User talk:Shirik/Archives/2010/September

Thank you
Thank you for your action, at Sockpuppet investigations/R3ap3R.inc. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 16:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

user:Bgalleg and user:Cumanche SPI case
I see you decided to leave Cumanche unblocked because of a lack of recent edits. I neglected to point out on my SPI report that the Genizaro article had been protected for about a month and this was the only article both accounts ever edited, meaning this was the only article the puppet master was interested in editing. Lechonero (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but at WP:SPI we don't deal with problems of edit warring, only sockpuppetry. A standard "first offense" response is warning-only or a short-term block, the latter of which would not appear to be very useful right now. However, if this persists, the next response is likely to be an indefinite block. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 16:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it. Lechonero (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

SPI
I knew that; I was just testing you. :-) (Kidding aside: thanks.) Frank  |  talk  21:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

File talk:Peanuts gang.png
I had previously declined the CSD G1 User:Inka 888 had put down on the page as the edits were not "patent nonsense". Would it be possible to reverse the decision, as I believe the user (Inka 888) is misusing TWINKLE and I would need this as evidence to take to ANI. CSD'ing a image talk page of "don't delete this" messages seems like a misuse to me. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 22:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a previously blocked user, who had previously vandalized the same page with the same "don't delete this" type of message. It was deleted then. I think the deletion and salting of the title was good in this case, though as I've said on Inka's talk page I wouldn't take this situation as precedent for other similar situations.  —  Soap  —  23:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct in that it did not meet G1. You will also notice I didn't delete it under G1. You can't possibly say that a page that consisted entirely of "don't delete this page" is in any way constructive to the encyclopedia. G3, G5, I'm sure there are more reasons to delete the page. Fact of the matter is that it should not be there. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 01:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

List of extreme weather records in Pakistan
Hello ! my article List of extreme weather records in Pakistan, is currently under going peer review, please assists me to improve the articles standard, by doing general copy editing which might be ignored by me. Regards.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for helping me out with that filter. I appreciate it. -- 77.7.135.165 (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Zealking is back
Using names with "Jeff" and "cola" in them. Master account is user:Mayor_F_Jeff. Gogo Dodo seems to be making quick work of them however.  — Soap  —  19:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Butterfly (Mariah Carey album)
Hi Shirik. I found you through the volunteer page, and have come to ask for your assistance. So I have recently significantly improved/expanded this article, but found that it also has been working against me. I found after working so much on the same subject, I don't realize sometimes how weirdly something is written etc. I would like to nominate the page for FA, so it needs to be perfect. I think I've done a good job, and I'd say the only issue is some MOS issues, and writing and sentencing (it's not so bad dw :)) So please, can you proof-read it from a "third party" point of view, and help refine its writing? Thanks so much Shirik, and I hope you can help in the matter. Thanks!? :D--Peter Griffin  &bull; Talk2Me   23:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Shirik, can you please give me an answer? :) thank youu.--Peter Griffin  &bull; Talk2Me   22:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter, I will try to help you out but I am quite busy lately. I will see if I can get to it soon. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 01:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, I would greatly appreciate it! :)--Peter Griffin  &bull; Talk2Me   03:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

RD2
Hi Shirik - seems like there are other strange things happening with the servers these days, but I though I would just mention this in case you have any idea what happened. On this users page you rightly reverted and RD2'd the edit summary and text, and then protected the page - but somehow the text was still there later for another editor to delete again. Take a look at this RD2'd diff. There are other problems on this users page too (related to WikEd and his pagenotice) but I am not sure if they are related. In any case, just thought I'd mention it in case you have any idea what happened. 7 06:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi 7. It looks like I was just a moron and forgot to revert when I did the protection. So... I protected a vandalized page. The revert was cleanup. Sorry about that. - Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 04:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok - but I actually thought you had removed the vandalism with REVDEL so it seemed strange that it was still there. In any case, all better now.   7  04:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

