User talk:PeterSymonds/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Rollbacker permission - Thanks

Wow! Thanks. That was fast. Sometimes I forget how much faster things happen around here compared to on the other projects. :-) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 12:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) I recognise your name from Commons so granting you rollback was a no-brainer. Best of luck. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ooh! I'm recognizable now. Scary. ;-) I was just looking through my watchlist and caught an unnoticed joke/vandalism edit, and I got to use my rollback rights here. Now rolling back is just as fast as everything else on the English Wikipedia.

Stay in MA article

Since you're an admin and also experienced on Commons would you mind taking a look at the comments I left on Talk:Stay in MA, User talk:Yifanz, and File:Stayinma.jpg (which is actually commons:File:Stayinma.jpg). First, just some general feedback about how I handled that would be appreciated (may well have invested more time than it was worth in writing all that, but I always like to try to ease newbies into this whole Wikipedia thing as easily as possible if they appear to be acting in good faith). Secondly, it seems like there must be a faster/easier way to flag images hosted on commons and then notify the user on the local project. It took me a lot of searching to find the corresponding templates to use on the different projects to do something that should have been pretty simple. If the templates even had the same name, that would help a lot. Did I just take the long way around the problem? Or is it something that needs some discussion started (or perhaps some bold action) to simplify the process? Thanks! (P.S. please leave me a {{Talkback}} or something after you reply.) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 16:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. How did you get your special talk page header to appear when editing your talk page? It's great! I don't see any template used to do it, no magic words, etc. As a template developer, I find tweaks like that fascinating (and as an administrator of a non-WMF MediaWiki wiki, it's also a little scary since I don't know how someone could accomplish that and if it could do something more nefarious in the wrong hands). —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 16:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You can see mine at User:NuclearWarfare/Editnotice and its talk page. That should give you an idea on how to do it. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 18:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I am still new to many aspects here and do not want to make too many mistakes or inconvenience people. Much appreciate putting on the protection for the symbol article--LittleHow (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Very welcome. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK credits

I can do credits if you want. There's an issue with one of the articles you've just promoted; take a look at WT:DYK. Shubinator (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, if you wouldn't mind; the computer is incredibly slow!! :) As for the discussion, well, I see some consensus to keep it there, but if that changes, another admin can remove it. I'll keep an eye on a potential edit war. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Credits done. Could you change the hook to the less controversial alternate proposed? Shubinator (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Smedpull, etc.

You may have noticed that the IP is continuing to create new IP sockpuppets. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take another look. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

CU question

I noticed you're a SPI clerk, and I have a CU question for you. I've got a suspicion that some (now blocked) users are sockpuppets of another editor. If the editor used a proxy, though, would a CU help in determining sockpuppetry? Shubinator (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it can do, but only if the users are all created on the same proxy. Proxies can often be a good way to show that a set of users are sockpuppets, but it's often difficult to link back to a master account, because proxy use hides this link. For example, User:W has been blocked for edit warring and sockpuppetry. Two weeks later, users X, Y and Z come back and start tag-team edit warring. A checkuser is done which shows that X, Y and Z are sockpuppets of each other, but there is no technical link to W because of proxy usage. So it falls down to behavioural evidence which is often enough. In short, checkusers can detect sockpuppets on a proxy, but as proxies are often used to shield the user's real IP, it can sometimes be difficult to get a technical match, in which case behaviour becomes an important factor. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Would a CU be able to tell that the sockpuppets are from a proxy instead of a normal connection? Shubinator (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: iMatthew

Okay, well, I wasn't here all day today, so the newsletter will have to wait until tomorrow I'm afraid.  GARDEN  21:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

My CWC Wikipedia Page concern.

I had my headshot photo on there, just under my full name header, but it's not on there right now. The photo is uploaded onto Wikipedia, and it's file name is CWC22c.jpg. Please replace it where it was. Thank you.

