User talk:AnonEMouse/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Jenna Jameson article

Took a hard look at it, and I can't see anything missing. Very well done! Tabercil 19:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I do have one question concerning this article: did you actually read her autobiography? I'm reading it right now, and although I have only reached page 170 (of 570), I already noticed several contradictions to what is written in the article (paragraphs "Early life" and "Early career"). Also some interesting facts from the book seem to be missing in the article, e.g. that she initially wanted to become a showgirl like her mother and actually achieved this (but stopped after a month or so and instead turned to stripping), and that the name she used as a stripper was "Jennasis". Regards --Rosenzweig 13:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have the autobiography as well and I haven't reread it since I bought it with an eye to seeing what can be lifted from it for use within the article... since you're going through it, why not make a list of the items you think should be included, put that list on this talk page and we all can hash out what should & should not be folded in? Tabercil 15:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I can't make any promises about how fast I'll be. I'll try to list the contradictions & possible additions so far (to page 170) tomorrow. Regards --Rosenzweig 17:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Contradictions or unclear passages that have caught my eye so far:
  • The article says that "Massoli's brother Tony, who later owned a tattoo parlor himself,[1] added the inscription "HEART BREAKER"." In the book, Jameson implies that Jack added this description two weeks later (page 10).
  • ... "in 1991, though underage, she began dancing in Las Vegas strip clubs using a fake I.D." The book does not mention anything about a fake ID. She describes that she said she was seventeen, was rejected because of her age, pleaded with the owner saying that she would make him a lot of money, and was then allowed to work there anyway (p. 35).
  • "Initially rejected from the Crazy Horse Too strip club because of the braces on her teeth, they quickly relented when she removed them with the aid of her brother and a pair of needle-nosed pliers." In the book, she writes that she did this alone, using the already mentioned needle-nosed pliers and a wire cutter from her boyfriend Jack's toolbox (p. 34).
  • "She was soon earning US$2000 per night, before finishing high school." She writes that she made two thousand to four thousand dollars per night (p. 49).
  • "She finally decided on Jameson for Jameson Whiskey, which she drinks." She writes in the book about scanning through the "J" section of the phone book, rejecting several names for various reasons, including Jameson because it was "too alcoholic". On second thought she decides that she likes it, because "it was the name of a whiskey, and whiskey was rock and roll." No mention that she actually drank it (p. 86/87).
  • Her height is given as 5 feet 7 inches. In the book, she writes she is five feet six inches (p. 30). That was when she was 17, perhaps she was still growing.
• Possible additions:
  • The name she used as a stripper was Jennasis (pp. 36, 86).
  • She wanted to become a Las Vegas showgirl like her mother and applied at several shows. Most rejected her because she didn't have the required height of 5 feet 9 inches, but at the Vegas World show in the Stratosphere Hotel, she was hired. She left after two months because "the schedule was brutal" and "the money was terrible" (pp. 30/31).
  • She decided to get her breast enlargement just after her 20th birthday, because while stripping and during her early movie career she had always lost customers and box covers to other girls with "bigger, faker boobs". For years on every July 28 she celebrated her "boob day" (presumably that's when the surgery was). After the surgery, she thought the implants were "way too big for my frame". She even compares them to Barnum and Bailey's Circus (pp. 169/170).

One should keep in mind that her autobiography may not be entirely accurate in all details. Concrete dates, e.g., are rare. so we'll have to decide in each case whether the book or the other sources are more reliable. --Rosenzweig 20:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, time to check exactly what is said by what:

