User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 22

Sockpuppet investigations/Barnstarr
Hi, I think that F applies, but I'd like your input. It seems to me this is valid per CheckUser. Do I need to add to the case to make this clear, or is it OK the way it is? NJGW (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To be frank, I do not feel this users edits justify fishing and since I have blocked the user, I see no reason for a CheckUser request all together. If you wish to still request a CheckUser, yes, F would be the appropriate code letter. If not, please add SPIclose - A reason why you are request a close here to the "conclusion" section of the case and a clerk will archive the request. Hope that helps, Tiptoety  talk 23:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent design
Thanks for blocking and warning edit warriors, you saved me time. I actually wanted to block Damians.rf myself and warn others, but I was already partially asleep and needed to go to bed. I will probably shorten protection from current two weeks. Ruslik (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are still following this, you may want to look at File:Pandas_and_ppl.jpg and File:Darwinsblackbox.jpg. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you perhaps elaborate on why Damians.rf was blocked? The majority of his edits were not regarding the images, but another issue. Further, there are surely other, more suitable candidates for the blocking? There is a small amount of coversation regarding the matter here, and Damiens.rf has raised some relevant points on his talk page. J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Thanks for the heads up all. Carl, those images are now in my radar. J Milburn, I commented on the talk page thread. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 21:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, now I see some of your reasoning, I'm happy to defer to your experience with edit warring. J Milburn (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. :-) Cheers, Tiptoety  talk

Thanks
Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! Tckma (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome. Tiptoety  talk 21:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: image summaries
I noticed your comment at Damiens.rf's unblock request; I presume you were addressing the removal of the summaries for the various uses. Not addressing that (though I've had some issues with the IfD noms of two images I uploaded), what is your impression of the summaries? I was wondering if I could additionally impose upon you to help me take steps to correct any NFC#2 in the aforementioned images ( and ). I'd ask for assistance ith the NFC#8, but that seems to be a mantra for any deletionist. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Arcayne, for starters the only reason I brought up the image at Damiens.rf's unblock request was simply to provide more evidence of edit warring (I was not commenting on the removal of the summaries). As such, I did not take the time to really do more than notice that Damiens.rf was edit warring and have no opinion in regards to the summaries. As for the other issue, the first image of the group would infringe on the ability to resell work since it is a valuable picture, and will always fail #2 because it has commercial value and isn't unique in its own right. The second, the second image, of the protest, the IFD nominator admits passes #2 but fails #8. So, really, I am not sure there is a whole lot I can do. Hope that helps, Tiptoety  talk 03:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Input
Hi. First of all, no hard-feelings about anything. But in regard to your comments here, while I respect your dislike for my edits you deem "reverts", I wonder what was the problem with this few specific edits:

