User talk:Shirik/Archives/2011/July

Error report
Master, I detected an error in the tor network while processing a request. The response was. Please see the logs for more information. My knowledge of the tor network state is now inconsistent, so I am halting further activity until you intervene.. --TorNodeBot (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Till this I would like to add:
 * User:Night of the Big Wind mentioned that you made edits in messages written by others. You mentioned WP:VAND as a source to say that your revert was not vandalism. I tend to disagree. Why? Well read what it says on WP:VAND:
 * Talk page vandalism

Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments. However, it is acceptable to blank comments constituting vandalism, internal spam, or harassment or a personal attack. It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment. Users are also permitted to remove comments from their own user talk pages. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve.
 * Therefor I would like to stress out, that you should refrain yourself of making these kind of edits, as it shows a lack of respect.-- Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 08:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Facts: User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind repeatedly accused me of vandalism because I have legitimate deleted a comment signed by a sockpuppeteer evading his block (this time he was using the sockpuppet Jabbsworth). That is not "editing someone else messages". And it is not vandalism to delete a comment signed by a sockpuppeteer evading a block, and this is the 6 time this sockpuppeteer do the same. More over, it is legitimate to delete a comment and any action made by a sockpuppeteer evading a block which is considered aserious breach of WP trust. I had to put it here as User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind sent to the "ClaudioBin" any comment I put in his talk_page explaining this]. It is so easy and common to demmand respect for yourself while behave otherwise with the others. Whatever, I just wanted to document the real facts. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  16:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied on NotBW's talk page -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 16:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. Cause NotBW is bringing again into account the cold case (more than 1 year ago) of my previous account that I had to close because I lost my password but that admins found I didn't use to evade a block nor to feign or to fake another identity. Here is another place where I recently had to exahustevely explain the thing again as it was mentioned again by NotBW. Actually it was to Eddylandzaat, which was the previous account of NotBW, whom I explicity recognized that some comments made with my old accoiunt were mine. So, it is proverbial how he insists in harass me with that cold case.
 * 2. Seeing NotBW behaviour I also have to anticipate that: perhaps NotBW will claim again that here and here I have edited his comments. But actually, it was a mistake caused by him. Originally those comment were posted and signed by the sockpupeteer Jabbsworth, so I deleted them. Then NotBW edited/refactored the comments from the sockpuppeteer (Jabbsworth) and resigned them with his own (NotBW) signature. Thus, NotBW edited/refactored someone else comments (which he cries to be a serious and nasty doing) but he also helped in this way to circumvent the block of the sockpuppeteer and to evade my legitimate deletion of them. But, once I have realized that NotBW edited/refactored and resigned the comment of the sockpuppeteer I merely deleted those comments he did not refactored but those which remained signed by the sockpuppeteer, the original illegitimate author.
 * 3. At any rate, as it can be read in the talk_page of JackKevorkian's article, I have exhibit reasons to reject those changes, reasons against its content/matter and not merely against its form and origin. So I feel compelled to believe that he is just taking the side of the sockpuppeter because he shares the same position pro-euthanasia of the sockpuppeteer and they do not doubt to use any mean to force their position.
 * --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  17:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Claudio. You have made clear that you don't want edits that conflict with your opinion. But under no circumstances you can edit or delete contributions from other editors from talkpages. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer unblocked
As you are a clerk and as recently you did hear about me because of reverting this sockpupeteer, then I think I should inform to you the following information: I have to complaint. The account Jabbsworth is the 6 sockpuppet used by the known sockpuppeteer Ratel to evade his block and to edit disruptively and warring. I have been affected a lot of times because of this sockpuppeteer. I do not understand how Jabbsworth was recently unblocked by David Fuchs just few day after he was blocked by Elockid due the same reason: sockpuppetry to evade a block and edit disruptively and warring. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  00:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The above comment probably falls within the prohibitions of wp:CANVASSING, is therefore disruptive because it seeks to overturn an Arbcom decision, and the recipient would be wise to ignore it, or report it. I could also add that user ClaudioSantos has a long history of sockpuppetry and disruptive editing (trying to insert the word "murder" into all pages discussing euthanasia, for instance, and editing from a religious POV). At one stage he completely destroyed the Talk page at Talk:Action T4 by defacing it. He also had some of your socks, eg, permablocked. By "complaining" here, he is perpetuating the cycle. I say to him: please study the collegial atmosphere we try to achieve at WP. It allows constructive editing. Jabbsworth (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not canvassing to ask for help to an admin who was involved in the thing the last time. For a change, ::: It seems User:Jabbsworth is again starting his doings so promptly. Not only referring to me with comments like "religious POV" like the above one, but He just collpased some parts of a talk page. Is this not disruptive and warring again? --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  01:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And what should I think about this> where he is proposing to imposse a topic ban against me?  --  ClaudioSantos  ¿?  01:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The take-home message for Shirik on this issue is that 2 users are now collaborating on compiling a dispute case against you for relentless POV pushing on euthanasia-related articles. We shall seek a topic ban. An example of the unacceptable things you have done is to insist on a "Criminal" infobox on the page of pathologist Dr Jack Kevorkian. That was rejected by consensus. I could find many more examples, but hopefully this will suffice. I suggest you stop canvassing numerous people (Shirik, please see his contribution history for evidence today) and please take this conversation to your talk page, where I have asked you kindly to remove your personal attacks from article talk space. Jabbsworth (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not referring about none article, and I am not editing any article, if you edits that Kevorkian is a saint, it really does not matter to me nothing. Here the thing deals about your behaivour User:Ratel. It is legitimate to ask for help to an admin as you have also a long record of attacks, warring and serious disruption affecting more than this unique user. Then it is legitimate to ask for an action to prevent you to repeat the same doings that lead to your blocks. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  02:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Idea for improving Template:Rangevandal
Hello Shirik. I saw your recent change where you make the 'user page' into a link to Special:Contributions. This seems intended to display all the contributions from the range, for those who have the gadget. Have you used http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/rangecontribs/ ? I personally think this is a superior way of checking contributions from a range, since they are sorted by date. Especially when a short range block is contemplated, this can give a better idea of collateral damage. What would you think of a change to Rangevandal to invoke the rangecontribs tool instead of Special:Contributions? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I made that change over a year ago. Anyway, I have no objections to using x's tool instead. I do believe it is superior as well. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 19:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Banned user Jackjit active yet again with new IP
Jackjit has apparently changed to a new Internet Service Provider after his most recent block on his revolving/dynamic 118 IP and is now using the fixed/static IP 118.93.220.21 and is again making the exact same kind of vandalism and edits to Conservative/Republican type of articles using this new static IP. Unfortunately, people have reverted some of his edits as vandalism but have NOT placed any warnings on his Talk page. This new fixed IP should be easy to block, no? Please help again.--RedEyedCajun (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive
Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)