• Tattoo: checking this reference take us to E! Online... on the second page which a timeline here is the exact text: "Later in 1990: Her first serious relationship is with the man who gives her the trademark double-heart tattoo on her butt. The tattooed word Heartbreaker was added later...by her brother." So that clearly states that her brother did the text, but the book does not clearly state the text was done by Jack. I would leave the text as is.
• Fake ID, braces and nightly earnings: from E! Online's timeline again: "1991: She uses a fake ID to apply for a job stripping but is told to reapply after she has her braces removed. That night, her brother helps her use needle-nose pliers to remove the braces. She goes back to the strip club the next day and gets the job. After six months, she is making $2,000 a night." The fake ID would be needed irregardless, so I would leave that in. The earnings part I would change to read :"She was earning $2000 to 4000 a night" and add a reference to the book as well. The only flat-out contradiction is the braces removal. I'd say either drop the reference to her brother doing the work, or fold it in a stated contradiction (with double references). So we would have either:

"she removed them with the aid of a pair of needle-nosed pliers[1][2]", or

"she removed them herself with a pair of needle-nosed pliers[1] (though some accounts say the removal was done with her brother's aid)[2]"

• Stage-name: One cite leads to E Online again: "Later in 1991: Jenna Massoli chooses her new last name, Jameson, out of a phone book. She likes that it is also a brand of whiskey.". The other leads to a video online at Metacafe of her on a red carpet somewhere explaining how she got the name. My transcription of her words: "So I actually looked through the phone book, and at first I came up with James, as in Jenna James, but i thought that oh sounds too porno. So, I drink a lot of Jameson whiskey. So, there you go - Jenna Jameson. I'm named after a liquor". No indication in either reference that she was actually drinking the whiskey at the time, so I'd drop the "which she drinks" text.
• Height: that comes from the NY Times, dated 2004. I'd leave that it in as 5' 7" and chalk up the difference to her still growing (as you suggest).

As for your additions, definitely add her stage name, and also her time as a showgirl. I'd also add the breast enlargement info, but only stating it as "she got her first breast enlargement just after her 20th birthday", as she's had multiple surgeries (both additions and removals - see here) Tabercil 02:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Copying this conversation to Jenna Jameson's talk page... can we continue it there? Tabercil 02:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both very, very much for the thorough research! Responded in more detail on the article talk page. -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I should comment that the article, when using the Jameson book, currently doesn't use specific page numbers. In this I mean Note 19 specifically. If this was rectified, this would improve the article - hope you don't mind the message. LuciferMorgan 01:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your favorite pest!

Hello again! I saw the GA on JJ, good stuff. I'll be looking for it at FAC soon, I hope. I was wondering if, when time permits, of course, you could take a look at The Turk and its corresponding peer review. It's my 1Q contribution for WP:1FAPQ, I'm hoping it's up to snuff, or getting close. Thanks for whatever help/input you can give. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I gather someone GA'd it already. Anyway, I added just a few comments to the review, per request. :-). AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You're a man among mice, or something. Thanks again for your help/patience with my work. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. JIP | Talk 13:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks!

Thanks for your improvements to John Oswald (activist). Very much appreciate it. The picture from the Cry of Nature adds a nice touch. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 18:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC) By the way, the following is a message which is unfortunately generic. I hope to get to know those who supported me on a more personal level when the opportunities arise. --BostonMA ^talk

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 18:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that

I replied in depth on [[User talk:|Majorly|Majorly]]'s Talk page, but just to re-iterate sorry about that, and have no fear I won't be going near them again. It's the reason I've aalways avoided trying to help out in these sort of things, as it's never as clear cut as it looks. Again sorry about that and thanks for picking it up. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on my Linkspam page

I saw what you posted to that page... the problem has both gone away and changed. The linkspam is still continuing, but it's not from those IP addresses anymore. The linkspamming is now coming in from other IP addresses: 130.94.105.253, 217.160.230.167,209.59.33.59, and 209.59.33.227 (among many others). The IP range the spam comes in from looks to be much more diffuse, it became that much harder for me to watch for and undo the linkspam (before, it was easy for me to could check the edits of a couple of sets of the various IP address ranges each night). As a result, I haven't been updating the linkspam page anymore and if anything, I'm half-thinking about taking my page down as a "solved" problem. Tabercil 23:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Fan clubs