I'm asking that in the spirit of trying to avoid further misbehaving, and not to scrutinize your attitudes, and I hope you to take these questions with an open heart. Yours truly, --Damiens .rf 05:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * - Recovering a broken reference from history tagging a passage as original research.
 * - Tagging as pov the qualification of a book as having a "glossy cover" (after a civil discussion, I was explained that it was an unqualified direct quotation from the source, and it was agreed that the text should be changed to reflect that (i.e.: my concern was valid)).
 * - Changing the word perceived as povvy after talk page discussion.
 * Hi Damiens.rf. Let me also start by saying that there are no hard-feelings on my part either and I am fully aware that editors have the ability to improve, correct, and learn from their mistakes even if that means a block must be issued to accomplish that, and I truly hope this is the case with you. I would also like to note, that while I blocked you, I feel that your edits are intelligent and have the best interests of the project in mind I just wish you would have gone about them in a more constructive way.
 * As for the diffs you provided, I know there was some reason I put them in my comment at Talk:Intelligent_design, but after looking over them again I do not see the issue. In regards to this which when reverted was changed to this, I think there was a earlier revert of the same type of template addition which you in turn re-added (can't seem to find it though, page history is a mess). So because I am totally unable to provide you with a good reason for adding bringing up those diffs, I will apologize for having added them. Anyways, I hope you take this as a learning experience and move more towards the talk page and less towards the article. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 05:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I believe it's all cleared now. I hope interact with you in better circumstances in the future. See you, --Damiens .rf 15:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Tiptoety. What do you think of this? Would you have an opinion on whether there is currently a consensus to keep the images on the article. It's a mess I know but I feel this has festered for too long. Thanks in advance for any time you can give to this. --John (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm...overall it looks good. I think the main ideas and topics of disagreement are well said. Just as a reminder though, Wikipedia is based upon consensus not a vote. As such, other than simply for clarification purposes I see no real need to provide a list of supporters and opposers as simply having more users in one group than the other does not mean there is consensus in support of it. Also, I hope that this page will simply be used for "information only" purposes and a place to brainstorm ways of solving the dispute instead of simply being a place to continue it. But, like I said before all and all it looks good. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 19:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it is just intended as a summary headcount of who has said what in the rather convoluted discussions there have been. Its primary purpose is to demonstrate (without the disruption of having a straw poll) that the consensus claimed by the proponents of the images is illusory. I'm aware that consensus is not a headcount of course; but sometimes a headcount can demonstrate the lack of a consensus. I would argue that in the absence of a consensus these images should probably not be used. Any opinions on where we should best go next with this? I respect your opinion and would be grateful for your advice. --John (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again John. Let me take a more "in depth" look into the dispute and get back to you. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 07:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To be quite honest John, I am seeing that the only real way to resolve this most recent issue is through a RfAr. That said, other means should be attempted first and I really recommend opening a RfC that deals specifically with the images and hope that some uninvolved voices pipe up to attempt to create some form of consensus. That said, the whole ID dispute has been long running and I fear a RfC will do little to put out the flames...but if we are to follow our dispute resolution process that is the next step. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 20:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. It's been ongoing for almost a year now. Most image use problems (that I've seen) are solved much more quickly, but I guess this is a highly charged area. See inter alia here. Oh well. Another few days won't hurt I guess. --John (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring report result
Hi, I reported PeeJay2k3 for breaking the 3 Revert Rule (article - Adem Ljajic) and you passed the decision. You said that as the page had been protected, you were not going to block him. I just wanted to tell you that the only reason the page had been protected was because he had it protected displaying the incorrect information he had been continually reverting to. The page was not protected as a method to stop him from reverting the article. - Matty 4123  (T•C•A) 20:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I can understand the lack of a block if PeeJay was a new editor, or even an established editor with no prior block history - however he is an established editor with prior 3RR blocks - based on my prior dealings with this editor he seems to think that his content takes priority over any rules that wikipedia has. I politely suggest that you take another look at his previous edits/block history and consider blocking him - his edits are good faith, but his actions are disruptive. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the exact reason why there has been a bit of a "dispute" on that article. He seems to think that his information must always be right. He can not accept when someone finds something to the contrary, even if there are many reliable sources. - Matty 4123  (T•C•A) 15:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the definition of a dispute, and is the most common form. As such, we must take the appropriate steps in dealing with those disputes and that involves letting both sides have the ability to voice their opinions on the matter and engage in civil discussions. While I do feel blocking would have dealt with the conduct issues it would not have resolved the dispute. Seeing as another administrator has protected the page, that allows for a conversation to take place and I encourage you to start (or jump into) one. Also, blocking now would be completely punitive. The user has not edit warred over the article for close to 14 hours, if you still feel a block is needed take to WP:AN/I but like I said before I will not be blocking. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 17:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal question
Is this relevant to the arbcom case? If you think it has a better place, I wouldn't mind it being moved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am looking now and discussing with a few other clerks. Tiptoety  talk 17:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:MrShamrock
This user is requesting unblocking; he had been edit-warring at Bobby Abreu. He says the dispute had been over for a while when he was blocked; I checked and indeed, he had self-reverted his last revert. I'm thinking unblocking would be reasonable here. Mango juice talk 15:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears another administrator has already dealt with it. That said I would have no qualm with him being unblocked. Tiptoety  talk 17:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Biophys edit war
Could you take a look at Biophys' continuing edit war? He keeps annoying me by warring against the consensus established at Talk:Phone_call_to_Putin. (Igny (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Please see . Igny, please do not continue to edit war to uphold consensus. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 05:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It was never my intention to participate in edit wars here in WP. However unreasonable behavior of some editors pushed me to do so, even though I know that I could just wait for some other editors to do the reverts. I contacted you because you warned me over the edit wars in articles related to Eastern Europe, and because of that Biophys kept complaining about me to you. It is pity that these articles became a battleground, and it has always been my intention to smooth the edged and bring neutral way to describe what is going on and try to establish a mutual consensus. If I and you had time I could demonstrate that even though I participated in edit wars over 2008 South Ossetia War most of my edits remain in the current version, and most of the edits which I kept deleting do not. (Igny (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

