support in my RfA from earlier this week. I hope I did not disappoint you. I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Could you provide me (per email) with a copy of Mother-in-law-zilla? Thanks so much, --Cameron* 11:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a very polite email request (by the author!?) for a copy of the text. They either assumed I was an admin or weren't aware I wasn't technically able to retrieve it my self. Besides, the email started "you seem nice", flattery will get you anywhere in my book! :)
 * PS: You may delete the subpage you created for the text, if you get a spare minute. --Cameron* 19:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Re: WP:FORUM discussion
Yes, thank you very much for your time :) 

A Vand talkcontribs has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Triple crown jewels
Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on especially on Hot chocolate - I see you did a lot of work there and the article went through some significant review steps during the (2) GA Reviews. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Mail
You have mail. Well done on the triple crown btw. :) --Cameron* 17:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think I could have a copy of New Year Honours 2009? You can dump it in my sandbox. Thanks! --Cameron* 21:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see why it was deleted now. Thanks! ;) --Cameron* 10:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You have more mail. Best, --Cameron* 16:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear you're safe and sound! ;) Taking a look at the edits I believe it ought to be left for the moment. It seems to have got better even if it is still not 100% OK. All the best, --Cameron* 11:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Hello Malniccier, remember about my suspiscions that this user Mynameisstanley might after all be the same person as Sdhilio. It was confirmed by Checkuser request, a week after i wrote to you. Following this, Mynameisstanley, the main account was blocked for a period of one week for breaking the 3RR rule with another user as well as using the sockpuppet to disruptively edit wikipedia. Ever since the block has been over, he has been continuing his old ways such as adding inappropriate deletion tags, deleting huge swaths of information with improper or false reasons, deleting dead links used as references, and vandalizing articles in general. He has also been deliberately ignoring warnings after that not to do so. He has been involved in edit conflicts with several users and is generally making a big nuisance of himself. He has vandalized articles three times over a one week period, and i have sent him three separate warnings, so far, which he has deliberately ignored and deleted from his talk page, the most recent one being today.

He has added improper deletion prods for no proper reasons in many articles. Following my comment on two deletion pages Articles for deletion/Zeev Rosenstein and Articles_for_deletion/Asi_Abutbul favoring that they should be kept as they are notable, another account User:Peoplearecool2008 which favors deletion status on par with Mynameisstanley has suddenly appeared. I have checked the user contributions of Peoplearecool2008, and it appears that the account was created nearly half an hour (at 15:45), after my comments were added in the deletion pages (at 15:20). So far, the users contributions have been only to deletion pages, mostly favoring delete. This user uses similar language to Mynameisstanley, and gives vague and similar reasons, such as "WP is not a criminal database", calling reputed mob bosses "Minor and Non notable Criminals", even though i have provided sources and evidences to the contrary.

The user doesn't have a talk page. Also, his profile page is similar to that of Mynameisstanley in that there is only one sentence written in each. I feel that this was done in an attempt to make both the accounts look like serious editors, as having a profile page would make their signatures appear blue rather than red. It is worth noting that most of his comments have been to the deletion pages of Organized crime which were started by Mynameisstanley. For these reasons, i cannot help but strongly suspect that Peoplearecool2008 is infact a sockpuppet created by Mynameisstanley, a convicted sockpuppeteer with the sole purpose of backing up his deletion opinions.

As such, i request your assistance for performing a checkuser in order to confirm whether my suspiscions are true. If confirmed, please make sure that it is noted in each of the deletion talk pages where they both have commented, that Peoplearecool2008 is Mynameisstanley's sockpuppet. Thank you. Joyson Noel (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is another interesting similarity. Both of them normally sign first and then write their user name and day and time. For instance, Mynameisstanley (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)# Mynameisstanley and Peoplearecool2008 (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Peoplearecool2008. Check Articles for deletion/Shapiro Brothers.

Joyson Noel (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for performing the usercheck, and having that sockpuppeteer blocked. I can finally take comfort in the fact that he wont be vandalizing articles and making disruptive edits for a long time. Regards, Joyson Noel (talk) 08:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Joyson Noel Sockpuppetry
72.74.225.16 72.74.218.37 71.184.46.252

Why don't you check out Joyson Noel's Sockpuppetry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeaaahboy (talk • contribs) 02:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, those aren't my IP addresses. Unlike you Mynameisstanley, i am not a sockpuppeteer or a disruptive vandaliser for that matter. I dont want to disclose my own IP address due to privacy issues, but i encourage Malinaccier to perform a usercheck to see if any of those IP addresses are mine. Please note that i am currently residing in Mangalore, India, and if these IP addresses are from anywhere else, then there is no way they were operated by me. I only have one alternative account User:SantiagoMatamoros, and a check of the contributions would show that my last edit through that account was on 3 July 2008, and any edits made from that account are neither vandalism nor disruptive. The account was created by me for security issues while editing from public computers. I have also let it be known in that profile page that SantiagoMatamoros is in fact operated by me.


