User talk:Law/July 2009

The WPVG Newsletter (Q2 2009)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 4 — 2nd Quarter, 2009
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2009, the project has:

• 125 Featured Articles
• 28 Featured Lists
• 15 Featured Topics

• 28 A-Class Articles
• 321 Good Articles
• 2 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Feature: Data suggest an increasing lack of interest
• Featured editor: Masem

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 15:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

re: the (b) thing

Hey Law, how you doing? Thought I'd drop by, say hi, and throw some support your way - as well as mention some efforts I've been through. I think there may have been some over-reaction to the bl***, so I thought I'd just make myself at home here and BS a little. Maybe some folks looked at it like it was a "BAN" (it wasn't), Maybe some folks thought indef = permanent (it doesn't). Speaking for myself - I thought what you did at the time was the right thing to do - attempt to stop disruption. Anyway, I was rather surprised at some of the editors who spoke out in favor of lifting the block, so I tried to dig even deeper and find out why there was such strong support for Peter. I got some really great feedback with this thread. I can't say I'm in a strong camp at the moment with either side - but I thought it provided some enlightening input (for me at least). No matter how things end up, I still feel that 8500 edits with 25 blocks is certainly something that needs to be looked at. Time has a way of bringing things into perspective I guess - so don't feel discouraged, there's plenty of folks that support your efforts here. (and I'm one of em). Best to you and yours, Ched. — Ched :  ?  18:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ched. I don't think there was overreaction really. It seemed to polarize people, and I would say the support and oppose camps were strong in their beliefs, as am I. This system has its own checks and balances and in the end, they seem to work. I'm not content with people referring to my block as one over hyperbole. Destroying Wikipedia is hyperbole until one actually lays out a plan, which certainly was done. Had I known I would not be available for comment, I certainly would not have blocked anyone, but these things happen and that is why there are other people to carry out tasks and discussions. I'm not discouraged in the least. I thought the ANI thread was for the most part civil and informative. I have no regrets. Cheers. Law _{type! snype?} 23:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Abbywinters.com

Heya dude.

Please don't editwar. As admin you should have more clue and should know that its not good sense to do so. Edit warring does not and has never solved a dispute. Consider this a warning. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 23:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. You have 2 editors who are against the inclusion of blogs and forums as a reference and one who is not. We are looking for consensus on the article talk page. I think what you are saying is to leave the article alone because one editor does not agree with removal of content? Law _{type! snype?} 06:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is the continuous reverting of edits between two or more editors. That is what you and User:Adell 1150 are doing and I am confident that many would agree with me. I'm not saying leave the article alone, there is nothing wrong with editting the rest of the article. What I am saying is to stop revert warring over one particular sentance. I understand that Adell has requested mediation but that does not then give him the right to continue revert warring on an article. Being an administrator means that you a) trusted with the tools and b) are expected to uphold the policies of wikipedia. You are correct that administrators are just as equal as anyone. Which means that just as I would with any other situation like this, that a warning is appropriate. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 09:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So you are not taking mediation? Just warning? I would say that, as an admin, as you so pointed out, that you should not throw out warnings lightly, especially during mediation. Consider yourself warned. Law _{type! snype?} 09:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I do hope that the next time we meet, it is on slightly better terms. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 19:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Userpage

Cool user page! I especially like the article creation genie. If only it would do the cites for me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I jacked it from my friend Alex on the Spanish-language Wikipedia. I've never actually used the genie. Cites = refs? Do you use the ref tool? It's still mostly manual. I wish I could put in a URL and have an intelligent bot parse out the entire ref. Someday in the future! Law _{type! snype?} 20:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to get CoM to use ref tool for months, yet no dice...it appears to be too easy and uncomplicated for him.--kelapstick (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

		The Bacon Barnstar
		For your promotion of all things bacon by creating the best emoticon ever, the person eating bacon, I award you the well earned Bacon Barnstar. Well done! kelapstick (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

W00T. Sometimes a barnstar clearly makes it all worth it. Law _{type! snype?} 00:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That cannot possibly be someone eating bacon. That has to be someone breathing fire or "blowing hot air". I'd request a rename of the image if I were you. I think the appropriate information can be found here. . Killiondude (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got a great emoticon just for you buddy. I'll email it. Law _{type! snype?} 01:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we sure this isn't the beans emoticon? I think there may be a mix-up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it so hard to grasp that I may be onto something here? Law _{type! snype?} 02:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey

you're good buddy ... DAMN GOOD! ;) — Ched :  ?  01:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that this RfB has taken such a downward spiral as far as commentary is concerned. If people are going to be disparaging they should really scrutinize their comments before posting them. Law _{type! snype?} 01:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

78.137.141.254

Hi, WP:3RRN is sleeping ATM so could you please block 78.137.141.254 (talk · contribs)? He's well over 3RR on two article. Thanks, --aktsu ^(t / c) 23:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. 31 hours should do. Please contact me if it continues. Law _{type! snype?} 00:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Going by previous experiences with 3RRN I had little hope someone would take care of it within the next hour or two (seems like there are only a handful of admins frequenting) and you were the first online admin I saw :) The anone just added a personal attack on his talkpage (diff) which may or may not need to be dealt with should he continue, but I need to get some sleep :) (Seems like you noticed, nevermind :). Thanks again! --aktsu ^(t / c) 00:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed "edit filter"

