User talk:Renamed user 5417514488/archive 15

Rash of recent vandalism
There has been a rash of recent vandalism to new user talk pages. The vandal, operting under two sockpuppets has been putting bad faith user boxes on the new user talk pages as they show up in the recent changes rss feed. I was doing a search for this user box on user talk pages, to see if there had been other undetected sockpuppets of this user that had vandalized other pages. What I found was only one other occurrance of the user box: a page you updated in response, supposedly to a user's vandalism. It is my theory that this user got pissed off and contrived his scheme of placing the same user box on people's pages. While I am certainly not suggesting that you are in any way involved with this users vandalism, I am quite concerned about the edit I saw... it seemed to be unnecessarily uncivil, and the bad faith userbox seems quite inappropriate.

I reported this in the Administrator's noticeboard as follows:
 * Interestingly, I just did a search for that text on user talk pages, to see if there were other incidents of this user box being added. I found only one time:   added it to |this page on 24Jan2007.  Is this an actual authorized template???   Should Yuser31415 have added that to the users page along with an antagonistic message?  It is possible that this pissed-off vandal then copied the user  box and contrived this scheme to put it on other new users talk pages.  Jerry lavoie 02:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Jerry lavoie 02:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Browser
Hi, is it possible that your browser breaks UTF-8 characters? —xyzzyn 02:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Utah, which you’ve already fixed, but I also recall some talk page an hour or so ago where it happened. (I didn’t check, though.) Are you using GTK-based Dillo or the FLTK version? —xyzzyn 02:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not released yet, sorry. The homepage said 0.8.6 would be the last GTK release, so I assumed the FLTK port was already in CVS. Some of the CVS code seems to use FLTK, but I wasn’t able to build it, so I don’t know if there is enough to handle Unicode properly. I doubt it, though. —xyzzyn 03:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And Sabrina Online. I realise it would be time-consuming, but could you use ‘show changes’ when you edit to catch this kind of thing? —xyzzyn 13:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just saying thanks
Just a quick thank you for reverting the mess of linkspam that was inserted into several of the horse breeds articles. You saved those of us with fewer wiki editing skills much search and repair time. It is appreciated. Montanabw 02:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why, thank you :). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

?
How did you create that welcome template???

Dab235 05:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Nasz and WP:POINT
It seems that after your warning, Nasz tried to be nice and after reverting me again (sigh) at least tried to communicate. However later he returned to his normal self and not only blanked his Talk page twice (you've seen at least the first) but also reverted me on two other random articles. In one case he reverted me on Variable speed of light to a vandalized version which reversed the sense of a sentence making it incompatible with the rest of the paragraph. The other was even worse. He reverted Mohawk nation to a version with personal attacks against a Native American chief: ''Not all Mohawks followed this practice, as it was a violation of their Great Law of Peace. Joseph Brant is considered a traitor among the Haudenosaunee for turning his back on their Longhouse religion. He was stripped of his Pine-Tree chief title, which was only an honorary title that was given to him for his abilities in translation only, and carried no voice among traditional council nor was the title hereditary. He had abused this title''. If the reverts are not WP:POINT, I do not know what is. So what do we do? You left him the last warning so I believe we should not let it go unpunished. It's not a simple vandalism or 3RR, so I am not sure how to proceed. Cheerio. --Friendly Neighbour 14:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd take the matter again to WP:ANI, and give an update on the situation. Remember, however, that blocks are not "punitive". Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. I noticed I went a little too far the moment I clicked Save Page. But what I meant is still valid: If we let three (at this moment) "final warning" be ignored, we are asking for trouble. This is not assuming bad faith but simply applying Psychology 101. --Friendly Neighbour 21:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Deskana has warned him not do it again. If Nasz's disruptive actions continue further, please notify me. Consider this his last warning per Deskana. Cheers. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

my category
hi, you once helped me create a category. I thought i had it figured out, but i just tried to make one and it didn't go. can you show me what i did wrong?LAZY 1L01:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Rutgers Law - Newark graduates