 * Secondly, i can say with the utmost certainty that these two accounts User:Yeaaahboy and another one oddly named User:Indiancurse are infact two distinct sockpuppets or possibly meatpuppets of Mynameisstanley, created with the dual purpose of reverting any reversions of his vandalism or unconstructive edits and of harrasing me by blindly reverting my perfectly constructive edits, and thereby aggravating me. This might explain the name of the second account, since i am of Indian ethnicity. These accounts were probably created by him through different IP addresses, since his being banned for five months would prevent him from creating any new ones through his regular one for that time period. Am i right? Anyway, these two accounts have been engaged in vandalizing articles by disruptively reverting all my recent edits, and both seem to have a seething grudge against me. My edits have been reverted under such slanderous and false reasons such as "Reverting vandalism by banned user" and "Undid Vandalism by SockPuppet". Fortunately, all these reverts were undid by an administrator, User:Antandrus, although i am surprised as to why he didn't send them vandalism warnings.


 * I have also checked the reverts that these IP addresses have made to the edits by Mynameisstanley, and i could not find anything wrong with them. These edits are constructive and do not contravene wikipedia policies, in any way. They have only reverted the unconstructive and improper edits of Mynameisstanley, and these reverts do not constitute vandalism. I am not the only editor unhappy with his disruptive edits. There are many others who share the same view, and are just as irritated of him. See this and this in User:Toddst1's talk page, and Revision of Mynameisstanley's talk page as of 17:19, 15 August 2008. There are many more examples, but these many should suffice to provide a good picture as to what a big nuisance he has become.


 * Also, their edit summaries are quite remarkably similar. Check out the comparisons between the user contributions of Indiancurse and the user contributions of Yeaaahboy. The user account Yeaaahboy was created on 00:20, 14 September 2008, and Indiancurse was created on 00:50, 14 September 2008, within the space of half an hour, and exactly a day after Mynameisstanley was blocked. This coupled with their exclusive editing of Organized crime articles previously edited by Mynameisstanley, seething hatred of me, and spiteful reversion of all my recent edits strikes me as too much of a coincidence. I also find it really wierd that out of all the administrators, Yeaaahboy asked you to perform a usercheck on me. After all, i was the person who asked you to perform a usercheck on Mynameisstanley and you were the administrator who blocked Mynameisstanley. I cant help, but conclude they are in fact Mynameisstanley's sockpuppets or meatpuppets, and that they are being used by him in some sort of self declared vendetta against me.


 * As such, i request you to indefinitely ban Yeaaahboy and Indiancurse, and extend Mynameisstanley's block for a period of one year. Also, block any creation of new accounts by him for that time period. This should give him enough time to contemplate on his actions, and hopefully turn him into a productive editor to Wikipedia from the major nuisance that he is. Regards, Joyson Noel (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (butting in) -- Hi Malinaccier and Joyson Noel -- there's no need to give "vandalism warnings" to extremely obvious sockpuppets, and I already indefinitely blocked both "Yeaaahboy" and "Indiancurse" yesterday before reverting their edits. While I admit I don't know the full history of the situation here, creating accounts for the sole purpose of edit-warring is not an acceptable use of a sockpuppet.  See WP:SOCK.  Regards, Antandrus  (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for blocking these sockpuppets. It was greatly appreciated. However, these sockpuppets were definitely created by User:Mynameisstanley, a disruptive vandaliser and convicted sockpuppeteer who got blocked for a period of five months by Malniccier yesterday for sockpuppetry. This was the second time he got blocked for this. I have provided the reasons above as to why i am completely certain that these sockpuppets were operated by Mynameisstanley. Could you please extend his block for a period of one year, and let it be known in the profile pages of "Yeaaahboy" and "Indiancurse" that they are his sockpuppets. When you do so, please let it be known in this talk page. Regards, Joyson Noel (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * On extending the original block, I'll defer to Malinaccier as the original blocking admin: since the account is blocked until February 2009 it's not like there's a hurry here.  The best resolution in cases like this is when the sockpuppetteer comes to realize that their behavior is damaging their own cause, stops sockpuppetting, apologizes, promises not to do it again, and politely asks for unblock.  -- In my experience, that's usually not the way it goes, since people with the requisite humility and common sense don't make sockpuppets to begin with.
 * Looking at the edits, since they're not obvious vandalism, but there's some sort of underlying content dispute, -- and I'm talking to you, "Mynameisstanley" now, since I'm pretty sure you're reading this -- you have to stop making sockpuppets, work only under your original account, explain what the problem is, and seek help through our regular dispute resolution process. Sockpuppetting is not on and will only get you permanent banned status.  Thanks all, Antandrus  (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the third time he has engaged in sockpuppetry and created accounts specifically for the purpose of engaging in edit wars and disruptively editing wikipedia. The accounts were also created with the intention of causing irritation by also reverting all my recent edits for false and slanderous reasons such as "Reverting vandalism by banned user" and "Undid Vandalism by SockPuppet". As such, it is necessary that suitable disciplinary action be taken against him, by either extending his block for a period of one year, or banning him from editing wikipedia indefinitely. Either way, account creation for him must also be blocked for that time period. After all, Wikipedia editing is per person, not per account. Who is to say that he wont create any more sockpuppets for the purpose of carrying out any more retaliatory acts against me?