Clarification on date re/delinking injunction
Hi, I was wondering if year links were included in the date delinking injuction. User:Kendrick7 has been relinking years with some regularity. Is this allowed? He has been asked not to by several users, including an admin. Any clarification on the injunction or this activity would be helpful. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I am not the person (or people) that wrote the injunction I can not speak to its intended meaning, instead you will need to contact a active Arbitrator who is working the case. My only role is to enforce the injunction and seeing as Kendrick7 has since ceased, I see no need to take any action. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 23:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I did not seek for any enforcement, I only wanted a clarification. Even though Kendrick7 has since stopped, I will ask the arbitrator who wrote it for clarification for future reference (for however long this case is open). Thanks again, Dabomb87 (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted edit hisory?
Hi, I still feel an obligation to make a couple of neutral comments in SemBubenny case, but I could not look through his edit history. It seems to jump from 2005 to 2009. Please see here, close to the bottom. I also could not find anything at talk page of User:Mikkalai (his previous name). Can this still be found somewhere? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, it is all here, except talk page of Mikkalai.Biophys (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a bit odd, generally the contribs move over with the new username. Oh well, looks like you found it either way. Tiptoety  talk 23:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I did not find talk page of User:Mikkalai and therefore could not support my Evidence by proper diffs. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Gosh, the page history's are sure messed up. For the most part, all of his old talk page histroy can be found here. This may be another topic you may want to bring up at the Arbitration case. To the best of my knowledge, talk pages should not be deleted especially to remove a pages history (with a few mitigated circumstances of course.) Tiptoety  talk 04:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it then be possible to restore his talk page with its history?Biophys (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you should ask Mikkalai first and see if he is willing, I am not interested in a wheel war and proper edict would say to contact the deleting administrator first. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 05:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked, but he did not respond, although he is currently active. Of course, one could file a motion in his ArbCom case to restore the talk page...Biophys (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that that or sending a email to the ArbCom mailing list would be the best way of going about it. Tiptoety  talk 05:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ResearchEditor sock puppeting
Hi,