When you notified me of the ANI discussion
Hi Shirik! When you notified me of the ANI discussion regarding DJSasso, did you think twice before you did that? By notifying me of the discussion, you somehow triggered me to join the discussion, which did not turn out to make anything better (at least my posts there). I don't know, maybe you should've told me to be careful when writing in that discussion, but you can't always know. Hey Mid  (contributions) 21:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're asking me something here or what, but when I notified you I specifically noted that you didn't do anything wrong. Any decision to enter the discussion was your own perogative. That's not to say I agree with the block or any such actions (I take no opinion on this), but my comment to you was merely to let you know of the thread's existence, as the thread was about something with which you had an impact. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 22:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Oversight request
I need you to oversight this edit to the article Carrie Underwood. It includes a phone number, which, as I understand it, counts as personal information. The  Utahraptor My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 00:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Utahraptor, I'm not an oversighter but I've revision deleted the offending edit. In the future, though, you should never post something like that publicly; it will only draw attention. Instead, email a member of the oversight team to take care of it. Thanks for pointing it out, though. Regards, Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 01:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant revision delete. I'm sorry, I won't say anything publicly again. Thanks for the advice. The   Utahraptor My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 01:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You appear to not have reviewer privileges
Which is strange given that you're an admin. Moments ago I had to approve a vandalism revert that you did on Park51. This is something you should look into.  elektrik SHOOS  03:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I do, but the order in which things occurred matters. IP user A made an edit which was pending. Then IP user B made an edit. I reverted B. My edit is not automatically approved because the edit from A is still pending (I could have chosen to approve it myself, but I didn't because I didn't look into the validity of the edit by A). After that, you approved A's edit (but this leaves mine unapproved). Hope that helps, Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 03:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That sort of makes sense. Nevermind :3  elektrik SHOOS  03:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Question
Although this has nothing to do with it, quite some time ago I talk to you about a Sockpuppet case where I was named a Sockpuppet suspect, which turned out in my favor. You were the Clerk who closed it. I only mention this because I know that you know what you’re doing regarding Sockpuppet problems.

Anyway, I have run into a user who, in my view, has been making blatantly POV edits all the while claiming they are in the name or neutrality. The article is Body memory and the user is Pod3CD.

I have noticed that this person registered Monday September 18 and has only edit pages directly related to the article we disagree on. Additionally this person seems to know and refers to so many Wikipedia terms (like "POV" and "see WP:OR", etc) that it looks me quite possible that this is a Single use account.

However, I will admit that I disagree with his edits, and it did bother me when someone accused me of being a Sockpuppet, so I would hate to let any kind of personal bias on my part motivate me into opining a Sockpuppet investigation. So I would like your opinion on this matter. Do you think Pod3CD is a Single use account? Do you think I should open a Sockpuppet investigation?--ARTEST4ECHO talk 17:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Never Mind. He has stopped editing and his changes were almost universally rejected by others.  Additionally I left him a very carefully worded message to check out the Single use account page.  If it becomes a problem I will put in for a SP investigation.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

About the 'rollback vandal' I wrongfully did
Yes, I acknowledge I was a bit trigger happy about that one. I was at the time involved with reverting a now blocked disruptive editor. When I saw the edits to my talk page I assumed it was the vandal in question and reverted with the 'vandal' option. I then realized it was not the vandal, and reverted myself, tagging me as a vandal so as to reprehend myself and ask an apology to the kind editor that I wrongfully reverted. Since then, I also left a comment to Ktr101 about what I did, asking forgiveness and an advice. I know also thank you for noticing this incident and caring enough to contact me. Thank you. --VandTrack (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all. Like I said, it's nothing particularly "wrong", I just wanted to introduce myself and drop a line to make sure you knew the difference. There are many people that don't. Happy editing, Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 04:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Map template
Hi again! I apologize if this sounds repetitive and annoying, but the problem with "position: absolute" and map templates still stays on. I'd really appreciate if you have created the template I've asked you for or proposed another solution. Thanks in advance and sorry again for possible annoyance – I just can't continue making the maps without this template. —WiJG? 13:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't apologize; you've done nothing wrong and you certainly aren't annoying me. Myself, I apologize for taking so long. I've as-of-yet been able to find a better solution, so rather than violating WP:BEANS I've gone ahead and made the template you requested until I can come up with a better solution. Hope that helps, Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 04:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! —WiJG? 15:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, for you help.
Thanks, for your help with it has been an issue that has been going on for a few weeks, on wiki, and on wiki's IRC channel (as you well know). -- Wolfnix •  Talk  • 00:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 