Thanks
I will look at it later i got to go--The brown curse 03:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

nother prob
can you help me with this? I bracketed words for an interwiki link, but they dont "link." They come up in the article with the brackets around them. this is the article-Nat Lewin.look for these words- Supreme court of the united states, harvard law review, harvard law school.LAZY 1L

thanks! LAZY 1L

What next?
Hi, just trawled AIV and found your reasoning for not pursuing the cloud vandal - what in your opnion is the thing todo if it returns? It is clear the the IP and red link user is the same thing - the cheese and bacon thing is something that has happened - and the reverters are not putting numbered warnings and the vndl is having the time of its life more or less skimming through clouds and not really having anything done to it. Surely there is something to followup if sign of the same returns there or elsewhere? SatuSuro 05:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If he does it again, please report him again ... My reasoning was that since he hadn't vandalized for at least 20 minutes, he had stopped. If he does it again, he's in essence violated his "last warning", and you might want to go to WP:ANI instead to suggest a long term block. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that SatuSuro 06:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Userbox
Doh... Perhaps we can ask marc-oliver to release the logo under terms that are allowed. Btw you keep archiving your talk page so ia have to start a new discussion every time :p DarkLoki 10:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam link
I'm the one who added the 'VRML Plugin Detector' link on the "plugins" Wikipedia page. I have no intentions of adding spam links. I seem to have added it twice because you were so diligent in removing it almost immediately. When I saw that it didn't show up when I edited the page, I added it back in again and you deleted it again.

Anyways, I don't consider the link I was trying to added to be a spam link. I looked at the guidelines and I don't think it falls under that category of what not to add. It's not a commercial site, etc. For someone using Firefox it gives a nice summary of all their plugins. I would agree that it's a bit specific in that its primary purpose is to detect VRML plugins. Kind of an obscure plugin. Overall, the page is useful.

I hope you'll reconsider or at least don't prevent me from editing if you think I'm adding spam links.

Regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.252.5.72 (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Thank you
Thanks for helping me to police Self-publishing. An awful lot of spam links have been showing up lately! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Larry Darby
Please see my note in Talk:Larry_Darby, you appear to have been blindly reverting as well. It is possible that you did not notice that I had changed things and not simply reverted them, but please be more carefull in the future. --Selket 23:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't been blindly reverting; I simply reverted the reference to the news station as it was included in the self-reference edit. Feel free to re-add it if you feel inclined. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

darby Deux
(coming to your talk from the AN/I)Is there anything that can be done to review his actions in this situation? He's clearly escalating beyond WP:CIVIL, will almost certainly return to WP:NLT, and apparently has the OFFICE on his side. This situation has all the hallmarks of turning into a fiasco. It seems if we keep other editors from writing a page about him, he'll turn it into a paean to himself, and if we allow others, he'll return to the OFFICE citing WP:BLP. Neither seems like a good resolution. We've got multiple editors writing well cited sections, and he reverts under BLP and OTRS. He's spouting anti-wikipedia rhetoric, and WIki-(and real) Lawyering.ThuranX 02:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Well, I'm going to be online for about another three or four hours, and I'll keep a little eye on the situation. If it seems to be getting out of hand, please tell me. What's going on at the moment? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi
I am answering here, because I don't think this is relevent, the Administrators notice board should not be abused with the lenght of my answer. I just thought that would worth something for you to know my position. This relates to AdilBaguirov accusations of course.

None of the accusations are founded, and he knows it. Adil claims that I am persisting on daily insults on his talkpage and others. But obviously, for this he has no evidence to provide. In fact, I indeed wrote in his talk page, only for one day, after something escaladed on the talkpage of an article, when it was found that two of Adil meatpopputs have been found to be the same user. I have continued in his talkpage because the discussion was irrelevant and I did not want to disturb an article talkpage. In the above Adil accuses me of being a self-professed liar, when the lie he refers too relate to two members whom I suspected to be one, one of those members has been indefinitely blocked because being a sock of the other(as I suspected).

Adil claims that I am threatening him by using his real life associations. I never did such, the information he is talking about, not only did he made it available, but he even publicized them. Just like the two other concerned, Laciner and Tabib. So, what exact threat he is talking about one wonders.

The first quote he refers coming from me ("to have published your crap in his newspaper"). Of course this sounds to be offending. But the newspaper I am referring to relate to is an Ultra-Nationalist Turkish newspaper, and the author I am referring to (who was warned on Wikipedia for self promotion) wrote an article comparing Talaat (the Ottoman leader who masterminded and executed the Armenian genocide) with Dink, the Turkish Armenian journalist who was recently killed. Not to say, that that same person has registered an account to create a page about himself on Wikipedia and used socks later on(I only referred to information's they have publicized, and that those contributing in the same articles as they, know already). All those documented.

In this context, my concerns are real. I am here on Wikipedia, good intentioned contributing by believing that this site is apolitical, and I had good reasons to believe that Adil is using socks, and I have provided strong evidences on that. I am not the only who believed this, but at least three other members have the same conviction. But wasn't this enough, that the principal concerned are found to have related links with political parties. Am I supposed to assume good faith there?