Apparently the RFCU is locked? Could you add this set to the page? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, apparently there's a new page and my new addition seems to be appearing (though my template does not seem to be subst:ing). Anyway, here's my diffs in case I've done anything wrong start, headings.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 05:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Jvolkblum
Hi. Per my comment, you may want to delete all the new articles created by. They've already caused some discussion and been tagged for merges. History shows that Jvolkblum will turn each of them into battlegrounds. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, while I agree they were created for the malicious purposes, I would hate to delete a perfectly good article that could do with merging and redirecting. Before I start deleting them, I would like to see some consensus to support their deletion. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 04:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I am directed to notice this conversation here by an edit to my Talk page from an IP editor who I presume is either the same as SHH2009 or a separate observer with similar interests, likely also identified as being associated with Jvolkblum.
 * Per my involvement with all of the pages that Wknight94 refers to, which I myself tagged and thereby linked to a new article for orderly discussion, I request that you do not delete them. I am prepared to deal with the matter.  I don't want to overstate the value of having information about the neighborhoods of New Rochelle in the wikipedia, but I think it is a legitimate topic and some coverage is warranted.  Please allow me to deal with it. doncram (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. Like I said above, I will not be taking any administrative action here unless there is clear consensus to do so. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 05:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why bother blocking? S/he could continue contributing "perfectly good articles" using one account instead of bouncing to hundreds of others as s/he has done until now.  If you're only going to follow half of WP:BAN, all you're accomplishing is obscuring the source of the contributions and confusing the situation further.  Not to mention encouraging Jvolkblum to continue the wave of sockpuppetry that got him/her banned in the first place. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * [In response to Wknight] In all fairness, if we can detect that user X is a sock of banned user Y, it's only reasonable to ban user X also; but as long as we know that there's nothing wrong with the articles per se, why delete? Why shouldn't Homestead Park, to take a random example of articles by SHH2009, be treated any differently from the way it would be treated if I'd created it?  The purpose of blocking and banning, as I see it, is to ensure that problematic people don't continue to cause problems.  While I support merging the New Rochelle neighborhood articles, including Homestead Park, I don't think that we can find their existence hurtful to the encyclopedia, but rather at least marginally helpful.  Remember that we should break any rule that interferes with improving the encyclopedia, and I really don't see how the encyclopedia would be improved by deleting these articles. [to Tiptoety] Having heard vaguely of this user and of his socks, I know it's a tricky situation, but not having been involved, I'll not pass judgement in any way on wide-ranging courses of action.  In this case, however, I believe that I know enough to say that I agree with your action.  Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your thoughtful response but it still doesn't answer my question. Why bother blocking at all then?  Keeping the content around is only going to encourage the person to create more and more socks (he is in the hundreds by now).  If you support his contributions, then blocking the socks is just an inconvenience - to him and to the rest of us.  He has a history of violating copyright so his contributions need to be watched very closely.  That is made all the more difficult by forcing him to obscure his identities.  We need to pick one method or the other: block and delete - and seriously enforce the ban - or do neither.  —Wknight94 (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that Wknight94 and Orlady, the two editors most involved in prosecuting the Jvolkblum case, have made repeated errors in misidentifying new editors in the New Rochelle area as being the dread Jvolkblum. This was proven recently for just one new editor, but I believe that others have been caught up in W and O's accusations, too, and many then respond by creating new accounts and appearing to be ban-evading in bad ways (although they never were banned, the ban on Jvolkblum does not apply to them and there is no reason they should understand that it does).  I think it is quite possible that the original Jvolkblum, the only person banned, is no longer even active in wikipedia.  The all-out block and delete tactics applied against others have caused a huge amount of frustration out there, and I think pursuing such tactics leads to more technically illegal behavior rather than less. doncram (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted user talk page archives
An administrator,, deleted some of ' talk page archives at his request. Ohconfucius uses page moves to perform archives, so this deletion was destructive and not appropriate per WP:UP. Ohconfucius is also a party to the Date delinking case, and so his talk page (and the associated history) is relevant to those participating in this arbitration. The deleting admin has refused to reverse his actions, but has indicated he would not object if another administrator undid his deletion. The affected pages are: Can you undelete these pages at least until the end of arbitration (probably longer since these should only be deleted if the editor is leaving the project; see Right to vanish)? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * User talk:Ohconfucius/archive Dec 2006
 * User talk:Ohconfucius/archive December 2007
 * User talk:Ohconfucius/archive October 2007
 * User talk:Ohconfucius/archive Mar 2007
 * User talk:Ohconfucius/archive May 2007
 * User talk:Ohconfucius/archive August 2007
 * Disregard, the history is still available at this archive, apparently he used copy/paste archives originally, but later switched to page moves. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Glad it could be dealt with without the need for intervention. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 18:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Durga Maa Motion Pictures
Hi Tiptoety I notice you just deleted Durga Maa Motion Pictures. Could you have a look at the creator's other contributions? This is certainly the same person who also created all articles listed at Articles for deletion/Durga Maa Telefilms, and I just reverted all of Special:Contributions/83.50.32.152 who'll also be him. I'd like to make sure that we arent't missing any. Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea  03:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Amalthea. I looked over 's contribs and I see nothing that has not already been deleted. As for the IP, all it's edits have been reverted (as you stated). I guess I am not sure what is left to do. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 03:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing, then. I just wasn't sure which account created it this time, since it couldn't have been the IP. Thanks, Amalthea  03:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh right. I forget you are unable to see deleted contribs. Sorry about that, after almost a year of having the the tools I forget what it is like to not have them (but you will have them soon). Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 03:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I see. Deletionpedia is sometimes helpful in similar situations for the tool-less, but wasn't in this case. And well, yes, I guess I will have, from the looks of it; FWIW, I mentioned you in Q3 in that RfA, not sure if you noticed. Cheers, Amalthea  10:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The previous editor
