User talk:Enigmaman/Archives/2009/December

This archive covers November and December 2009.

Editwarring at Gaza war

I think its protectiontime again. I would prefere a version with Stellarkids reverts undone. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

See this same topic on my talk page before replying here- it'd be nice to centralize the discussion.. tedder (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I diddnt know if anyone of you was online but as both of you have been involved befor, Tedders talk then. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive Conduct by Mr Unsigned Anon, Gaza War

Mr Unsigned Anon has filed a complait against Stellarkid here [1] Unsigned Anon has a nasty tendency of attempting to silence and muzzle those who don't share his radical view by filing complaints and requests for enforcement. I have compiled a list of diffs on Unsigned Anon on the Arb notice boards evidencing his disruptive edits that include edit warring and racial profiling. please have a look.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom already rejected an RfAr, claiming that admins can handle the situation. I sure can't. I could block everyone for edit-warring, or full protect the page. I guess request for enforcement is the next step. I'll have a look, but I don't think I can do anything either way. Enigma^msg 06:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I was going to reply, but did so at this section instead: User talk:Tedder#Editwarring at Gaza War. This discussion is pretty scattered, but replying over there keeps this from spreading one more place. tedder (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I was just cruising around, and discovered this page. I think it may be the "sock" Mr Anon was talking about.  ?? Stellarkid (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks plausible. Enigma^msg 03:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jealousy Curve

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jealousy Curve. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 71.185.242.95 (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It was so long ago that I have no recollection of participating in that AfD. Enigma^msg 04:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Overturned speedies

Yeah. You want to do it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not particularly. I just noticed the DRV and saw several of the participants say it should be overturned and sent to AfD. Enigma^msg 04:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Usually admins take care of those if there's consensus to take to afd. If one doesn't, I'll either ask one to do so, or do it myself. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

AIV not the right venue?

I see you very quickly removed my report without suggesting an alternative venue. Where should it go? Astronaut (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP, but I handled it for you, so you don't have to bother. You shouldn't report those to AIV. AIV is for blocking. The IP can't be blocked anyway because it hasn't edited in days. Enigma^msg 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Disappearance of AE claim

Hey. The AE claim that I filed against MUA has disappeared from the AE boards. Any idea why this happened and where I can find it? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. The claim has since re-appeared and I have no explanation for its disappearance and subsequent re-appearance.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Something interesting I found today

This account working in conjunction with apparent IP socks, worked to falsify the information on bios of Chespirito (a show) actors and actresses. This led to the information sticking in a number of cases, because the account edited after the IP socks, and regular rollback of course simply rolled it back to the version edited by the socks. My recent contributions will show you where it stuck. Enigma^msg 05:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOAP

An excellent example can be found here. --King Öomie 16:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Worth noting

this little tidbit. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I don't recall crossing paths with you, but thanks for the re-welcome. A Welcome Home as us old gutter punks know it is always nice to hear. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk Layout

Hey, I'm noticing a large amount of whitespace at the top of your talkpage. I'm thinking this could be corrected as easily as placing {{TOCleft}} immediately before the BLP notice. Just a thought =D --King Öomie 21:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Go ahead. :) Enigma^msg 21:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Beautious =D --King Öomie 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

SPI streamlining

Hello. The SPI team recently removed several of the more inactive clerks, to make way for people who have expressed interest in becoming active with the process. As some people who were removed have expressed no interest or wish to return to clerking, access to the bot functions have also been revoked. Of course, if you wish to remain a clerk, just readd your name to the list; but we do ask that you remain minimally active with the process. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

72 fortnights?

Is that a valid block time for 70.91.195.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. 13 previous blocks, including a prior block for a year. Enigma^msg 19:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Typically IP block lengths should ceiling at 1 yr (unless it's an open proxy). Also: what prompted the extension? They hadn't edited since the 1 yr had been put in place. I see you've done this on a bunch of IPs for no apparent reason. –xeno^talk 19:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed IPs with a long history of vandalism were getting blocked for 48 or 55 hours, so I've had to review a whole slew of blocks. Enigma^msg 20:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A good deal of the ones you reblocked with the peculiar length were already serving year blocks. –xeno^talk 20:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanksgiving_(United_States)

I note that you have undone my edits to Thanksgiving_(United_States), requesting Citations about food donation. Why? Markb (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dunno. I suppose you can put it back, but I suggest you only use one. Putting it after every sentence can get a little annoying for readers. Enigma^msg 19:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

fair comment. Markb (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

before putting wrong warnings on someone page why not look.