I admit though that the last quotes were harsh and I apologize for this, and for those only, the one about his credibility more particularly, but I can't help it, being published in an Ultra-Nationalist newspaper which reach racism, I would qualify such individual contributing in such a newspaper, as indeed someone who has no credibility. But I will stop there, since the point I tried to make, I made it. Fad (ix) 02:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is obvious you are acting in good faith, but I'd request you to remain civil at all times and not resort to personal attacks. The best thing I believe you can do at ths time would be to apologize to Adil for your comments (apologies can never do any harm, and I've had to make more than one in my WikiLifeTime). After that, I will take reasonable steps to ensure the ANI case is closed smoothly without further discussion. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Per
Please note, I've ammended my MFD closure to not require the tag on this. Please also see Wikipedia talk:Per. Thank you, -- xaosflux  Talk  03:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of formulae involving π
I reopened the AfD. You closed it two hours too early, also it requires a policy review from the closing admin, since there was almost zero policy relevant discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 03:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you mean, "policy review"? Incidentally, I did review the relevant policies. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Trialsanderrors is opening that in closing the AfD, you should have cited the policies on which the decision was based. (Personally, I think your closure was satisfactory under the circumstances of this particular AfD.) Newyorkbrad 03:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Users wanting to be sysops should know better than to close an Afd early when there is not clear consensus. Just let an admin close it. --- RockMFR 03:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, sorry, but there is clear consensus. If it came down to a vote, there are 5 delete vs. 19 keep. And the AfD defines the interpretation of the policy. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it was a clear consensus keep, and I agree that it should be a consensus keep, but given that you've been reverted twice, probably safer to leave it for someone else to close now. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a whole bunch of !votes that need to be thrown out since they either make it clear they're voting based on WP:ILIKEIT or that get the basic facts wrong (there is already a list of ways to compute Pi, so if that was the scope of this list it would be a duplicate). The remaining keeps might be enough to put this in keep or no consensus territory, but this should be done with due care. No offense intended, but "It's 5 vs 19" is not sufficient. ~ trialsanderrors 04:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say 5vs19 was sufficient (incidentally, all five of those wishing to delete the article were using ILIKEIT arguments, or arguments that were determined by the AfD). Perhaps you could explain how you would close the AfD, and why. 2 hours isn't going to make much difference in the overall scheme of things. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not closing it since I voiced an opinion on it. And if two hours won't make a difference then it's perfectly fine to wait that long. ~ trialsanderrors 04:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking you to close it, I was asking with what decision you would close it instead. And as for the policy review,

So basically, majority consensus prevails, and the article is kept. If someone is worried about two hours, WP:SNOW/WP:IAR as necessary. I don't see what everyone is on about here.
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list is completely indiscriminate. There's no significance to this collection of equations. Yes, they all contain pi. So what? There are literally millions of equations that contain pi. There is no reason for including any of these equations, or excluding countless other equations, other than individual whimsy. Should we have List of formulae involving cosine or List of forumlae involving division, as well? Delete as indiscriminate information. eaolson 05:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, what defines an indiscriminate collection of information? The AfD, of course. The rest of the statement is all ILIKEIT.
 * Weak delete, I understand that the article contains only historically significant formulas, but grouping formulas because they contain pi seems rather arbitrary. I like the idea of having lists of significant formulas, but it would be much more useful to group them by use (chemistry, classical physics, quantum physics, topology, etc.) rather than by what constants they use. mikmt 17:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ILIKEIT again, no citation of any policy.
 * Delete. Formulas *for* � are included in �, Computing �, and other articles. Physical formulas using � should be kept in articles about the specific branches of physics and engineering which they are used in. There are too many formulas with � to keep in one indiscriminate list. Argyriou (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ILIKEIT again, no citation of any policy.
 * Strong Delete; the mathematical formulas are (all or almost all) in pi and related articles; the appearances of � in the physical formulas are all choices of unit, and side effects of the fact that the volume of 3-spheres and 4-spheres both contain �. Eaolson is right. Wikibooks may be willing to take this, but it doesn't belong here.
 * ILIKEIT again, no citation of any policy.
 * Delete. This list is the epitome of indiscriminate information per Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia#Set clear, neutral, and unambiguous criteria. As it is now, I can just make up A = 4 �²/G³ and it qualifies for the list, since it involves �. ~ trialsanderrors 03:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ILIKEIT again, no citation of any policy.

Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have reverted if this had been the first time you had done something like this. However, a similar thing occurred at Articles for deletion/Brown people, and that was far from being unambiguous. I'm under the impression that you have never read Deletion process. --- RockMFR 04:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I had actually read Deletion process but hadn't noticed the very bottom of the list. Incidentally I'm trying to ask why the entire process was ambiguous. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)