User talk:SCZenz/Archive3

RK
I have corrected it on the 3rr page. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  20:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Anon talk page
Nope, that's perfectly acceptable, and has happened before. Frankly, I'm not too fond of the fact that blocked users can edit their talk pages, but then that would be too harsh. --Merovingian 07:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome; I forgot about that part. --Merovingian 07:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Until I saw the edit summary on Merovingian's talk page, I assumed you were an experienced admin. Thanks alot for the efficient handling. ;) // Pathoschild 07:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Block of User:204.122.253.240
I see you just blocked for one month. I am very new to being an admin, but I think that's an error. That IP was making good edits as recently as yesterday, so I think a 24-hour block is all we can do without getting in the way of a good editor. But please, let me know why I'm mistaken if I am. -- SCZenz 19:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi SCZenz. We tend to crack down on anti-Semetic and other virulently racist comment more than most types of vandalism, so I don't totally think it's a mistake. The anon who was contributing legit info with this IP can get a username, and thus avoid the block. I'll knock it down to three more days, just to be careful. --  user:zanimum

Thank you for freeing my account
I understand I shouldn't violate the 3rvt rule...and will avoid making more than two edits on any page in the future. Thank you, Chooserr

"Don't".
That heading was getting a little long. You ARE aware that at some point, common sense must overtake the notion that we have to cite sources for every little goddamn thing, don't you? See also, the rule about not being a bureacrat about rules. Like I said, I'm not going to tolerate some post modernist epistemological notion that everything I've ever done with my life is worthless simply because of a couple of hypersensitive individuals. There is a very very simple checklist one has to go through to categorize somebody's relative political ideologies, and it's rather set in stone, in spite of the gaggle of revisionists around here. If that somehow perturbs you, perhaps you should be the one seeking a lever large enough to move the world's collective consensus. Kade 21:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

And just as an aside, because I recall what one of your main disagreements with me was....may I remind you of one of the chief objections to Wikipedia? Kade 21:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Block
User:71.143.21.178 has made particularly offensive comments and has vandalised the war on Christmas page several times can you block him. Chooserr

Thanks for your help. Chooserr

Confused
I'm confused about the war on Christmas article...and why adding irrelivant links, along with changing the headings isn't vandalism. My just changing BCE/CE back to BC/AD got me temporarily expelled from the school of wikipedia why are these people the exception? Chooserr

Richard Gregg at DRV
So let me get this straight - you're copping flack for A) Doing the smart thing and then B) Getting a second opinon? Life here gets stranger every day. Good job on the un-speedy, better even in bringing it for review, keep up the good oil, and congratulations on your promotion. brenneman (t) (c) 12:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You're a sysop!
Hi! Your sysophood has now been fully confirmed. Enjoy! =Nichalp  «Talk»=  15:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! I was tempted to say "Go Bears" at RfA but resisted the temptation ... so hello as well from a Cal grad.  :-) Antandrus  (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Congrats! I am sure you'll be great at it. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 19:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Congrats! I've been busy off-line lately, so I didn't get a chance to vote. {I would second Antandrus "Go Bears" :) } Salsb 19:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, and you're quite welcome! --Merovingian 01:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia story help
Hello, I'm a Bay Area reporter writing a story about Wikipedia and was hoping you might be able to help. Could you please contact me at [email removed]? Thank you!
 * I'm happy to help. I've sent you an email; I removed your address above from my page to keep you from receiving spam. -- SCZenz 00:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Email about the above
I just received the following:


 * SCZenz,
 * Your reporter's e-mail address is still in the history. :)
 * Mm, I wager something is going to happen to these histories in the near future. Or to the ethics of them.
 * -[initials]