You should be relieved to know that the previous vandal's IP has been blocked as an open proxy. -- Avi (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Way ahead of you Avi. I was the one who brought the user to the attention of Versageek. ;-) Anyways, thanks for following up with me. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 06:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have your talkpage watchlisted, and if I see a threat like that… Well, I'm glad that's over 8-) -- Avi (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius has resumed date delinking
Please refer to this thread on the arbitration discussion page. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That link leads nowhere. Can you please provide me with a few diffs? Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 20:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was moved to WP:AN/AE by Ryan. It looks like the arbitrators don't believe he's violated the injunction. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Tiptoety, you could be at risk of being led down a blind alley. It might be an idea first off to ask what the OP had in mind for you to do after you have "referred" to the discussion in question. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC) [addendum: In case I'm accused of stalking, I have your page on my watchlist. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC) ]
 * No, I don't think so. Before I would have taken any action I would have reviewed all the evidence for myself. As for the reason this thread was started, I can surly speculate but no one really knows the true motive, and honestly, does it matter? Either way, Arbcom has determined that you did not violate the injunction so really my part here is done. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 06:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I didn't mean to patronise. During the last two days, at DRV, I was surprised by experienced admins who take opening statements at face value, without looking deeper into requests before replying, so I thought I had better 'be safe than sorry'. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Etiquette
It really isn't a good practice to overrule an administrative decision under active discussion where there's no pressing need and no clear consensus. It's not quite the letter of WP:WHEELWAR, but it reflects very badly. Wily D 20:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, okay. I saw consensus, and a discussion that was going in circles. So, I thought I would resolve it. Sorry if I caused any unintentional disruption. Tiptoety  talk 20:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And now Aitias has made things even worse by reverting back. Sigh.  Majorly  talk  20:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess that is his call to make. Either way, I will not be re-granting the flag. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 20:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, like any other admin decision, it should be possible to discuss it and overturn it if it was made badly. But the one needs to come before the other. Wily D  20:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Question
You're not resigning are you? Acalamari 22:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I just thought it was redundant to have them on both my userpage and talk page. ;-) Tiptoety  talk 22:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, phew! Acalamari 22:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Block update and thanks
Hi Tiptoety, wanted to drop by earlier by I was ...erm... (sheepish shrug) blocked by you for an edit war with another editor due to our differences of opinion regarding reliable sources. Sorry for dragging you into this, I know I shouldn't have gotten involved in the edit war but I guess I let the heat of the moment and the thought that there was nothing else I could do to prevent what I felt was an unjustifiable edit get the better of me. Anyway, I'm glad to report that the other editor has finally accepted the validity of the sources I quoted after reviewing the reaons I gave to support the reliability of the source, so something good came out of it and the issue that caused the edit war should not occur again. Finally, no offence and hard feelings for the block, I'll learn from this experience, and good job for keeping a good watch on things around here!Zhanzhao (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you learned something from it and I stopped a edit war then I achieved my goal. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 02:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Judgeking
The other edit that is very suspicious is JohnnyCakes1's first edit:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phidippus_audax&diff=prev&oldid=271910321 - without that, I probably wouldn't have tried arguing for a connection. Wily D 12:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, looks like someone else closed it. If you feel that was done in error, you can leave a message for the closing user or clerk, or start a thread at WT:SPI. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 03:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Periodic table of Elements move-protection
I agree it's probably not needed any more. At the time, there was a user pagemove-warring the periodic-table page. DMacks (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, alright. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 04:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Block templates
Hi. Just out of curiosity, where is the template for blocks due to incivility? I was looking for it once but couldn't find it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * uw-hblock. Is that what you are looking for? Tiptoety  talk 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Soundgarden
Re the message you left for Gonzo fan2007: Gonzo fan2007 is on a long break. I'm sure that the unprotect of the article is fine. The protection has been there for a long time. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 15:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Technical question
Hi Tiptoety! I am not quite familiar with WP search facilities. If I want to identify all IP users who were active in WP and whose address starts from "194.67.2." (this is a proxy server), can I do it? Thanks. Biophys (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge the answer is no. But, let me check with a few other “tech savvy” users and get back to you. Tiptoety  talk 18:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Biophys (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like the answer is no, sorry. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 18:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Good call
at RfAr/MZMcBride. I was just about to ask for that to be removed. Thanks, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 21:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 21:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C.
Hi there! It was a brave decision (and one i support!) but your unprotect of Liverpool F.C., but it has had its first bit of vandalism. Only one so far, so probably not worth requesting a reprotect quite yet, but I thouhgt I'd give you a heads-up. --Ged UK (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And it looks like it got hit a few more times. If the vandalism keeps up I will be forced to protect it once again. Thanks for the heads up, Tiptoety  talk 15:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No probs. I may have been hasty, we've only had 3 all day. Tomorrow will be a bigger test though as they play Champions League against Real Madrid, which i suspect will make it more visible than usual. Fingers crossed though. --Ged UK (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well, 6 in 24 hours isn't as bad as I thought it would be, and probably not enough to warrant protection again, but tonight is the key i think. At least there's plenty of editors watching it :) --Ged UK (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