--Christian Weston Chandler (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully I have no idea what you're asking. Could you be a little more specific? Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The user page in question has been deleted, therefore the request cannot be completed and thereore is, in my opinion, irrelevant. Thought I'd save you the time in looking for it. --User:L3wikis (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2009 (GMT)

E-mail

I just sent you an e-mail. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

{{[[Template:|]]|talkback|Willscrlt|Editnotice stuff}} I thought I should add this in a new section this time. ;-) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 12:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied to your reply with a clarification. :-) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 12:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Please see the results. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 16:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Dilip Rajeev

My mail to the arbcom( arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org ) dated February 13th, 2009

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Dilip Rajeev <dilip.rajeev@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Sirs,

This is to let you know that I , User:Dilip_rajeev am using account User:White_adept to edit a a couple of topics - especially the article "Sathya Sai Baba". Here I was forced to use a secondary account because any negative discussion of Sai Baba activities can invite strong reaction including physical violence from the Sai Baba cult members. And details in my primary account can help physically identify me. I had decided to contribute to this article out of sheer concern for the extent of spinning and cover up I noticed on the page.

To clarify the nature of the problem, I quote from the article" Sathya Sai Baba" itself:

Those who have attempted to criticize and make public the alleged deceptions of Sathyanarayana Raju have met with strong and often violent opposition from devotee circles, especially in India. [5] Basava Premanand, one of India's leading fake-guru busters, stated that his research proves that Sai Baba is not just a fraud but a dangerous sexual abuser. His statements enraged some of Sai Baba's supporters. To date, Basava Premanand has survived four murder attempts and bears the scars from several savage beatings. In 2004, his house was burgled again. He states the purpose of the assailants was to attempt to destroy the evidence he collected against Sai Baba for 30 years. [36] ( Source: BBC Documentary . Secret Swami )

Conny Larsson, once a close devotee of Sai Baba for 21 years and leader of the Swedish Sai Baba organization says that he continued to believe in the baba despite having experienced sexual abuse at his hands. He later broke away from the movement, outraged at witnessing the Baba's behaviour of a sexual nature with a young boy and then the boy's own mother who was waiting outside being deceived by a sleight-of-hand "materialization". Larsson states that when he dared to speak out: "I was threatened that I would be shot when I should go to Poland. And now one has tried a new tactic, from the Sai movement, and that is to send out messages about me saying I am a convicted pedophile. They have, so to speak, turned around the entire problematic and say that what Sai Baba is guilty of - pedophilia – is what I am guilty of. I and the other guys who have dared to speak out – it is us who are pedophiles. And they have send this announcement out across the globe. And Sai followers believe it." [37]

Commenting on the issue, Sanal Edamaruku states: "The media [in India] is scared, basically. For example when the big scandal about SB's sexual abuse on people arose. And look at the Indian media. There was only one newspaper from New Delhi which produced the story. People are so afraid, so scared because he is politically powerful and his influence is so real and he can damage if he is criticised. Anybody (who) criticises is eliminated, or attacked or cornered or isolated. Having a press conference on SB's 70th birthday, the very next day I found that my car parts were removed in the morning so that I could simply have an accident. It could look like a coincidence. Such things happened several times, but we are not afraid. We are not going to be cowed down by that thing. We're waiting for that time that people come out openly and expose this cheat."[38]

I request that it be noted that I have not engaged in any activity would be considered a violation of ( my understanding of ) WP:Sock and neither will I in the future - the guidelines in which state:

"A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their involvement in that area."

I also request that details that would help identify me physically please not be revealed.

Sincerely, Dilip Rajeev

Sir,

This is to point out that the allegation I was banned for, "sockpuppetry", is absolutely with without basis. The account User:White_adept is an alternate account which I maintained as per : Legitimate uses of alternative accounts,Wp:Sock - as per the Wikipedia policy: "A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their involvement in that area." To further make my position clear, I had also informed the arbcom of this back in February, 2009 itself.

The account User:Researcher31 is an account created for Wikiquote - which requires an independent account. Further , I have not used either account to violate or circumvent any wikipedia policy and thus my alternate account cannot be called a WP:SOCK.' I had been quite open about it being my alternate account when queried by legitimate users:[1]

• The accounts, I have used to edit a mutually exclusive set of articles. And at one or two instances I mistakenly signed talk page comments with the other account name - which I immediately fixed.