I suppose so; I'm doubtful of the relevance of any fan-club link in an encyclopædia, to be honest. I assume that, especially if it's "official", therell be a link on one of the other sites linked to? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

ah, it's not a fan-site, but a site for fans. I suppose that that makes a difference. (I'd only heard of her once before, though I'm told she's famous in the U.S.; she was the guest at an undergraduate dinner at Pembroke College a couple of years ago. The male undergraduates knew who she was, and the American visiting students. One of them told me that she was a "process feminist", whatever that is...) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Andrea Mackris Benedict Morelli.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Andrea Mackris Benedict Morelli.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU≈talk 01:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It was apparently removed by a vandal. (See her very next edit: [1]). I've restored it. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson fair use comment

No, it wasn't unintentional. I was unaware of the policy you pointed out, although I'm still unaware of it. I visited that page and the directions are clear, but I disagree with that method. If someone wants to see the fair use explanation they can click on the image, something that's far easier for the average reader to do anyway. If adding that comment is policy I'll be happy to comply, but it doesn't appear that it is. In fact, that whole page is theoretically just a copy of the meta wiki version, yet the page it's supposed to be a copy doesn't mention inserting that comment at all. Perhaps I'm just confused, I'm really not trying to be obstinant but I don't see a good reason to include the comment. Vicarious 07:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank the Mouse for this great award....

Dude, I dunno want to say but thanks for the award! Apparently, you read the thread in both my talk and that jury box. Whether you agreed or not is irrelevant; the fact you recognized something so seemingly mundane as this is more than enough for me. I will display my newly-had award with honor and dignity and I once again sincerely appreciate it! Like I told them, you need help with anything, lemme know! EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 18:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability (pornographic actors): Non-American awards

I was thinking of adding some European adult industry awards to the list of awards demonstrating the notability of a porn actor. I wanted to give you a chance to weigh in before making this change. Discussion here. – Iamcuriousblue 03:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Your inquiry concerning the Jenna Jameson article

Hello AnonEMouse,

I'm mostly done. I've read the autobiography and all the sources that are cited in the article, and right now there are only two minor inconsistencies left that I want to address. Please give me until the weekend to do that, I want to have some quiet to do it, and the last few days have been a bit hectic. In 90 minutes, I'm off again (Wikipedia meeting IRL :-)), so I guess it'll take until the weekend. Then we can sort out anything that's still left to do. Btw, the AVN awards ceremony is this weekend, so there just might be a chance that Luke Ford or someone on Flickr will take new pictures of her that we can use. The ones that are currently in the article are good, but a bit atypical because of the brunette hair. Regards --Rosenzweig 15:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Dates

It's not that using the commas is wrong, it's just pointless, as the reader preferences determine whether someone sees a comma or not. WP:DATE sometimes uses them and sometimes doesn't in order to demonstrate that. I don't edit articles in order to remove them, as they're not that important, but if I'm editing anyway I take them out, as a gesture towards reducing the size of articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's because you have your User prefernces to show a comma; I don't so I don't see one. See, however, this from WP:DATE:

• Day, month, and year
  • [[February 17]], [[1958]] → February 17, 1958
  • [[17 February]] [[1958]] → 17 February 1958

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense now, thanks. Carry on. I think I saw your will to live somewhere - could it have rolled under the couch? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's OK — I think that I left it in my other jacket. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet check request

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. To be honest, I wasn't even aware of this until you messaged me. -- ran (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Peteris Cedrins

You were right to close it out, since it took so long. But please note that when both parties voluntarily agree to a Checkuser (as they did in this case), you do not need a Code. - Mauco 22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be right (as I wrote, I'm new at this). So listed: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Peteris Cedrins. AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