Wolfnix has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can 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.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Awarding of The Admin's Barnstar

 * While I'm not sure I entirely agree with your... caustic wording of the situation, thanks. While I'd rather things get resolved peacefully, there is a limit to how much patience the community has. Hopefully it can still be resolved, but we do need to stop the harm first. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 01:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Foulbal(l)
I see you've extended User:Foulball's block to indefinite, presumably because of the latest by "User:Foulbal" (one L). OK so far. But the (or an?) other sock User talk:Bralalalalagotcensored says that this person has lost their password for User:Foulball, and so is now completely helpless.

No, I too don't see any sign that this person is going to contribute constructively, but WP has a policy of optimism and openness (within limits). So I suggest reducing the block to two weeks or whatever, and telling the perp that any further sockery will bring on an indefinite block. -- Hoary (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Hoary, actually he was told this yesterday and then this issue continued on to today. I also had a lengthy discussion with him off-wiki. (The reason this may not be directly evident is because this mostly happened on IRC, specifically). I'm open to "second chance" type measures, for sure, but first I would like to see a well-written unblock request which indicates he clearly understands what's wrong and agrees not to continue (along the same lines as WP:OFFER but without the 6 month requirement). Our discussion today indicates that, as of right now, there is neither an intent to contribute constructively nor is there understanding of the problem. Naturally, if you would rather take it down to two weeks, feel free to; I trust your judgement, I'm just pointing out my reasons for doing that. -- Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 01:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If my opinion matters, recently made another account, and another article with the same subject. I have the irclogs available if an admin or oversight needs them, but in my opinion he has been given many second changes, and has been explained why the article, plus the fact he was clearly told that he needed to wait; instead of making now five to six socks. -- Wolfnix  •  Talk  • 01:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see, "Truthbearer1" (and perhaps more). I've deleted and semisalted the requests for article creation. But as for User talk:Bralalalalagotcensored, I'm still sure that it needs rewording at the very least. -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My checkuser request
Hi. You declined my checkuser request. That is fine, and I understand ur explanation why you did that. However, there is a user who is running around claiming that he doesn't believe me that I am using this as a legitimate sockpuppet, and he was threatening to start an investigation. He is trying to find out what my old accont name is, but this makes me sad, because my old account is a private matter and none of his business (IMO). So wut should I do?--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dont worry, I have addressed it below. That reasoning was not listed on the sockpuppet page when you sent the message. And regardless, I never requested you file such. The two criteria I wish to establish are mentioned below. I have no concern over anything else. I have stated this to you more than once. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 07:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Hi, I never requested Bad_edits_r_dumb file a sockpuppet investigation. I said I would file an AN/I since the editor has hidden reasons for not wanting to use their previous account (and wishes to hide both the account and reasons), which their highly disruptive behavior would lead to indicate may be either (a) due to a ban or block evasion or (b) to reduce the penalties for their current disruptiveness by hiding their activities under their previous account. The editor in question has chosen of their own accord to file the sockpuppet investigation in question, for the wrong reasons, and possibly in an attempt to hide such. Other than for the reasons stated, I have no concerns with any other aspect of their account. But, over a dozen notes, warnings and messages - still with continued disruptive behavior (followed by a block, followed by an unblock request stating they will still perform such behavior at their discretion) I think warrants at least the answers to those two concerns (block/ban evasion or previous history that warrants a longer block for their recent activity). Thanks for your time. R OBERT M FROM LI TALK/CNTRB 07:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not tell u wut my old user name is. But it is an account in good standing.  If u can find out on your own, good for you!--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont want to know what your old uernames (plural per your entry on your talk page) are. I just want those two things I mentioned above verified, which is why I said I would file a request that asked for uninvolved admins and checkuser to verify. That is to your advantage, because after others already pointed out similarities in your edit style to other blocked users (and suspected you of sockpuppetry and/or ban evasion, you mentioned you had multiple accounts. Assuming good faith, my efforts in this regard will be beneficial to you and put this to rest for good. Sadly, assuming your portrayal of the matter is incorrect, it may not be. But, I can assume good faith and try to end this and close the door that you opened when you admitted to having multiple accounts. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 07:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have any evidence to indicate a suspicion of sockpuppetry, feel free to file an investigation, but just "the user was disruptive" is not sufficient for a checkuser request. I really don't understand what the big deal is, honestly. It was my opinion that's BERD's (if you don't mind me calling you that) edits weren't really that disruptive. If you can give more concrete evidence, I will be more than happy to take a look at it. Until then, I don't think going around mentioning "he's a sock!" is a good idea. Honestly, it's probably just better to drop it until it becomes a real problem. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 07:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * thank u for these words. I will try not to be a real problem. I will be a good editor.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Hi again, I never mentioned he was a sock. I never requested a sockpuppet investigation. The user states they have multiple accounts (more than 2), which in itself is at least interesting. As for the disruptive nature of their edits, multiple admins (including the one who blocked him, and the one who declined his block request), as well as all of the editors involved, disagree with your opinion on whether they were disruptive. Please do not use BERD's false claims as to my intent as a basis for something I never requested. The user was blocked within a few days of creating this account (which was created for "reasons" unknown so they would not have to be associated with their old account) - so, is their current block too short due to previous behavior? Or is this a ban/block evasion? Or none of the above, in which case, the door they opened (mentioning they have three or more accounts - right after other's (not mine) accusations they are a sock) needs to be definitively closed in their favor. R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 07:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that my opinion is in the minority, and I never asked for it to be overturned, however that doesn't change my opinion. I'm also not saying that you've done anything wrong (only pointing out that the suspicions of sockpuppetry seem to be without basis right now to me; that's directed to everyone, not just you). If you have any evidence to the contrary, please feel free to point it out. But really I don't see what the big deal is. However, please note that I'm only handling the SPI case that was opened. If you wish to take this to ANI, I certainly won't stop you. I was only acting in my role as a clerk at SPI. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 07:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Much thanks, and I understand. I am sorry you were bothered with this, as an SPI was never what I wanted, requested or implied should happen. I will (once again) try to assume good faith and see where this editor's contributions land them before I go to AN/I - and hopefully, between them blanking their talk page (and thus hiding their claim of 3 or more accounts) and future good behavior, it wont be necessary. I've (very politely, but nonetheless) already been told I am being stupid (though not with that word) for assuming such, but what can ya do? :-) R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 07:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Help regarding Copy Editing...
Hello, i want your help regarding the copy editing, general fixes and grammatical mistakes in the following articles related to Meteorology.