• The IPS are shared IPs and some of the edits from these were indeed made by me - and only because I forgot to sign in at times. All of these edits are legitimate contributions to wikipedia - not by any means sock IP edits to circumvent wiki policies. I use a dialup account so the IPs keep cycling.

Dilip Rajeev 218.248.69.25 (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I will take another look at the sockpuppetry investigation but the evidence was clear. I noted my investigation findings on the investigation quite clearly, and opened myself to review by another clerk. The other clerk endorsed my findings and closed the case. However, there are some points of interest to note. Just because some of the IP edits were not you, the IPs were still used by you, which is why I blocked them. You claim you did not violate policy with those accounts, but the evidence on the case suggests otherwise. Nevertheless, I am open to scrutiny by other clerks and the arbitration committee if they wish to comment. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sir, all that the investigation says is that the accounts are mine - absolutely not that I used multiple accounts to circumvent or violate wikipedis policies. Please let me know how I used the accounts in a manner that would amount to violation of wikipedia policies. I absolutely have not used the accounts in such a manner. Kindly look further into it.

218.248.69.33 (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sir, the investigation was hastened to a close upon finding that the accounts are mine - which I myself have admitted openly. But there was nothing that came out in the investigations that pointed to my using either account to violate or circumvent any wikipedia policy - and if I have not, accusing and banning me for "sockpuppetry" is absolutely not right and I absolutely don't deserve the label or the block.

218.248.69.33 (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Further Clarification

Sir, am awaiting a response from you. And I request you, most humbly, to kindly review the case and also to allow me to point out that not a single edit of mine from any of these accounts was sockpuppetry as wikipedia defines it. The other account "User:White_adept" was only an alternate account used to edit a different set of articles - and which I had maintained in conformance with the wikipedia policy which I point out and quote above. The account Researcher31 is a wikiquote account - not a wikipedia account - and I had hardly made any edits from it on wikipedia - let alone anything of a sockpuppet nature.

As for the id "User:White_adept":

• I created it at a time when I was new to wikipedia.
• I never used the account to violate or circumvent any wikipedia policy
• The account was more or the less inactive for the past couple of years and I was not using it.
• Recently - that is back in Jan 2009 I used the alternate account to edit a set of articles related to Sathya Sai Baba - because the topic is sensitive in the community where I live and I had to ensure anonymity.
• I have not used the main account of mine to edit the articles related to Sathya Sai Baba - except I think once, on a related article, when I forgot to log off form my main id.
• Edits from the alterante id were significant and quality contributions from quality sources such as The BBC, The Times, The DTV etc.
• The account was never used to violate or circumvent any wikipedia policy neither was it ever used in a manner that would amount to meatpuppetry
• It was only an alternatea account which I used after reading through guidelines in WP:SOCK - which allow use of an alternate account in such scenarios.

Please allow me to point out again that the evidence you mentioned is only pointing to the fact that the accounts and IP are linked to my main account - there, naturally, was no evidence that I used the accounts in an abusive manner. Please look further into the case.

I also request that the above facts be taken into consideration and my account, from which I have made signficiant contributions to wikipedia, please be unblocked.

Thanking You.

Dilip Rajeev 218.248.69.23 (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sir, I just noticed that someone is blanking my notes on your talk clarifying my case - please see your history[2] - please kindly compare the ip of this new user to the person who raised allegations of sockpuppetry against me in the first place. I strongly suspect these baseless allegations are from groups related to the Sathya Sai Baba - who donot like my contributions to the article. Kindly look into the case urgently am requesting your help here. 218.248.69.23 (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sir am forced to contribute as IP because even my talk page is blocked. Could you kindly look into it and enable at least talk page editing so that I may clarify things using my original account. I have been a long term contributor to wikipedia - and I assure you that you can trust me enough to enable talk page editing at least. I have not done a single edit of disruptive nature from any account and I really dont deserve this block that I have been given. Please look into the issue, sir.. Dilip Rajeev 218.248.69.23 (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sir, Am forced to use this IP to contact you. My userpage is being vandalized by impersonators. I request a page protect or my userpage. I have not made any accounts to evade the block. Please see my talk. The impersonators are trying to cloud things up and get me banned. 218.248.69.22 (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Epic Barnstar
		Thank you for so carefully elucidating the intriguing and often (morbidly) humorous history of Oliver Cromwell's head. These are the kinds of fascinating articles that make Wikipedia such a wonderful resource! Awadewit (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No u. Synergy 20:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Persistant sockpuppets