PS, Knock Knock!

Who's there?

Sascha.

Sascha who?

Sascha lot of questions!

Sorry --Ged UK (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * :O Tiptoety  talk 15:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry, but could you reconsider your unlock. I think, sadly, the test has failed. We're up to 15 now including edits by new users. I have requested at WP:RPP, but there's been no action there as yet. Thanks in advance. -- Ged UK  19:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been reprotected, so you can stand down now! I just want to applaud you for trying though! -- Ged UK  08:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Oh, and good work yourself in keeping an eye on it for me. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 16:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. If, by the way, you have a spare few moments, i'd appreciate your comments on my editor review! editor review/Ged UK. -- Ged UK  18:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection for Hatshepsut?
Why did you suddenly unprotect Hatshepsut? Queen Hatshepsut's article has been the target of non-stop vandalism by Anon IP's who have called this queen anything from a bitch to something worse! Why? Partly because she was a woman who had the opportunity to succesfully rule Egypt. Did you inspect the article history prior to lifting the indefinite protection? The situation was so bad that Admin Doug Weller was forced here to place an indefinite protection because the anon IP vandals didn't stop attacking her wiki article even though he kept placing temporary protections for it. Now, you are making Hatshepsut's article an open target again for the IP vandals. Indeed, it was vandalized within 1 day of your move. I request you restore the indefinite protection level for Hatshepsut. You can't expect us to contribute to wiki while you allow anonymous IPs to wreak havoc to major articles like Hatshepsut's, sir.


 * PS: this is the kind of vandalism and this that her article has been subject to. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I unprotected it because this is a Wiki, and Wiki's are something that anyone can edit. Hence "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. Like any administrative action, it can be undone and should vandalism reach high enough levels I will be happy to reprotect it. If you feel protection needs to be done now (which, judging by the page history it does not) you can file a request at WP:RFPP. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 17:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User caught by a checkuser hardblocked IP, need additional input.
See User talk:Clonedroidcadet1. Can we give him IPExemption, or not? --Jayron32. talk . contribs 03:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am looking into it now. Also, for cases when I use checkuserblock and I am not immediately available, you can always file a quick request at WP:SPI and unblock/decline/grant IPE as you deem necessary. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 16:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Flickr
Hi I contacted a flickr user about changing their licencing for an image. They responded but I think that it still won't qualify under image use policy. Here's the conversation (I removed personally identifiable info for privacy reasons):

Hi,

I'd like to use your xxx photo to illustrate his article on wikipedia. Unfortunately to do this you would have to relesae your image without the "non-commercial" tag. Would you be prepared to do this? Thanks More info on Wikipedia policy is here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FLICKR

The response:

Ill give you permission to use it if you credit me. but I cant change the tag or many people will be using it without my permission.

So I think this falls into the criteria of "only on wikpedia" so I don't think it qualifies. Is it just me or are the times on your and talk page different? --DFS454 (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case they will need to email OTRS using this statement:

To permissions@wikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [   insert link    ].

I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [  choose at least one    from ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL. ].