Yes, it's still in the history; after all, it was implicitly licensed under GFDL. I deleted it from the page to protect the individual from spambots, not from sufficiently-prying eyes. Thus there's no problem unless a motivated miscreant decides to harass the person, which might be a real-world legal problem and isn't a Wikipedia problem. Nevertheless, this does remind me to put an "email me" link at the top of my user page, in case people prefer a more private method of contact. -- SCZenz 05:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Anons
They can have their own talk pages, obviously. My message was about his userpage, which, no, they don't own. It's not uncommon to remove content from anon user pages when it's found there. It's frequently obscene vandalism (predictably) and whilst we'd let it stay on a reg'd user's page, we remove it from anons. The principal reason is that the IP might well be with somone else by now, or tomorrow, and they may not want whatever has been put there. Add it to the user page if you really like though. It's a pretty discouraging thing to see turn up first time you visit it as a new user, though. On the other hand, it's ideal for a normal userpage. I presume the devs have good reason for disabling userpage creation along with article creation, too. -Splash talk 02:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Per my posts at User talk:Titoxd &mdash; make the page if you like. -Splash talk 02:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good. I hope you'll also take responsibility for the next IP the same guy gets, and the one after that and...-Splash talk 03:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't need a policy to tell me that the next user who gets that IP address is going to wonder why they have a template on it straightaway, possibly before they even tried to edit a page, and why noone else does. Anons have no ownership of their userspace, period, it can change minute by minute. But if the absence of a policy negates commone sense, then well...I'll just go to bed. -Splash talk 03:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious to me now that I have woken up what a total ass I was being last night (my time). I don't think we should hand out user-specific content to anon user pages (and I think we should remove it where we find it), but there was absolutely no call for me to say so in nearly such abrasive terms. Sorry. -Splash talk 13:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Page re-created
Stuff happens. Thanks for your help. Maybe I'll be an extra-good boy and become the first anonymous admin. 216.237.179.238 03:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Three replies
Your first appeal is interesting. Is wikipedia policy well established practices, or is it what the last editor made up during dinner? I would argue that wikipedia guidelines should describe well established practices. However, at times, people made changes that they thought "might be cool" right after dinner, just before star trek came on or whatnot, and hurridly hit submit without actually quite thinking through what they had actually written.

After a while all these well intentioned but slighty wrong changes have built up on the policy pages, and since no one has really been maintaining policy all that well, policy has gotten into a state of deadlock, where you cannot really modify any policy at all, except by brute force.

This is probably not a state we want to keep it in, as it means that it is exceedingly difficult to deal with situations like being able to help out mr. Siegenthaler smoothly and appropriately. It basically took Jimbos dictatorial fiat. The en.wikipedia should be able to operate independantly, without mr. Wales' input, so that he can get out there and obtain more money to run the wikimedia foundation, which graciously pays to run en.wikipedia (as well as many other wikis).

So (reply number 2), we have to be able to look after ourselves. This brings us to the bold revert discuss cycle, which works a bit like a woodpecker. You don't have enough strength to clean up or modify all of policy at once, but you can tap on it many times in a row, until you manage to break through and actually get things done.

In stark contrast, the how to create policy page which you mention is a formidable fallacious fantasy fabrication, I'm afraid. I've only rarely seen it work, and then only if well accepted practices were already very close to what people were proposing.

There's those well accepted practices again. Apparently, the only reliable way to change policy is to change well accepted practices first. On the other hand, people are starting to oppose people changing well accepted practices... by pointing to policy. Catch 22! (or deadlock again, if you will).

Moving on to your 3rd request.

Cryptic comments about strange people users have never met? Hmm? Who do you ... Oh! You mean James Forrester? He's the fellow who advises the Arbitration committee on policy! (Unsurprisingly, as he helped found it.) One of his many claims to fame is that he was one of the first to postulate that policy must be achieved by consensus, and must describe well accepted practices (and not the other way around, as some people seem to believe).

Maybe we should have a who's who of wikipedia to solve that kind of problem? Either that, or perhaps folks you've been working with are not so familiar with wikipedia policy as they perhaps claim.