Hi Peter, I thought I would point out these recent new additions to the Historian19 sockpuppet case to you, in case you aren't already aware. Regards Marek.69 ^talk 18:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Famous Body Parts category

I call shenanigans, I don't see any mention of John Wayne Bobbit anywhere in that category! ;) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 00:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey you

— Jake Wartenberg 00:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please god, do. It makes it harder to spy on you, and stalk your talk page. Synergy 00:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done I live to serve my talk page stalkers. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Move Thalia Grace to Thalia Grace (Percy Jackson)

Please move Thalia Grace to Thalia Grace (Percy Jackson). The second title is more specific and correct, but an user copy-pasted the contents of the previous Thalia (Percy Jackson)&redirect=no article, compelling the move to be made to Thalia Grace. Thank you. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 10:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. :) Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you! Pmlinediter  ^Talk 11:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Page Protection

Hi Symonds , Thanks for protecting the Indian Premier League page Subash.chandran007 (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

hey how to add a smiley at the bottom (right side) corner as u have done in your talk page Subash.chandran007 (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You can add one of those by putting {{User:Mixwell/scrolling}} somewhere on your user talk page. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Done ! Thanks Again Subash.chandran007 (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Boze Hadleigh

Question regarding protocol: The article discusses the writings of an author and within that article are a variety of cited sources bringing into public doubt (i.e., in other venues, books, news articles and reviews, not merely WP) the veracity of the material almost solely responsible for the subject's notability. A complaint by the subject to WP results in the deletion of an entire section dealing with that rather extensive public doubt as to the truth of the subject's main body of work. The question, then, being: is this SOP for WP, that the wishes of a public figure supersede the right of the public to know that a large and well-sourced volume of doubt exists about the truthfulness of the subject in his public statements and publications? I have an opinion, obviously, but I want to be very clear on WP guidelines. So I am asking. To me this sounds like the entire camel's hump under the tent, as far as allowing subjects to dictate what is and isn't available to readers. Will a request from Hugo Chavez result in elimination of claims of human rights abuses cited in his article? Will a request from Ben Affleck result in elimination of any mention of his famous and near-disastrous career slump of a few years ago? Is WP now merely an extension of the will of the subject of an article? I'm seriously interested in knowing the specific guidelines for editors in such cases, even if they turn out to differ from what I wish or heretofore believed. Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If you noticed the sourcing, most of the section's text was cited to the author's own work, which is original research because it is making assumptions based on the primary text. Original research is prohibited on Wikipedia anyway, but when the subject emails the Foundation and complains that he is being misrepresented, of course we take action. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Query

I just came across a few pages in which its said " the person is a Account Creator" . So what does the person actually and am i qualified for a roll back permission Subash.chandran007 (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Account creators are experienced members of the community who work on the account creation team. They can create accounts requested by users who are caught in rangeblocks or, for whatever reason, can't create an account for themselves. The rollback permission is a tool to revert vandalism quickly—unlike undo, it doesn't require a confirmation, and it reverts all of the top edits by a user. Before I feel comfortable about granting rollback to you I'd like you to gather a bit more experience, especially in the field of vandalism, as rollback gives direct access to Huggle, which can be very disruptive if misused. Drop me a note here or there in a week or so and I'll be happy to grant it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks bro Subash.chandran007 (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ice Hockey World Championships

Will you be interested in giving an Editor assistance in Ice Hockey World Championships article. Thank you Andreyx109 (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Help

I was editing my userpage and i copied navigator bar coding from user:Download Page. Is it Ok to copy from others and moreover I donno to change his name from the naivgator bar, If you could please help me Subash.chandran007 (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally that's absolutely fine, but it's nice to inform whoever "designed" it that you're doing that. Just out of courtesy really. Also some people like to have that attributed somewhere (for example This page was designed by Example). Hope that helps. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Doug Wheeler

I don't see the need to remove the whole section, especially as the WP:BLP problems seemed to stem from one sentence - the rest either deals with the story or discusses other people's contributions. Anyway I've taken out the offending material and put the rest back but I thought it best to let you know so you can double check [3].