Jenna Jameson

That's fine that you reverted it, cool with me. But I do think once the divorce is final it should read as "ex-husband" because it technically is her ex-husband. I know the picture is taken when they WERE husband and wife, but it is still mislabeled as that is now changed. Whenever I see photos of something...say well...anything but maybe an ex-political leader, and its an old photo the caption would read something like "President bush with former president blank" or something like that. It's just how I've always seen this sort of thing done. So I don't understand why it wouldn't be done in here.ChopAtwa 00:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can write "then-husband" or something, I guess, but it's clumsy. Here's a Wikipedia: Featured article, Gerald Ford#Accession picture caption: "Vice President Ford is sworn in as the 38th President of the United States" - he's not the Vice President any more, but was at the time. Gerald Ford#Foreign policy "Ford meets with Soviet Union leader Leonid Brezhnev" - he's not the SU leader any more. Wikipedia:Captions doesn't specify, but does point to http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=4355 which says we should use the present tense, and the specific example "Mayor David Dinkins, 1993" - it was posted in 2000, so he's not mayor any more. Do you think there's a Wikipedia style guideline somewhere we can refer to? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for informing me about that sockpuppet report. I'm disturbed that someone would make this accusation against me, and have made my case at User talk:Danielfolsom. Thanks for your help. Heimstern Läufer 00:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Facebook

You do realize your face book picture makes you my prey right? --Cat out 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Aagh! Death threat! Indefinite block! AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks so much for your support and kind words on my RfA. Frankly, I knew you would want to put your pawprint on that page, and had been unsuccessfully trying all week to figure out how I could draw your attention to it without being a self-promoting spammer. I'm glad you got to it on your own and again, appreciate the nice things you have said both there and many other times. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I was told - at nearly the last minute, too! I would never have forgiven anyone concerned if I didn't even get to put in a kudo. Do you think you'll make 300? I don't watch RFA or your talk page as closely as I should, clearly. You're not a self-promoting spammer if you write to someone who wanted to co-nominate you! I've never nominated anyone yet. Sigh. Always a bridesmouse... :-) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what, you can nominate me for ArbCom in November. Wait, no ... that's self-noms. I'll have to keep thinking. :) Newyorkbrad 19:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Just keep doing with the mop what you have been encouraging others to do when you haven't had it. That will be more than enough reward. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Suspected socks patrol

Hiya!

I'm inclined to help on WP:SSP, and I notice you're a regular contributor to suspected sock responses. Because it's a sensitive area, I'd like to learn and watch some, before actively doing anything much.

As background, I traced and reported at least one long term sock-vandal, and his future incarnations with enough evidence to overturn a doubtful RFCU and obtain a "confirmed block on behavior" decision from the relevant checkusers. I've also got a pretty calm and analytic approach and not much afraid to sift edits and try to draw conclusions without initial assumption.

Would you be willing to metaphorically take me under your wiing a while to learn how you approach suspected sock cases, and so on, so I can help out there too? Not sure what else to ask, its more about learning where to say "enough evidence" and learning when to say "some but not enough" or "too old" or "best let it be"... and so on. Not sure where to start beyond that. But many thanks :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I appreciate the help, but I am not that much more experienced. I started Jan 12, after someone asked for help on the administrator's noticeboard, and I noticed it was really desperate, a 2 month backlog. I keep expecting to make a mistake on one or more of the ones I close, but have been lucky to get no major complaints yet. Let's see -