I don't single out people for making points about anything. I don't even deliberately try to seek them out. However, if I happen to bump into someone, I'll certainly hold them entirely responsible for any of their actions on wikipedia that I have observed (and I expect the same from others). There have to be some people keeping an eye on folks who bend or break wikipedia policy, because in that aspect, yes, wikipedia needs more custodians.

Finally I guess you're right about calling people idiots, even when it's the truth. I've washed out my mouth with carbolic soap, and shall try to find other ways to vent frustration, preferably off-wiki, and against inanimate objects, which won't mind. :-)

Kim Bruning 03:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is one of those long block discussions you can practically only have on a wiki these days, I suppose. Lots of work. Thank you for taking the time to reply!

You're not evil for numbering sections. Sometimes numbers are handy.


 * 1.
 * I actually went with the term established practices that you'd mentioned. Apparently we don't quite agree on what that means. The process I'm thinking of is that first you talk with people about what should change, then you try it out, make any changes or fixes that might be nescesary, and finally if you figure enough people are convinced it's a good idea, write the change into policy. (if you messed up, you'lll get reverted, and wash, rinse repeat). Typically that's how policy was and is often formed on wikipedia. This as opposed to first writing down something random and hoping that it works.


 * 2.
 * I think I covered that mostly at 1. I disagree with changing policy at random, though refactoring shouldn't be seen as a change (OTOH I'll admit to having tried to do some lossy refactoring from time to time )


 * 3.a
 * Hmm, so time to make a who's who then!


 * 3.b
 * Oh dear. Well, I talked with several of the people who participated in the Rl Requests for Adminship, but somehow the situation with Hamster Sandwich blew up. Could be me, could be him, could be both. Someone has offered to mediate, so let's see if that can be sorted out. Most people are very friendly and reasonable, and you just talk with them, figure out what's wrong, and off you go. But you only really get to see the spectacle of cases where that *doesn't* work out.

Kim Bruning 21:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Webcomics ArbCom
Hi. You're making some sound arguments here, well reasoned and dispassionate. I am staying clear until the direction this is going firms, there is little point debating a thread that will be abandoned. I have to admit that I got a laugh out of this:
 * 1. Give me a few days and I'll present copious volumes of evidence of Aaron Brenneman's habitual resort to snide, uncivil behavior and his almost constant imputations of bad faith to those who disagree with him. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2. Second thoughts, I'd rather concentrate on how his conduct here, particularly the campaigning and the discounting of other opinions, has tended to degrade the process. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Nothing like slinging mud and hoping some sticks. No matter how many times I look, it makes me smile. However, I digress.

Re Eric Burns (talk • contribs): His contributions are thirty-five edits in over a year, with twelve in article space. By Tony's criteria he'd discount his comments at and AfD. brenneman (t) (c) 00:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom workshops
Contributions made in good faith are welcome, whether or not we end up agreeing with them. Keep also in mind that I'm only one of several Arbitrators, and something I don't agree with someone else might find appropriate. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Aolanonawanabe
User:Aolanonawanabe has accused me of being a sock-puppet... maybe you could pop over there and let him know that's not good etiquette? Additionally, he is stalking User:Chooserr's edits. He has a good point, that some of his articles need to be quite expanded, but he's being very rude about it. JG of Borg 03:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

re: Collider Detector at Fermilab edit
To be entirely honest, I remembered 3,000 tons from ACE training. My roommate who was sitting next to me at the time and went through ACE training more recently seemed to think it was 5,000. Bodhitha 22:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Bodhitha

Perhaps I should have been more clear... I know its certainly not 100 tons (the upgraded muon detector *alone* has 650 tons of steel in it). The exact weight seems to be something which there isn't a figure on that's easy to find (probably because no one's really bothered to add up the mass of everything that went into it). Around 5000 tons seems to be the number that most can agree on, which is why I've put that number in. Bodhitha 21:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Bodhitha

Look, I really don't care; if you insist on leaving the wikipedia entry which almost no one will ever read with an incorrect fact, I'm fine with that (I'm really tired of arguing about such a minor detail). I can assure you, as a physicist who lives at Fermilab, and works on CDF day in and day out, that the detector does not have a mass 100 tons. If it did, it would have a mass less than its constituent parts (which, as a physicist, I'm certain you can verify is impossible). I have no idea why some public webpage (which I'm also sure no one will ever read) has an incorrect number, but if you want to trust that, go ahead.