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

Tiptoety talk 18:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

SPI report
Hi, I think there's something wrong with my report. It doesn't appear on the main page. --DFS454 (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 01:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Notification about SemBubenny case
Hi Tiptoety. Please see here for a clarification I made about my statement at RFAR on the SemBubenny case. I will be moving myself to active on that case, and my initial listing as recused should be considered an error (my fault entirely). Apologies for not clarifying this earlier. I'm letting you know direct in case the issue pops up on your watchlist somewhere else. Carcharoth (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: I changed the active arbitrator count, and am about to vote, and some other arbitrators are voting, so the implementation notes might need changing. Carcharoth (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up.
 * I have updated the implementation notes as asked.
 * Tiptoety talk 01:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Access To Deleted Page
I need access to a Wikipedia article that has been deleted. My aim is to redo it excluding any material which sound opinionated or advertisement. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_village_market. I have sent you an email on same.Wamaina (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You can ignore that request; I just did that per WP:HD. &mdash; Sebastian 22:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sebastian. Tiptoety  talk 01:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both Sebastian and Tiptoety for your help. I hope this time my article will be acceptable. By the way whom or where can i post the draft for criticism before uploading and saving it? I want to avoid another deletion.Wamaina (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll reply to that on your talk page to keep the conversation in one place. &mdash; Sebastian 16:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks sorry i posted also in the wrong place at your talk page. So I'll await your reply there.Wamaina (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the MZMcBride case
Hi there Tiptoety. As you are a clerk on this case, I was wondering why does Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Proposed decision list as an Arb on the case if Deskana is not a member of ArbCom and there are only 16 Arbitrators and not 17? Regards  So Why  10:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Looks like someone (could have been me) made a mistake. Thanks for pointing that out, it has now been . Tiptoety  talk 18:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Further assistance may be needed
This person recently blocked has returned to a talk page here Wage slavery, in the talk page, and been very unfriendly and accusatory. Friendly advice or attempts at that do not seem to be working so well. Neutrality forever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NeutralityForever) also known as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.2.224.110 - calling people sock puppets and in general being very confronting. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP has been blocked for one week due to civility violations. Because the IP is blocked, technically if NeutralityForever tries to edit via that IP he will not be able to. If he continues using his named account, it too will be blocked. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 21:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Too bad it had to come to that... but so be it. skip sievert (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

can you suggest what to do about the IP vandelism I undid today?
Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Give them proper warnings, then report to WP:AIV if necessary. Tiptoety  talk 15:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Rollback of User:Sahilm
Thanks so much! I have already started using Huggle. I shall continue my pursuit of vandals. Once again thank you, and Happy Editing!
 * You are welcome. Have fun, Tiptoety  talk 02:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As requested above: humor!
You've probably had this one before, but I'll try it anyway. :)

"Knock, knock". Acalamari 00:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Who's there?" Tiptoety talk 00:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Willy." Acalamari 00:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Willy who? " :o Tiptoety  talk 00:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Willy on Wheels!" (Then moves "User and User talk:Tiptoety" to "User and User talk:Tiptoety on Wheels!" and walks away laughing.) Acalamari 00:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

/me Quickly blocks Acalamari, then has him desyoped. Who's laughing now? :-P Tiptoety  talk 00:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:RMHED
Hey Tiptoety. :) I saw that you have added blocked to User:RMHED, which suggests that you have indef-blocked RMHED. However, according to the log, you did not - did you forget? Regards, —  Aitias  // discussion 16:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I thought he was already indef blocked. Either way, I fixed it. Thanks for letting me know, Tiptoety  talk 19:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thank you. :) —  Aitias  // discussion 19:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Really?
Did I seem pointy? Okay, I'll change the bold vote to "No", although the content will remain the same. I'm just saying that I agree with the majority, but there's no need to panic, and I tried to give a little of the history of where admin recall came from, and why it seems to have gone the way of the dinosaurs. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am afraid it did. It came across as if you were simply !voting yes because you found the process poor and wanted to make a point to show how poor it is. The rest of your comment though I considered fine, and like you said appeared to provide a history of the recall process. Either way, you removed the pointy content and all is well in the wiki-world. ;-) Tiptoety  talk 23:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking injunction
Not sure if this falls under the injunction, or if it is significant enough, but you may wish to look over Special:Contributions/Colonies Chris. (I'd consider myself too involved in the issue to act as an admin here, hence the question. Thanks in advance for any advice you can provide.) --Ckatz chat spy  20:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That you for bringing this to my attention, much to my dismay I have blocked him for 24 hours. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 21:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Kendrick7 has been adding year links to articles (albeit not as fast as some have been delinking); more troubling is that when people have reverted him. He has continued to re-add links, claiming immunity because "year links are not dates". Please keep an eye on him also. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, are you aware of this? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that you have been acting at the behest of one side in the hearing that you are clerking. Please see queries here as a matter of urgency. One question, who prompted you to issue this block, is answered in this section. Tony   (talk)  06:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tony1, I will be posting here shortly. Tiptoety  talk 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just want to stress that the work you do is much appreciated. Clerking on top of normal admin work is grueling. Feel free to take your time on a response. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we can often forget how stressful aspects of Wikipedia can become, and because of that I truly thank you for your comment Dabomb87. (Also, I responded to the AE thread a while ago). Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 03:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Colors Tennis Grand Slams Compared to Golf
On golfing articles the major championships are matched with the appropriate colors in the wikitables, navboxs, and pages, but the Tennis ones are not the US Open page is in blue the navbox for the major is in blue and the navbox for champions is in blue yet in the wikitable for the major it is yellow? The is the opposite for the Australian it is yellow for everything except for the wikitables! I have suggested and no one on the tennis project of grand slams has responded in time about this inconsistency! This needs to be rectified to match! Tennis Authority  01:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ....Um. Tiptoety  talk 23:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Origin of Melvin
Hi, can you userfy User: Origin of Melvin for like 5 minutes so I can copy it on my computer, then you can delete it. Please respond ASAP on my talkpage. Thanks!Cssiitcic (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply here Tiptoety  talk 23:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