• The first thing I did was to read WP:SOCK. The important thing there seems to be that sock puppets have to be abusive before being blocked, and there may be legitimate uses for multiple accounts. Basically, don't participate in a single dispute under two different usernames. Also, standard vandalism blocks, but more so - a sockpuppet created for vandalism is blocked as fast, if not faster than a separate account.
• Second, of course, were the instructions at the top of WP:SSP. Important things I got from the first was that easy cases are closed without being sent to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. I've been trying to do that as much as possible, and, frankly, the few cases I did send to CheckUser have so far been turned down, so I guess I should do that even more.
• Third was Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Administrators. When I work, I keep that open in a tab to refer to and to copy and paste templates from. It seems to be much more focused on blocking rather than any other ways to close, but I guess the more balanced guidelines from the earlier two take precedence. Important note from there seems to be that puppet masters aren't always blocked. It's not specific as to when they are blocked and when not, but I guess the standard rules of judgement apply - if I think the puppet master may be productive after a warning and blocking of the puppets, then I don't block them, if I think the puppet master is solely or almost solely abusive, then I do.
• The instructions on top of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser are even stricter in terms of what can be sent there, and again emphasize blocking obvious disruptive sockpuppets without CheckUser. They also made for good reading.
• Finally, if in doubt, don't block. Better that a guilty suspect be set free, than an innocent one punished. That's not written down in any policy specifically, but is a standard rule of blocking in general. If I let a debatable vandal go, and they do vandalize again, someone else will eventually get them later, while the Wikipedia will recover - it's vandalized thousands of times a day, after all. If I block a good contributor, I'm actually doing harm to the encyclopedia myself, in addition to making a well meaning person feel bad.
• Then I got to work. At first I skipped the harder ones, and went to the easier ones, before I got enough courage to tackle the harder ones. Since they've been waiting for 2 months, they mostly weren't burning issues, so I could afford to do that. I'll have to close a lot more before I get to the Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mobile_01 case, thank goodness!
• Reading the evidence as presented is never enough, I always check the block logs and contributions logs and follow links myself, especially reading remarks made on talk pages - those are usually the most explanatory ones.
• A couple of cases were lessons in themselves. Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/ran was probably the most interesting - it started with excellent circumstantial evidence in terms of contributions logs, even supported by an uninvolved third party. However, investigating thoroughly showed that the accuser was a single purpose account himself, while the accused editors made extensive contributions to many subjects, wrote well reasoned arguments in what appeared to be the article that brought the accusation, and two of the three were actually administrators (which doesn't exclude abuse, of course, but is a sign of being trusted by a fair number of others). I looked hard to find times when their contribution times overlapped, but couldn't find any. Still, I closed without blocking, considering all of that. Checking the accuser's contribution history was invaluable, and may have stopped me from making a bad mistake. It later turned out the accused weren't informed of the accusation, and one of them did find a contribution overlap: [2]. Fortunately the accused were kind enough not to complain to me - but it certainly was a lesson not to jump to block on lack of overlap of contribution times.

All right, that's "what one mouse learned about SSP". I'll be trying to close a few more cases off and on, but would certainly appreciate all the help you can give. Good luck. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Here, just a brief skim through the user contributions on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/JINXTENGU looks very straight forward - want to start with it? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all that! I'm familiar with the named policies, but will re-read them once more in case. Following good advice, I'm watching a while before diving in. What I am doing though is where it seems there are policy related issues, explaining those in a couple of SSP pages. For example, in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rjensen (4 posts). The aim being to help explain to those involved (who often come from heated disputes) the policy related issues that arise, for their future editing. I figure it's probably safe to do that, while learning about judgement in such cases.

Your comment about "Better that a guilty suspect be set free, than an innocent one punished" is what's most in my mind and inclined me to ask guidance in the first place. I look at even the obvious cases and think "Am I really sure?" and "Do I really want to block an account based on this evidence?", and it makes me very sure I would like some hand-holding lest I accidentally misjudge some matter. A good attitude to start with, but ultimately not useful overall. But that's what inclined me to ask for your help getting the hang of the bottom-line judgement of blocking/not blocking.