Block
Curps, blocked my IP for greeting new users...something I was told I could do. I left a few messages on both the IP page and my regular talk page...he didn't reply to either although I happen to know that he was online. To try to get his attention I started to trail banners of text from my edit by using the user summary, which probably wasn't the best approach for it got my talk page blocked. I eventually called my IP provider and they gave me a new IP...and while it is against wiki policy to do such things I hope it will be forgiven. I also would like your help. I don't exactly know how you can...but is there any way I can file a full complaint? Thank you, Chooserr

Wikipedia Blocked Users' Sandbox
What would it take to get the people who run wikipedia to add this to the pages you can edit if you are blocked? Can you look into it and help stress it's importance? Thank you, Choooserr

Users who trust Jimbo
But at least now we have hard data that only one user trusts Jimbo. I kid, I kid ;-) Although I'd have to say my own opinion of Jimbo has a more libertarian slant: he's free to continue to be our benign dictator and implement any experiments, rules, or schemes he feels like; I'm free to stop contributing if I ever don't like what he does. So far this week, he's doing OK. I think no-new-pages-from-anons is an excellent idea, and though I don't at all understand what the goal of the Dershowitz experiment is (even if it produces a great page, what do we do then?) it doesn't bother me in the least. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A large number of contributors to Wikipedia seem to get pleasure mostly out of being VERY UPSET, that's for sure. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Illegal use of copywrite material

 * Copywrite violation. I have filed a complaint with Wikipedia's hosting company.  You guys may think you know it all but there are laws againt stealing images.  You think it's public domain but have no explaination for where you obtained it.  Just because it's a mug shot does not provide you with proof of ownership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.103.146 (talk • contribs)

Continued blanking by 24.147.103.146
Hello, I was wondering if you would mind taking another look at User:24.147.103.146's Contributions. He was briefly blocked and then unblocked yesterday for Blanking, vandalism, and 3RR. Dispite warnings from several users and yourself, he is back again today, doing the same thing at the same articles and several new ones. I have reverted all his changes, and although I hate to ask for blocking with a active copyright issue under discussion, I think it is clear that he has no intention on following our guidelines or ceasing his vandalism. Thanks in advance for taking another look! (I'll watch here for your response) -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 21:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help! -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 22:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You probably know this already, but the same activities are continuing, now from 204.169.116.1. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Was going to point this out, but it appears User:Bunchofgrapes beat me to it. Edits are to the same pages and in the same fashion as before, and began almost immediately after your block of the original IP. This is getting to the point of being way outside of my knowledge protocall-wise, so I've only placed a small warning on the new IP user talk and will defer to you and other more experianced users for anything further. Thanks again! -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 23:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I blocked this IP also. Can one of you do me a favor and write up a blurb on what's been going on at WP:AN/I?  I'll add my own observations too once it's there. -- SCZenz 23:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have written it up as best I can- If it is to lengthy or misses important points please feel free to add, i have never used AN/I before. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 00:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. That'll make sure other admins are watching the case too, and know that we've already been more than lenient enough.  Thanks for keeping track of all this. -- SCZenz 00:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Self-defense
Hi SCZenc,

User 12.110.144.8 and 68.191.19.96 have been adding nonsense on the article Self-defense. I had already been reverting the changes. However, due to the 3RR rules, I hesitate to revert (what I consider as vandalism) any further. If you have time, please take a look at it. Thank you very much for your help in advance. Regards, --Hurricane111 03:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh never mind, User:Jossifresco had already dealt with it by blocking. Thanks anyways.  --Hurricane111 03:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