 * List of extreme weather records in Pakistan
 * Climate of Quetta

Waiting for your reply. Regards...

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In the article, Climate of Quetta, i want to make the following columns of the table sortable:
 * Date
 * Year, and
 * Temperature

Help:Sorting, is very confusing, and i want to know that whether the table is able to sorted or not, or if i have to change it.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ur input would be useful at ANI
Hi mr. Admin. If u have time, could you weigh in on this discussion? Apparently they are discussing the possibility of whether I am violating CLEANSTART. Since you were the clerk who declined my checkuser request, perhaps u could tell them why you felt a checkuser was unwarranted at the time and whether u still feel that way. Also, if u have any additional thoughts on whether my edits (since my 72 hour block) have been abusive or disruptive, that would be welcome too.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies to you both for not thinking of notifying Shirik on the off chance Shirik wanted to contribute. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 03:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, but I think it's better I just stay out of that thread. I don't really have much additional information to contribute, and I'm pretty convinced (just on a hunch, no real evidence) that the checkusers are already in private discussion about this whole deal. It should sort itself out shortly. Regards, Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 14:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wallflowers98
See last two edits to Mario Golf (video game) - could you update EF 306, please? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing them out. This will take some thought; this filter is already long-running and it can't get much longer. I'll have to find another approach. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 21:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)