RB
Good day Tiptoety! Appreciate the rollback rights. Noticed the humor-needed post at the top, so I would suggest the un-rated Bad Santa DVD. Hide and kids, though! Kresock (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. And thanks for the suggestion. :-) Have fun with the new tool. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 04:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A sock
is obviously a sock of Jacob Peters: . Could you please block him? Unfortunately, I can not ask any Russian admins. Thank you. Biophys (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked a CheckUser to look into it and he has blocked the account. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 05:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. But he seems to also operate as this IP user:. He comes from Los Angeles area, as all his previous socks . I just cleaned up his mess in article Tambov rebellion.Biophys (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Old spammer talk pages
Hi. Could you save old spammer pages for deletion and not delete them? Spammers hop from one account or IP or another as they get warnings or blocks over many months or years. We need to be able to see what warnings they may have gotten in the past across their different talk pages; this way we can see whether we should add their domains to our spam blacklist. (Many non-Wikimedia Foundation wikis use our blacklists for their own filtering so we're reluctant to blacklist domains unless we see they've ignored multiple warnings.) We also need these pages if we subsequently get blacklist removal requests here on the English Wikipedia or at MetaWiki's global blacklist; this is also necessary when reviewing whitelist requests as well. For example, see the deletion log and restored talk page for User:9Panoyork.

Beyond that, there have been broader discussions underway first at at User talk:MZMcBride/Archive 13, then at Wikipedia talk:User page and finally at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Others have expressed concerns that other long-term vandals and POV-pushers skip accounts as well and need to be tracked via old account warnings.

Thanks, -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

PS this is a request, not a complaint, since old user talk pages have been eligible for speedy deletion (although they're in a state of flux now on this issue and may or may not have changed in the last day or two.)
 * Sure, I can do that. To be honest, I was unaware we were trying to do things this way. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 17:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

hi
Did you see my rollback request? Syjytg (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring me? Syjytg (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Patience is a virtue. And, I already commented. Tiptoety  talk 18:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Rapalot203
Fast work. Just realised I made a balls of the original report, putting in twice when I had meant to include  - do I need to create a new report? pablo hablo. 18:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No big deal. That account is quacking too and as such I have blocked it. Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 18:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks!

I have no "knock knock" jokes but …
pablo hablo. 18:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hi there, you have just removed my comment from an archive pages saying don't edit archives, but please tell me how to defend myself against claims, as I see in the page "Comments by accused parties" where should I put the comment you just deleted, Thanks. Megahmad (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no need to defend yourself. I closed the case clearly stating that you are not linked to the other accounts there. You are not blocked, nor has any action been taken against you. So really, any comments on your behalf are not going to change anything. Tiptoety  talk 19:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Your message
wrong user? Hello, I have deleted your userpage pursuant Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy (WP:CHILD) which states:

Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information.

I have done this for your protection. You may recreate the page, but upon doing so I ask that you do not re add any information that reveals your age as doing so will get it deleted again. If you want I am more than willing to provide you with a copy of the deleted material via email. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  Vinson   23:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not wrong user. Tiptoety  talk 23:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh i get it now. Sending a copy of the the page would be great. And what is the definition of a child?   Vinson   23:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Email sent, please make sure to remove your age if you are going to recreate it. As for what is considered a child, legally anyone under 13 according to Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. I tend to think users under 17 should not be revealing there age though. Tiptoety  talk 01:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * howd you get my email?   Vinson   01:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I removed your age from this message (for obvious reasons) and two I got your email because you enabled it. I simply clicked "email user" on the side bar. Tiptoety  talk 01:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

headdesk Daniel (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)