StephenJ, Kumanovo, BunchofGrapes, etc
No. The only reason BunchofGrapes is following me is because I uncovered his lie - or his seriously faulty logic. I'm done playing nice. Feel free to weigh in on Requests for comment/Freestylefrappe. I'll check on StephenJ's contributions in a second, though I'm almost sure his only contributions were vandalism. He deleted content without explanation on a page I watch. If I was wrong on this block, them I apologize. I seriously doubt that I am though. freestylefrappe 18:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you must be looking at another user's contributions. StephenJ deleted content from National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and I blocked, not ''banned, him for 24 hours. Users who delete content do not need counseling. They need to not edit. freestylefrappe 19:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken- "In general, casual vandals should be warned twice before being blocked, though warnings are not usually given for deliberate vandalism" StephenJ is a stepup from an anon. He has no talkpage and no userpage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Freestylefrappe (talk • contribs)  19:38, 15 December 2005  (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point. I also dont see a need to warn such users. Do you really think he was unaware that what he was doing was wrong? Because of the new ban on anon editors creating articles theres an incentive for them to register before vandalizing. I doubt he'll ever edit under that account again. freestylefrappe 19:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for that; well-said. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The Rfc
I won't touch your edit, your knowledge of this situation will no doubt prove to be invaluable. However, i'm going to add his behavior towards your right to speak as another piece of evidence. karmafist 22:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion, but I don't take kindly to those who try to force others into silence, even if their attempts may seem silly. karmafist 22:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

off topic
is this s&mdash; zenz of acs? Quinten 23:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Aagh! Townies! ;-) &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:Freestylefrappe blocking threat
Hmm, this is becoming increasingly troublesome. In any case, I'll add your talk page to my watchlist. Thanks.--Sean|Bla ck 22:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'll keep an eye out too. (S)he's incredible. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please move your username on my RFC to the users who endorse that summary. In no place did you try and resolve the nonexistant dispute. The fact that you dont like my block of StephenJ is after the fact. freestylefrappe 04:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Wicca
Hello,

I managed to summon another admin to block that fellow on Wicca, after I ran out of reverts myself.

Search 4  Lancer  03:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Captain Marvel chaos
Thanks so much for protecting Captain Marvel (DC Comics). This was getting beyond ridiculous. It makes me want to suggest a policy to lock any featured page off of the main page for the day it's on there. I wish I could understand these ... people. --Joe Sewell 22:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well for protecting it, I don't generally believe in protection (certainly not long-term), but in this case it was totally necessary to allow the vandals to get banned (wish I could help in that!). I suppose there is no way of clearing the mess that is the history page? --Petros471 22:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for replying. I didn't really think it would be possible- guess it'd be very hard to make sure it was done properly without abuse, even if it wasn't technically difficult. --Petros471 23:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:Captain Marvel protection
Oops. Meant to say User:Raul654/protection. Not a big deal, sorry if I sounded a bit curt in my unprotection summary. Everything's good :).--Sean|Bla ck 22:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Instinct hit me, didn't look at the talk page. If you want to do something, go ahead. Again, I apologize.--Sean|Bla ck 22:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

ahhh ok.
No problem I'll change it back now :) (unless you have already) - Sorry! -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  01:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Umm
I really don't know who you are supposed to go to for problems like this. I'm a little lost..

I'm stuck behind 3RR and cannot make changes now, but surely this is wrong.

The edit's on a little disambiguation page which is a very short article that nonetheless gets a lot of traffic

Yuber keeps changing this page Infidel to cover up the meaning by technical sneakiness - There may be no word that directly translates to "infidel", but kafir certainly is used to refer to non-muslims in a common context. Talk:Kafir makes this pretty clear too. Um. It looks like this is a blatant attempt to give a rose-tinted picture of Islam by removing references to things that are in fact true (and muslims acknowledge to be true too o_O)

http://www.maniacmuslim.com/Kafirphobia.html - humourous article, but as you can see "kafir" is a well-used term.. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  01:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)