Comments welcome, and especially on approach in the above SSP page as a starter? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Elonka Dunin

As discussed on the section you started on the talk page, Talk:Elonka Dunin#Original research/unsourced claims there is an excellent source right in the section you deleted. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is according to the subject of the article. Any other sources? Thanks.--Tom 16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's from an article by CNN, however CNN got it, that makes it perfectly good enough. It is not for us to question their methods, they're the reliable source, we merely report on what they say. Frankly, 90% of the information in any CNN article will come from what people say, we have to trust their judgement in what they print. It's not as if this were a particularly controversial fact. If you want to rewrite the sentence so it makes this more clear, feel free, but if you strike it as unsourced, I'm going to have to revert you. Personally I don't have a stake in Elonka's fame or fortune, but her article has been a target for many people with no good reason. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote, and especially your being among the first to have urged me to consider adminship several months ago. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. And as for ArbCom, I still think I was too newish to have run last November, but of course there will be another election this year. :) Best regards, Newyorkbrad 21:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Disappearing reference sources

Hi again, AnonEMouse. I'm still plugging away at the big project, and doing what I can on the littler ones in the meantime. I've come across one problem just now though-- one of the articles I've been using as a reference source (Fornander, Kjell. (1992) "A Star is Porn" in Tokyo Journal) appears to have been taken down. I've got the article saved, but how do I use it as a reference? Dekkappai 18:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, nevermind on this one anyway-- I've found a reference to the article in a print source-- the July 1992 issue of Tokyo Journal. The concern still lingers though. What do I do in case I'm not able to track down a print copy of a good, legitimate web article which is subsequently removed? Dekkappai 18:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed articles can sometimes be found using the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. For instance, the aforementioned article archived here. Olessi 20:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Olessi. I did try that site, but wasn't able to locate it. Guess I'll have to learn how to use it better. Dekkappai 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just plug the url into "find this URL" at the advanced search. Hope this helps, Olessi 20:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Case

Hi There, I am wondering if you can have a look at this case and close and archive it if you feel it is no longer valid. The page is continuing to get comment unrelated to the sockpuppet investigation and has turned into a bit of a slanging match between the initiator and other editors. Sockpuppet Case Mobile_01.

The sockpuppet case basically claims that I, Mobile 01^Talk used a sockpuppet NeilinOz1. Check the edit logs of this users contribs and you will see that they have not edited since late 2006 and before I became a member. They made some edits to Smallville and some to Bridgestone The assumption that because they edited the same article as I did 2 months later and appear to also be from Australia is the sum of evidence in this case.

As I have pointed out on the case page, There is no overlap of edits between NeilinOz1 and myself, no illigitimate use by either accounts to support each other or rig any voting has occured. This is a case brought about by Travb who started an edit war on a page that I was editing. This user has started other unsupported sockpuppet cases against other editors he has started an "Edit War" with. He has a history of disruptive behaviour as per his block log which shows he has been Indef blocked, Resurrected and then blocked again for uncivil behaviour, he has numerous warnings from Admins about his NPA violations.

NeilinOz1 never edited the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company page. This case originally accused me of being a sock of LucaZ but that has been withdrawn once the IP was traced to USA. I am in Australia. Some of the Anon posts he claims are sock, may well be me forgeting to log on. However none have been used to circumvent rules, provide support for my opinions or disrupt Wiki in any way. Where possible I have tried to correct ANON posts later once I have identified the mistake.

The 10 days is over since this was first placed on my userpage and another user has removed the Tag left there. The checkuser request was denied by another Admin.

If after looking at this case you believe it is finished then I am asking that it be closed and archived so we can prevent further NPA to all parties and get back to the discussion page of the article that prompted all this. Firestone Tire and Rubber Company which is still protected. Discussion on this article has commenced with interested editors and a request to join these discussions was offered to Travb which he declined.

Thanks for you time. Mobile 01^Talk 02:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

User:AnonEMouse hi, I don't know why Mobile 01 choose you too ask you too close this sockpuppet case, but it is conclusive that Mobile 01 is in fact User:NeilinOz1.

If you do decide to close the case, before you close it, please ask me any questions you may may have. I may not be crystal clear about the connection of NeilinOz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Mobile 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Please see:

• Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mobile_01#User:Mobile_01_I_am_not_User:NeilinOz1 for the evidence. Although Mobile 01 never edited Firestone with her sock User:NeilinOz1, she did edit Bridgestone and Smallville (season 6), two pages that Mobile 01 has edited frequently as an anon and with her current user name.