One question: If it can be sourced that the critical reaction to his run was poor can we add it back in? (Emperor (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

I don't have any particular problem with a sourced version being added back, but the subject specifically said that it was misrepresenting his text. As the text was (almost entirely) sourced to his own work. The ticket mentioned the whole section, and while I was tempted only to remove the offending bits, the fact that the sources were his own works concerned me. I thought it would be better to remove the section per WP:OR. But, of course, if you can source it to secondary sources, that'd be excellent. :) Thanks for letting me know. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong block

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GFZLab/Archive

You blocked the wrong account. 66.204.147.253's only contribution to Boron was some garden-variety penis vandalism back in March. The account that you should have been looking at was 129.132.208.225 (talk · contribs), which was the one that actually made the edit linked to in the diff in the sockpuppet report. ☺ The tale continues at Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents#request for a correction, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops...Sorry about that. :/ PeterSymonds (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Need Urgent Intervention

Cavendish Road State High School page is being vandalised to a greater extent. What can i do to stop that , i tried reverting a few edits but the entire article is vandalised. What should i do Subash.chandran007 (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank god! another user with HG has reverted it Subash.chandran007 (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, apologies for not seeing this sooner. Glad it got resolved. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which was unable pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Hopefully, if/when I have another RfA I will win your support. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign! 01:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey

You've got mail. AdjustShift (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|Dank|Šiwa}} - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sock template headache

Hi, Peter. Thanks for your input earlier at WT:SPI regarding the use of {{IPsock}}. Unfortunately, Tennis expert is being quite insistent in the behavior, and has now completely ceased discussion and is continuing in his behavior, and reverting any minor corrective edits to such pages (e.g., this). From all appearances my use of WP:CFD to try and establish a binding consensus isn't working out. Could you give me some advice on how to proceed? Do you think it's necessary to go so far as to establish a binding policy or guideline about this? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mendaliv. Yes, SPI has its own method: One template, for use on the user page of the IP, which has been done. The use of so many templates on a single talk page is totally unnecessary. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in this matter. Should I consider myself in the clear to go back through and remove the redundant tags from related pages such as User talk:92.0.235.202 and User talk:62.57.11.247? All that's kept me from doing so has been Tennis expert's insistence that I need to prove that there's a consensus to do so- and not having found some policy to quote, I've been out of luck. In any case, thanks again for your help! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, absolutely fine. No problem. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, unsurprisingly, Tennis expert has gone through again and reverted all those changes, and is now referring to my actions as edit warring. And has reverted your edit as well, demanding that we show the consensus. Do you think this is something to bring to WP:ANI? It seems more like a candidate for WP:LAME, tbh. :-\ —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Oliver Cromwell's head

On May 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oliver Cromwell's head, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Oddball Barnstar
		Wikipedia doesn't get much more awesome than glancing at the Did You Know? section and seeing an article like Oliver Cromwell's head. Thanks for your great work! Steven Walling (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Glad you enjoyed it! PeterSymonds (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

SPI

Per this comment, were you intending to block the sockmaster here too? Same MO followed by User:RegencyPost. Nathan ^T 15:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like another sock as popped up – Spiritdrinker (talk · contribs). MuZemike 20:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Done both. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Your overprotection of articles

Please tell me where Neil Horan has been excessively violated that you need to protect it? You have prevented me from improving the article, improvements which I was beginning before I was nearly banned over a gross misunderstanding. Now it is you who have disrupted me. Why is this? The page is not under attack. --86.45.207.249 (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This sort of thing, really. Continued additions of unsourced content is still occurring, but this is by no means surprising, as Horan has been in the media lately. BLPs are subject to stricter and more lenient levels of protection in order to prevent damage to the subject, and thus a week-long semi was appropriate in the circumstances. I am sorry you are currently unable to contribute. Please discuss changes on the talk page or wait until the protection expires (I will re-evaluate the protection in a couple of days). Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually per the comments at WP:BLPN from another IP, I've unprotected with the proviso that it would be reprotected if there are any issues. Good luck with your cleanup. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam

Shameless thankspam

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello Peter! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. FlyingToaster

Barnstar notice

The Sock Puppet Barnstar For general good work at WP:SPI, this seems appropriate. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Much appreciated. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

One puppeteer imitating another?