 * Just checking out the previous revisions of his talk page would show you how many messages were sent to him by various other editors and administrators as well. All in vain. Its virtually impossible to reason with this guy. I've tried, of course. He just deliberately ignoring my advises and warnings, choosing to delete them instead. He is not here to make constructive edits to wikipedia, but rather to vandalize articles and cause disturbance. He goes around removing dead links used as references instead of converting them into references to off-line sources, adding innappropriate deletion tags, deleting huge swaths of information falsely claiming that they are trivia and unverifiable, removing references sections, changing the names of reference sections into further reading, removing

public domain images from articles falsely claiming that they are copyrighted, removing proper categories, etc. He has a peculiar bias against mobsters, which is why he only chooses to vandalize Organized crime related articles only. He engages in sneaky vandalism, and his edits have caused a few frayed tempers in wikipedia.


 * He has been doing this for months, and has had enough time to contemplate his actions. However, he has chosen not to, and has continued his old ways. This time he has gone too far. Joyson Noel (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK on main page

 * p.s. I guess you know that anyone can hand out the credits like this? Victuallers (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Malinaccier. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 22:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Question
Being the one that granted me rollback, would it be possible for you to tell me what is needed to pass RFA? PEdro keeps telling me I won't, but why? &mdash; §unday  { Q } 22:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'm not interested in passing RFA, although some think I am :). Maybe sometime after I'm done with writing articles, perhaps in six months or so. I think I'm already pretty active in AFD, I tend to just go for the less controversial articles (ie. the bottom of the list). &mdash; Sunday   | Speak  21:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to work. I've been doing a lot of good work at NPP lately, and UAA. Plus RFAA. Could you look over those contribs, if you have the time? Cheers, &mdash; Ceran  thor  [Formerly LordSunday] 13:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Request
I understand that you must be fed up of getting my constant messages by now. But if you ever sign in, please take the time to extend the block of User:Mynameisstanley, hopefully for a period of one year. Thank you. Joyson Noel (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Navy of Sudan
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Navy of Belarus
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Navy redirects
We've been "bluelinking" the Navy of x links in the basic topic country lists, by creating redirects for them, even for the countries that have no navy.

There's been a little controversy over the navy redirects for the landlocked countries (many of which have no navy), as you can see above. But it's all been worked out. Each country with no navy gets a redirect to wherever it is reported that it has no navy, or failing that, to its "military of" article.

The country lists are coming along slowing but surely. It shouldn't take too much longer before they will be complete enough to move into article space (!), but I can still use all the help I can get. (hint hint).

 Th e Tr ans hu man ist   20:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We could sure use your help in bluelinking the links in these lists (each link appears in the one of the various country basic topic lists): If you have any questions, please contact me.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   20:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * User:ChiragPatnaik/Navies
 * User:ChiragPatnaik/Armies
 * User:ChiragPatnaik/Air Forces

My RfA
Sorry for the generic, impersonal, cheap template-spam! :P –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  18:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP
I think you said that Beowulf was protected when it wasn't. Erik the Red  2    01:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)