• NeilinOz1 Special:Contributions/NeilinOz1 edited wiki from 17/10/2006 to 21/10/2006 a total of five days. This user made 12 edits to an article called smallville, 3 messages on the talk page for article smallville and two edits to Bridgestone. This user has never returned to wiki. Mobile 01^Talk

Further, User:Mobile 01 refered to herself in the third person while editing as an anon, which was condemened by admin User:Bobblehead Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mobile_01#Refers_to_herself_in_the_third_person

• The clear violation is where Mobile commented on Woohookitty's talk page as an anon, referred to himself in the third person and then signed as Mobile 01.[3] However Mobile did go back and correct that prior to anyone telling him to, so perhaps give him some credit for that.[4] The other anon edits do not appear to be disruptive and it is plausible that Mobile failed to log in during those edits.--Bobblehead 00:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• As I tried to explain earlier, the message to User_talk:Woohookitty was written at my brothers house and I was not logged in, I deliberatley used the third person so as not to appear as an impersonator. I corrected this immediately when I got home and logged in as me. Mobile 01 02:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Mobile 01's tactics on the Firestone page have been disruptive and had to involve three admins to stop her disruptive behavior:

• Actually 2 admins were involved, 1 protected the page at Travb request and the other eplained the content fork rule to me. Mobile 01^Talk

• User:Travb#Third_party_involvment
• User:Travb#Third_party_opinions

Only when these wikipedia rule violations proved counterproductive, did Mobile 01 begin to follow the rules. I don't want to go through a lengthy RfC on this case, because it is clear that User:Mobile 01 is in fact NeilinOz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

• It's not clear at all, just because Travb says it is. And as already mentioned, it would not be sockpuppetry even if it was true. This user has never edited wiki while I have been editing. Mobile 01^Talk

I personally feel that closing this sockpuppet case would send a message that it is "okay" to use sockpuppets.

• Closing this case would send a message that starting a sockpuppet case so as to discredit another editor you are in dispute with, is not the right way to solve your edit war differences. This as I said is the second one of these he has done. Mobile 01^Talk

Mobile 01's comments are so factually inaccurate, I will not waste your time answering every single claim. I will simply say I am concerned that repeated factual inaccuracies by Mobile 01 that she is not NeilinOz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), including in the Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mobile_01, is what Mobile 01 considers "no illigitimate use".

• I think you are probably looking at this and going "What The ####" take it somewhere else. I simply put a request on your page asking you to look into this. Travb has Trolled me here and as usual has to put his spin on the facts. Mobile 01^Talk

I have not declined speaking about the article with Mobile 01, I simply did not respond to her message. Mobile 01's editing behavior with sockpuppets, redirecting pages to avoid page protection, WP:NPA attacks show how sincere she truly is too comprimise. Mobile 01 wants to move on, because "moving on" means she gets a free pass for using sockpuppets.

• You can follow diffs and contribs so I am not even going to bother with the last one.

Thanks for your time, sorry to drag you into this case. Travb (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am truly sorry that he has chosen to spill this over to your page as well as everywhere else I go. See discussion page Bridgestone and discussion page Firestone Tire and Rubber Company if you want to see what's really going on here. Never mind about looking into the sock case, it's probably already caused your blood to boil seeing this brought to your doorstep. I am not sure how else I could have asked an Admin to look into this without Travb trolling after me. Mobile 01^Talk 14:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Aieeee!!! I understand why Travb chose me, because I've been the most active admin closing sock puppet cases on that terribly backlogged page; also because as part of that effort, I edited the case page to make the section headings conform to the bigger page. I can also understand your strong feelings over this one. Still, please, folks, try hard to be concise. I know it's an effort. There is already plenty to read on the page in that case. Here, can I offer that the most concise person wins? No, I guess not. I've been trying to do the most backlogged ones first, but OK, you've convinced me, I will take a look at this erupting volcano, even out of turn. But it will take me a while, just because of the sheer volume of stuff I have to read and investigate. Unless you can be extremely concise, brief, terse even, hold your fire, please. Otherwise it will be like Achilles and the Tortoise (I hope that's not a red link), where I can never decide because I can never catch up to the latest voluminous outburst. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Case closed, the only way it could have been, really. Whew. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User: Travb