I'm just drawing your attention to the surreal conversation at User talk:JustarR24.—Kww(talk) 17:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Very bizarre indeed. I'll take no action, but I very much doubt another admin will unblock. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Firth Helicopter

The deletion of the illustration is unfortunate because the original was posted on a website with no indication of its ownership. I assumed because of the scene depicted and the age of the photograph that it was an official photograph recording the construction of a prototype helicopter and assigned a PD tag from the British government. The owner is extremely angry as he assumes that there was an attempt to purloin his father's work which was never intended. Apologies all round as the editor will not communicate with me. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

No problem. It's a shame it can't be released but that's the copyright holder's prerogative. I realise there was no ill-intent on your part, and it's no big deal. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

My recourse to not having any photograph or illustration was this pathetic attempt at a graphic.See: Firth Helicopter infobox. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

Not bad at all, and it's better than nothing after all. Thanks for the effort! PeterSymonds (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Reprotect?

Your semi on Sexually transmitted disease expired recently and it has been vandalized several times since. thanks, Enigma^msg 01:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, I just went ahead and indef'd it. :) Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank You for unblocking me.Currently I am finishing school ( a couple more weeks!), therefore I will be editing a good mount but in abouta month I'll be involving myself in projects, helping raise up articles etc..Again thanks for unblocking me, I have learned my lesson--Kikk1010 (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Pleased to hear it. Good luck with it. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Am i eligible for roll back rights now Subash.chandran007 (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Havent Got any reply from U [:)] Subash.chandran⁰⁰⁷ 12:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again!

Peter, you're one of the good ones. Thank you so much for being on the alert and catching that poor user's highjacked username change request. I've totally unblocked the account including autoblocks and I've left word on her(?) page. It's a shame that these fuzz-nutted little vandals are just clever enough to disrupt the site but not smart enough to contribute anything of value. At least this poor blocked user was nice about it. Makes me feel a little better. Anyway, thanks again for the update. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, we all make mistakes, and you're welcome. :) Yes, they were totally okay with it, just a bit confused I think. Thanks for the update and your prompt action. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To a fellow-patroller

Hi Peter. I'm not an admin, but I do a fair amount of quality-control on Wikipedia - you've might have spotted 1 or 2 warnings I've issued in the past. We both know the system usually works very well, provided users are given fair and appropriate, escalating warnings, eventually being reported if they continue.

But it seems it can happen that the odd user is harder to rein in. Such is the case I fear with this user - would you say I've given them sufficient, clear warnings?

However, to my surprise, when I duly reported them, a single overseer apparently dismissed all my concerns in short shrift.

I think that, with your background, you too may have a contribution to make to what I had hoped might be a greater debate?

Equally, if I've missed some valid points of policy or protocol, I'd be grateful if you could point such things out to me, as you see fit. Thanks in advance for any time you could spare to this. Trafford09 (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Understandable, and thanks for your diligence. However the arbitration ruling specifically related to mass-delinking–that is, an account or IP who goes on a delinking spree, making many edits (sometimes >50) before being blocked. While I can understand your actions, this didn't quite fall into the case of mass-delinking. Most of his edits were copyediting, and while he did link dates, he did not do so in violation of the arbitration sanction. Hope that helps. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

RFA

No problem! Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Good luck editing here, and drop me a note if you need anything. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK image protection