You claim im in a edit war, I do not see where you think i am doing this i am adding this to the I am waring you not not place unfounded warings on my page thank you. 98.117.34.180 (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You are engaged in an edit war. That is a fact. I'm sure you think your edits are correct, but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't. Enigma^msg 07:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel you are harassing me now if you feel i am edit waring then get Another administrator to verify this and they do i will stop you are just angry and consider edit waring because i reverted your edit you can bolck me if you want all i will do is get another IP so that does not scare me at all. 98.117.34.180 (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so now you're threatening to sock around your block? That's enough. Enigma^msg 07:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I've sent you a g-mail. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 07:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fun times

Anything you can do about This guy ([2], [3], )? Zealot, worked into a rage over his spam links being deleted, now abusing Twinkle warnings. --King Öomie 22:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Looks to be headed for indef. Enigma^msg 22:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. I love the guys who decide they know what wikipedia SHOULD be (usually in direct conflict with existing policies) and then scream to high heaven about anyone who disagrees. I'm surprised I wasn't called a fascist. Maybe I didn't let him go long enough. --King Öomie 22:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ya, he needs sorting, I don't have my temps anymore so I can't warn, poss. future block. Second guy, scroll down to about 30th Nov and you'll see some genre changes, but I'm not sure if he's a cleaner or a genre troll... I shouldn't even be editing anymore. I gotta get away before I start editing regularly! Take care guys. Keep up the genre troll work whenever you have time. :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

They haven't been warned! Enigma^msg 21:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

UV/Gwarrior page

[4], [5], [6]

Christ's sake --King Öomie 17:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but wait a second! If that's not interesting then I don't know what is. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In other words, if that doesn't scream DUCK, I don't know what does. Enigma^msg 17:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally wasted but I'll try my best to reply: Let's see some progress here, E-man, from one of our active Wiki members! Report to WP:SPI (or whatever link it is) by you? :-) Have a good night! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 02:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[7], [8]- It would appear that Rock Soldier makes few to no edits in the same nine-hour span every day (depending on time zone, which he doesn't specify), and Greg D has no such downtime. In my non-expert analysis, something IRL is causing that dead space in RS, like bed (assuming Pacific time based, for sake of argument, on Greg D) or a job, and if those things actually AREN'T an issue and he's able to pull all-nighters consistently to edit as Greg D, it doesn't make sense to me that he never did that on his main account earlier in his account's history. It seems overly sinister to entertain the thought of him setting up plausible deniability for a sock not created until nine months later[9]. I understand there's an editing style overlap, but to me that doesn't account for this. Now if only Greg's initial response had been this, rather than tossing up a ridiculous CSD tag and riling the troops. --King Öomie 16:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A Watchful Eye

A new genre warrior- warned, damage control complete- need someone to be able to block if he decides to continue :P --King Öomie 22:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

blocked indef. Enigma^msg 22:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Enigmaman. You have new messages at Xeno's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re Barnstar

Hi

Thanks for the Barnstar! --5 albert square (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

From user page

I have warned gersracing about repeatedly removing referenced work in the Jimi Hendrix Cry of Love page and replacing it with his unreferenced POV several times. I then reported it as vandalism, whereupon I was told by (whoever) that "this site is only for persistent vandals - and advised to contact you? I would have thought his actions fit the bill "persistent"Jameselmo (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It said to report it to the 3RR board, because it appears to be edit-warring rather than vandalism. Enigma^msg 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Keshia Chanté

Please help that 99.248.83.188 user cleanup up Keshia Chanté - don't blindly revert them, the article is a mess. Materialscientist (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It sure is a mess. That doesn't change the fact that the IP's edits were inappropriate. Enigma^msg 02:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think they were inappropriate. They were removing an unsourced BLP violation. Woogee (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Errr, if that's all they were doing, they wouldn't have gotten reverted so many times. Look at the top of that edit. I reverted that, and I would revert it again. The edits were inappropriate, although removing the problematic material in the lead happened to be constructive. Don't know how it got in there. Enigma^msg 02:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this edit wasn't a good one, but I can see their getting frustrated after being reverted and blocked so many times for the valid edit. I wonder where they think they've reported? Woogee (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, sounds like a legal threat to me. I'll keep an eye on the IP and find out who added the bogus BLP vio in the first place. Enigma^msg 03:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Why would you do this instead of editing like your comments to talk pages suggested you should? Enigma^msg 02:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, don't look at my reverts and at the robot tags "refs removed, etc" - they were wrong too. Just click those refs and see for yourself. Another thing, I wouldn't semiprotect an article when "vandals" are identified and blocked. I wouldn't revert you too, thus let's talk first. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted by mistake. That I should have reverted my revert - no doubt, but I started to read the article instead and realized that one edit was just a hint - that its all rotten with allegation and wrong refs behind them - reverting one edit there won't help. (Woogee started to cleanup deeper now). Then I went to other editors and they all confessed that their reverts were blind, made at high speed. Nobody's wrong, hard to stop a sword in a fight, lets calm down and cleanup. BTW, me being admin is not always relevant in this case. Materialscientist (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Whats up.

yeeeeah I kinda left a hate message on that guy Jbimo8 or something like that on his talk page. He talked bad about my Miami Dolphins so I ripped him a new one. Please dont get mad. He deserved it. Im a loyal editor to Wiki.Stealthninja545 (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll let it go this time because you're so damn funny, but in the future, you can't attack people just because they vandalized an article on your favorite team or player or whatever. They'll probably get blocked anyway, as this guy did. Enigma^msg 06:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Danielwood8

Hi

I thought I'd point this page out to you because I'm not sure if you deleted it in error or not. It's just the last time I was editing his page I only saw some warning templates? I think I posted a warning template about Leona Lewis, I gave him a final warning owing to the sheer amount of vandalism that had been carried out. Just thought I'd check I hadn't done anything wrong?