Hi AnonEMouse, since you've been pulled into this sock puppet case, I wanted to get your opinion on this matter. I have been involved in it, as you may or may not have noticed while reviewing the case. Through it all, I've been dismayed by the aggressive behavior of Travb, but I have limited my opinions of such to purely comments. However, it seems that TravB has gone beyond proper editor behavior with the recent inclusion of this messaging on the Bridgestone and Firestone talk boards:

It is imporant for all future Firestone editors too know the background of this page, to stop the abuse and flaggrant violations of wikipolicy:

Regarding Firestone/Bridgestone editing this page:

• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Firestone

Regarding Mobile 01 editing this page:

• User:Travb#Third_party_involvment
• User:Travb#Third_party_opinions
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01

Thank you, Travb (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This behavior seems directly to contradict proper editor behavior on avoiding attacks of other users on article discussion pages. It seems to have been spurred by Travb's inability to prove his sockpuppet case, and this is his last attempt to discredit and run User:Mobile 01 off of the articles in question, and perhaps, even Wikipedia. As I have never been involved in problems of this nature, I would like your opinion as if I should take this to the Administrator's notice board. Thank you for your time and patience. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 17:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Did I mention Aieee ? I guess not. Anyway, the two sections you mention seem to only duplicate other information already on that talk page. So they're redundant, and heavily misspelled, but not really anything new. They're clearly not nice but taking it to WP:AN/I would either continue or escalate the conflict. How about offering to make peace instead? Compromise, collaboration, consensus are much more productive. In the end, we are all trying to make a free encyclopedia, that's a pretty good thing. Surely we can do it nicely. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Aieee pretty much sums it up. I'm a strong believer in making nice and working together. However, Travb posted this information after Mobile 01 attempted the very same thing, by making a statement working on the Firestone page together on his user page. This was referred to on the Sockpuppet page you closed. He ignored it. By all appearances, he refuses to let the sockpuppet thing go, and has no inclination to even attempt to join in a collaborative effort on the pages in question. Regardless, I don't want escalation, but he has been blocked from Wikipedia in the past for apparently going overboard in arguments over edits and/or users. Ultimately, I feel its unfair and uncivil for this behavior to continue. Regardless, thank you again for your opinion! It can't be all fun having to deal with two sides squabbling! ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 18:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, I dropped over to his talk page, and made a request that he try and work towards collaborating. Hopefully, that'll lead to a good resolution. Thanks again! ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 18:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Response on your talk page RebelAt.

Thanks for the suggestion about spelling errors mr. mouse. Thanks for your hard work. I would never want to be an admin, because as an admin, you are forced to make tough decisions, and you are always going to make someone unhappy.Travb (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Natascha Kampusch 1998.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Natascha Kampusch 1998.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

SSP request

Email for you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP

Glad to help. I've reported socks to that page before and found it helpful, so I want to do what I can to make it work. If there's anything else I can do let me know. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Silverman

Hi--I'm not sure what the problem is. It is a GFDL image and was uploaded on Wikimedia commons. The original uploader and photographer (from Tribeca) gave me permission to use it. Check out the discussion page on the main image's page.--CyberGhostface 17:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[5]--CyberGhostface 17:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also forwarding your message to the original uploader.--CyberGhostface 17:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Last message, sorry. The Commons page states that "Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder." I got permission from the owner of the image to use it on Wikipedia with her complete permission.--CyberGhostface 17:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right, will restore image. My apologies. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it...sorry for the confusion.--CyberGhostface 22:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)