Could you protect the upcoming DYK images at Commons? Queues 6 – 3 have been done I think, but 4, 5, and Next need protecting. Shubinator (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. :) Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, looks like 6 isn't protected. And I put a partial set in Next next just for you :) Shubinator (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Done both. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Shubinator (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Am i eligible for Rollbacker ! Can i apply Subash.chandran⁰⁰⁷_sign ! 08:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page, it looks like you have some recent incorrect reverts. Therefore I will say no at this point, suggesting that you go a bit slower (Huggle is extremely fast compared to Twinkle and other anti-vandalism tools). However you are welcome to get a second opinion at WP:PERM/R. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops !!! I will wait another week ! I dont want my request to get rejected there , thanks Subash.chandran⁰⁰⁷_sign ! 13:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Do u adopt users ! Subash.chandran⁰⁰⁷_sign ! 14:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't, but I do if you're interested. Ironholds (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

List

on what ground and knowledge base you removed my list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangowal (talk • contribs) 03:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have explained many times, as have others. Please refer to your emails from OTRS for the explanation. In short, they do not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. While I do respect the local popularity of those people you list, we prefer to keep the "personalities" section for people with articles, as that keeps the lists tidy. We cannot possibly list everyone with local popularity on Wikipedia, as the sections would get very large! I hope this helps. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User JS. Debresser (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm sorry more comments weren't forthcoming. I'm afraid MfD has been somewhat inactive recently. :\ PeterSymonds (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TomPhan/Archive

Perhaps I'm missing something, but there was still an account with no action taken on it (a review or anything) and a long list of IPs with no action mentioned. I'm not so sure this one was ready to be closed.

??? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right, it probably should not have been. But no harm done—I had a CU look over things and check that account; nothing actionable. Thanks for letting someone know. — Jake Wartenberg 04:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Assuming that Luna didn't find anything else worth reporting when he checked the IPs. The outstanding accounts still need to be blocked. Note that the Jdecker account was added after the check was performed." The account added afterwards returned no results, as noted next to it. The IPs were being worked on by the CU. There was nothing more to do. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

MascotGuy CU request

I'm repeating much of what I said on Jake Waternberg's talk page, but I wanted to make sure you saw my note... Sorry if I came across as a bit grumpy with the Quick CU. I've been dealing with MascotGuy for so long that I've gotten a little impatient when it comes to him. The edit summary when my request was removed struck me the wrong way since I did read the instructions. I read the summary a certain way when I should have read it another way. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. Perfectly understood. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:SchnitzelMannGreek

Hi Peter. Could you take a look at the second request from this editor and my comments when you have a moment? Pedro :  Chat  13:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's been handled. For once I was on the fence with that request so forgive my evasion. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries my man. Pedro :  Chat  14:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scottydog77

Regarding your closing comment.. the IP was blocked for 48 hours for "block evasion". Shouldn't it have been blocked for Sockpuppetry? And seeing as how the IP has been the same user since August 15, 2008, shouldn't it be indef blocked? It appears from IP WHOIS that this IP owns via a personal server, the IP range 217.37.220.144 - 217.37.220.151. I know IPs generally aren't blocked long but is that the case for IPs that appear to never change and always be the same user? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't Scottydog77 (talk · contribs)'s block be changed to reflect the sock case? He's currently blocked for harassment threat and could request an unblock for that, an admin agree to it not knowing about the sock case and unblock him. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I reblocked the IP for 3 months with a link to the case. I won't bother reblocking Scottydog. Unfortunately it's only possible to change the block settings (expiry, type), and not the reason, without unblocking and reblocking. As I wouldn't change the settings themselves, it suffices to have the block notice on the userpage. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Promethean block review

It seemed to me that he was reverting alterations to the AE thread after it had been archived. Was that an inaccurate observation? Altering archives is seriously bad form, but if P was reverting, how is that a vio of 3RR? I am not lobbying; I simply do not understand the reasoning being utilized here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, reverting additions to archives doesn't strictly fall under 3RR exception, but that alone could probably be excusable in certain circumstances. However, in this case, not only were the reversions in violation of 3RR, but also deliberately goading and done as an involved editor. All that combined makes a 24 hour block appropriate in my opinion. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me as quickly as you have, Peter. IS it possible that Promethean, already irritated by DG, took umbrage at an attempt by the latter to 'rewrite history' by altering the archive? I understand - as evidenced by KC's sympathetic, camaraderie-filled discussion with DG on his usertalk page - what DG was trying to do; he thought he was being misrepresented. So did I. But the only time I ever touched an archive was back when I was an utter noob. Nobody blocked me then.