Oh and thanks for protecting Leona Lewis :) --5 albert square (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't do anything wrong. I was trying to add the temp category to the page and couldn't, so I just deleted it. User was blocked. And you're welcome. :) Enigma^msg 01:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Scieberking

Hi, this user User_talk:Scieberking after causing the trouble at Pete Townsend yesterday is now leaving you are blocked from editing templates and causing similar issues everywhere he goes.. here . Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Even putting this aside, he's edit-warring on another page after being warned about the Pete Townshend article. Enigma^msg 20:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, he is not as yet much of an asset, perhaps it will help him understand, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

i'm not sure this stuff is indicative of deeper understanding ... Sssoul (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Off2riorob. I'd really appreciate if you stop doing personal attacks for instance "thank you for revealing your true color" and "he is not as yet much of an asset". Who are you to reach a verdict on me? I've been contributing positively on Wikipedia, whether inside or outside music. --Scieberking (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

question on sock block

User talk:TheQueenCorner is denying connection to CosmicLegg, and I must admit, I don't see diffs which make the connection, nor do I see an SPI or Checkuser case which does either. COuld you please post the evidence on TheQueenCorner's talk page so I can decline the unblock request? Thx. --Jayron32 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Also User talk:Rickens appears to be a sock of CosmicLegg. Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to grant the unblock, as on review, the evidence does not appear strong enough. Enigma^msg 17:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Will defend my self as required. Scieberking appears to have used this account 115.167.93.138 when editing. Please file an SPI for that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickens (talk • contribs) 03:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. Enigma^msg 04:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Haroldsultan

I notice that you gave User:Haroldsultan a warning about vandalism on his talk page. I think he is not a vandal but a good faith editor, who probably should have been given a bit more guidance about how to edit instead of a warning. He was trying to add a new POV to the "Tzniut" article and doing this to a well-watched article is not an easy process, even for users that have made thousands of edits. I've left him a message on his talk page offering to help him with editing, and giving him links to some of the policies. Do you agree with me, and can you think of anything else he might need to know? Thanks. --AFriedman (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

He's been edit-warring over the page, before and after its protection. Enigma^msg 01:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

He's a new user and does he even know what edit-warring is, and what to do instead of it? --AFriedman (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Undoing a harmless edit (from a new user's POV) for no reason at all? When I was new, I didn't randomly start reverting people for kicks. I also do not look favorable on what he was doing, considering there's a good possibility he was one or more of the IPs. Enigma^msg 02:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not only do I think he's likely to be the IPs, I think he almost certainly is the IPs. The IPs are all from the same geographic location, and a location I'm not surprised about--as I commented on his Talk page, I believe this User is a particular person I know in real life. It's possible that he didn't remember his password at times, or just didn't feel like logging in to what I'm pretty sure are public computers. I don't understand why he would undo the template, but I could imagine a POV that the template is ugly and his edit wasn't destroying content. Now that you've communicated your view to him and to me, maybe the best thing to do is start discussing things on his Talk page instead of yours, sit back and see how he handles things when he returns? --AFriedman (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

One would think someone using Columbia's IPs would be a little bit more educated. That's in reference to Harold. I'm not impressed by his approach, his behaviour, or his words. His response to the chatter on his talk was to resume edit-warring. Including the IPs, he's up to like ten reverts now. Enigma^msg 03:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've told him he should just show us the references. After all, the rest of the world wants to see them. Ooh, I have an idea, which I'm about to post on Talk:Tzniut!  :) --AFriedman (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Steve Addazio

Hi, I noticed that you protected Urban Meyer until after the bowl game. Do you think you could do the same with Steve Addazio? Many users have been and will be writing that he is the interim coach, which is not true until after the Sugar Bowl. ~Richmond96 t • c 00:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Enigma^msg 00:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Konstantin Lifschitz

Hi Enigmaman, I stumbled upon Konstantin Lifschitz today and noticed that you deleted the associated talk page on October 5, 2009. Based on the notes on the creating editor's talk page, it appears the article was speedily deleted due to copyright violation. The revision history shows that the editor recreated the article six minutes after you deleted the talk page. My concern is that the article still violates copyright. For example, in the first sentence of the biography section, playing by ear and improvising with total absorption for hours on end shows up on more than a half dozen Lifschitz-related sites when entered into Google. In the fifth paragraph, celebrated for his exquisite musical sensibility and nuanced playing is copied/pasted from the cited NPR article. What do you think? Thanks and happy new year, momoricks 04:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it again. Too bad I wasn't paying attention. That stayed up for months. Oh well. Same creator, identical content. Enigma^msg 04:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to my attention. By the way, when you look at an article's history, you can click "View logs for this page" to see if it was deleted or protected in the past. Enigma^msg 05:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for the tip. Best regards, momoricks 04:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)