I am thinking that blocking Promethean unilaterally was a mistake; DreamGuy was involved in the reverting as well - if anything, he was more at fault for messing with an archive int he first place - something he was warned about after Promethean was blocked. Now, I admit I dislike DG, but I don't know Promethean at all, and I cringe at the edit-warring. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It just doesn't seem equitable.

That said, it looks like Promethean is intending to continue reverting the altered archive back to its state upon closing. Maybe some equitable and cautionary words might be advisable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK dab request

In queue 5, third hook from the bottom on Ostap Ortwin, could you disambiguate Polish? Maybe pipe to Poland. Shubinator (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. I thought a disambiguation to the more specific article on Poles might be helpful, but maybe not. What are your thoughts? Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I usually like piping to the country since those articles are usually much more thorough, and often less biased. Depends on the hook though; if it's on the culture of the country, the pipe should be to the people or the culture. Shubinator (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, of course. I re-targeted the pipelink to the Poland article. Thanks again. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblock and then topic ban for Aoganov

Please see and comment here. --mav (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

Can you do Pioneer Court as well? hit by same guy. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Same guy also on Pioneer Square, Seattle and Pioneer Courthouse‎. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Protected all (indefinitely for now). We'll see how it goes. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, you've got e-mail. Wknight94 ^talk 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case protection has been lowered (this email was regarding a change to an AbuseFilter that should prevent these edits in the future). PeterSymonds (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations

thanks for protecting this article. could you please remove the rescue tag, as that was not part of the version being contested, see the last version by admin king of hearts. thanks LibStar (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A bigger request

This one's much larger than my usual. I'm in a debate with a user who recently added a lot of new content to an article. Could you take a look? One thread is here, but most of the conversation is here. I'll understand if you decline, especially since the discussion is so long. Shubinator (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and any of you talk page stalkers are welcome to chip in too. Shubinator (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I left a comment at the talk page. I don't have much to say other than that I agree with what you've written. I'll keep a close eye on the situation too. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

My deepest thanks. Shubinator (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

removing {{rescue}} and protecting on Estonia–Luxembourg relations?

This seems like a really bad policy idea. -- Banjeboi 22:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The protection came about per an RfPP request, and it was requested above that I restore the version without the rescue as that was part of a dispute. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well that requestor was mistaken as both myself and another member of ARS added the tag to the exact version you protected. I would appreciate restoring it to one of those versions. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 23:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

And at least one person has removed it. It is obvious from the history that the tag is causing some contention. Thus I won't add it back unless there is consensus. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well three editors had added it in line with the templates use while two removed it seemingly as a part of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. You protected it while removing the template which seems to violate WP:PREFER which gives the appearance of furthering a position in a dispute. That the article is in AfD only compounds the issues. It wasn't adding the tag that caused conflict it was removing it, which you have now done yourself. History has shown that removing the tag has generally caused problems. -- Banjeboi 00:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand WP:PREFER. Firstly, I am an uninvolved administrator, and I don't particularly care whether the tag stays or goes. Secondly, this clause is what I was using: "Administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." I am simply asking for consensus to be established before it goes back. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The edit-warring didn't concern the rescue tag, it concerned an entire article vs a disambiguation page. I also find the consept of calling for a consensus to re-add a tag you removed from an article at AfD a bit disingenuous. Do you really think there is much to be gained in that? Likewise I'm not in the mood to take this to ANI although it likely would raise some interesting comments. I appreciate you responding however and wish you the best. -- Banjeboi 01:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are going to agree here, but I can see how it looks. Also I think my interpretation of the dispute was one about the rescue tag, but looking back, I see this was only a minor part. So I will partially revert and keep the version I originally protected, which is the norm for page protection during a dispute. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I very much appreciate that. Cheers! -- Banjeboi 01:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)