I have removed the "edit filter" right from Malleus Fatuorum. I am not sure why you gave him all of these rights, but the edit filter right is particularly dangerous and requires special technical knowledge. A poorly made filter can cause a lot of collateral damage. I am also not sure why he needs IP block exemption, that right is generally only used when some is being effected by autoblocks. Chillum 14:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I gave him those rights because I feel it was merited. It was my discretion, however, you have the right to call my judgment into question. Law _{type! snype?} 14:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well most of those rights are about trust, but "edit filter" is about technical ability. If one is not familiar with the logic of software programming a poorly made filter could block a lot of innocent people, bite newbies, protect pages, etc... I would not even recommend most admins attempting to edit a filter. Chillum 14:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You may not understand that while I 'get' what the filter entails, I trust MF. Law _{type! snype?} 14:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have also remove the IP block exemption from MF. None of the reasons for granting it in our Wikipedia:IP block exemption policy seem to apply in this matter. Edit filter and ip block exemption are not given out simply because there is a level of trust, but because there is a need for it. The other rights are a matter of discretion. Chillum 14:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did I not have the right to dole those out? Law _{type! snype?} 14:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically, you do. But certain of those "rights" are highly technical and should only be given to people who need them. Does Malleus have the regex skills to write filters and is willing to donate the time to combat wiki vandalism? If so, fine, if not, they shouldn;t be added. "Rights" are not badges, they are tools to be used. Rollback makes sense-I trust he combats vandalism when he sees it. Autoreviewer makes sense—he is an excellent content editor. Why account-creator, has he recently volunteered for WP-ACC? Why IPBE, has he moved to China? Does he have a specific need to edit through a banned open proxy? If you wish to "reward" Malleus for his work, the proper method is barnstars :) -- Avi (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In future, please be advised that edit filter managers (formerly Abuse Filter editors) who are not admins should be vetted at WT:EF (for example, see Wikipedia talk:EF#Abuse Filter editors group membership request). –xeno^talk 16:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

IPBE

While not necessary, it is usually a good idea to consult a checkuser when applying IPBE. I don't think Malleus is running a sockfarm, but IPBE, especially in conjunction with account creator, if given to the wrong account, can allow for the creation of massive amounts of vandal socks that has the CU and OS team working for hours to minimize the damage. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

So the admin rights given to me were conditional? I used discretion, and while MF isn't my biggest fan, he is trustworthy. Law _{type! snype?} 14:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, but Chillum has the same rights you do to remove them, and I'd rather not see the two of you wheel war. Secondly, this subsection was specifically about IPBE and my sharing with you a little of the issues that I see regularly as a CU. -- Avi (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, see above for a more detailed explanation; thanks. -- Avi (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

So you want me to filter those that understand a hex editor, visual basic, C sharp, Java (not javacript), php and .asp? No. Law _{type! snype?} 15:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If you give someone the keys to a forklift, make sure they know how to use a forklift first, simply trusting them is not enough to prevent them from accidentally crushing things. Chillum 15:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Or if I give you the keys to my apartment, I trust you to ask questions if you don't know how my fucking coffee-maker works. Law _{type! snype?} 15:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really the same thing. The right only allows editing filter, not lying on the couch or watching TV. It not a key to an apartment but the key to a piece of complex and dangerous equipment. Did MF even ask for this right? What prompted all of this? Chillum 15:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(<-)/sigh Let's take it from the top. As an admin, you may give those tools to whomever you want. As an admin, Chillum may remove those tools from whomever he wants. As admins, if y'all start "edit warring" over rights, bad things will happen. My point here is to try and explain whose case seems to be stronger. When it comes to autoreveiwer/rollback, you, Law, have the stronger case. If I would have known MF didn't have those tools, I would have applied them myself. When it comes to EF, AC, and IPBE, Chillum has the stronger case, as those tools are not applicable to most editors and should be given out to those who will use them. Tools are not Badges. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know certain editors had better usage. It was not a badge. I gained adminship because I was trusted. I did not know it was conditional. Law _{type! snype?} 15:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is conditional. It is conditional to the communities opinion, to your peers opinion, to our policies. Admins get buttons not authority. You can use discretion, but the discretion is subject to scrutiny from others. Chillum 15:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you had no problem making that call. Law _{type! snype?} 15:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to escalate this disagreement by going back and forth right now. If you like you can seek further input at ANI and see what others think. I don't want to argue with you, I generally have respect for your opinion. I often take a walk when I get upset with how Wikipedia works, it does me wonders. Chillum 15:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Consider your actions more carefully in the future

{{Wikipedia:Whacking with a Wet Trout}}

I would like to echo Chillum here in that adminship is indeed conditional, and further that it is conditional on not using the tools to disruptively make a point. I feel you've done this by granting all these rights seemingly without knowledge of their function or purpose, and without rational consideration as to the community norms and practices surrounding their granting. Please accept this trout-slap that I am issuing to remind you to consider your actions more carefully in the future. –xeno^talk 16:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum

I see you've been adding rights to Malleus' account. The reason he doesn't have them already is that he has specifically requested that admins not add such rights to his account because he has adopted a prinicpled stance against the means by which such userrights are acquired. I strongly recommend that you discuss such rights changes with users in advance to avoid this - I have not undone the addition, but have asked Malleus if he would like them removed, and will do so if he confirms once again that he would. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever helps you sleep. Law _{type! snype?} 15:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, in this case, it was what made Malleus happy, so all done Fritzpoll (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

He wants all rights pulled. I appeased no one. Law _{type! snype?} 15:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

On not escalating drama in a public forum

Hello, Law. You have new messages at Jayron32's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TMDs

Why have I not been granted cool and powerful tools? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Which ones would you be requesting? — Ched :  ?  16:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted...

...your comments here. The discussion was closed, and I would reccomend avoiding legalese altogether. J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Anytime an editor has a clear an concise view, it's called legalese or wikilawyering. When in fact, that is complete bullshit, that stems from those who cannot communicate otherwise. I will use my voice to respond to any event accordingly, regardless of how many essay or uppercase letter you throw. Law _{type! snype?} 09:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

If you still want to mediate your disbute re: abbywinter.com with Law, this is a suggested place for discussion: [1] :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Robson (talk • contribs) 16:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I am Law. Did my other personality request mediation with myself? :P Law _{type! snype?} 19:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... I may have just copy/paste the one put on Adell_1150's page. Apologies. :D James Robson (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

?

Is it "rollback"? — Ched :  ?  05:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I just rolled your butt back to verify. Law _{type! snype?} 05:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

LMAO .. did you give Bugs the autoreview thing yet? ... I will if you haven't — Ched :  ?  05:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he wants it, but was merely curious. Feel free to give it away - I'm not granting anymore rights this week. :P Law _{type! snype?} 05:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

LMFAO .. hey, I'll stand behind every damn edit you've made buddy. WP:DGAF, it's a website - don't let anyone tell you any different. ;) — Ched :  ?  05:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Law, I don't mind you revert my edit since you got "his permission", however I still have a petty complaint. When you revert, your edit summary is "Undid revision 302008331 by Caspian blue Removing Ched's comment with his permission. Carry on" as if my edit is "vandalism". I do not make such edit summaries with the automatically generated numbers unless I have to immediately revert some vandalistic edit. You seem to be a little on edge these days--Caspian blue 08:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What do automatically generated numbers have to do with the revert? I have done nothing to indicate that I am on edge this particular evening. I asked Ched's permission and was engaged in several conversations on his talk page - none that were inflammatory. My edit summary was 1) to inform the reader that I had permission to remove the comment, and 2) to 'carry on' as in to carry on their talk page discussion since the warning was removed. I would have to say that you seem a bit more edge that I. There is nothing that I can see that is wrong with my edit summary. I 'undid' it because it was quicker than manually removing the comment. It wasn't to intentionally send a veiled message - there is nothing that anyone could infer from this that I thought your edit was vandalism. Law _{type! snype?} 08:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have to say I disagree with you again, but would not add more comment on your wrong analysis because that any conversation at this time seems meaningless given that we're looking the same thing differently. Bye. I did not take offense at the rest of the edit summary. If you compare your edit summary at the previous revert just before me, then you would know what I meant.--Caspian blue 09:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that you would have preferred I removed the comment without using 'undo.' If I had known this was more appropriate, I would certainly have done so. It was not my intent to cause you any discomfort. If there is something I can do to correct this edit, I will. My only intent was to make sure the editors on the cattle talk page were not dissuaded from editing or discussing. Law _{type! snype?} 09:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Casp has it right with the description of the complaint as "petty". I'm not sure what this bee in his bonnet is all about. But I think we should consider tar and feathering. Let me see if I can think of any other Americanisms that might be confusing... I don't see any indication or implication in the edit summary that your edit was vandalism Casp. Can't we find something legitimate to beat Law up over? Wait it that a threat of violence? Gulp. Now I'm really in trouble. At least it wasn't some kind of legalistic reference, that would cause my instantaneous banning for sure!!! Are you guys going to sign up for the big dramaout? It's coming up soon! ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It is so petty that there is no need for your intervention, CoM. ^^;; Yesterday, I was a bit irritated by your and Law's sudden chiding tone to Ched and me, so I may be nitpicking with the edit summary. However, please just understand that there are possibility in which some people may perceive this edit summary "Undid revision 302008331 by" as unwelcomed like vandals'. And back to Midnight, would you call "Caspian", "Caspi" or "Blue" instead of "Casp", or CB because I'm reminded of "crap" with the name calling (see, I'm a "delicate man" :)) thanks.--Caspian blue 23:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a very substantial request. I'm not sure you get to choose your nickname. What is it extactly that you object to about "Casp" and what does that nickname have to do with crap? As far as edit summaries go, I think we have to extend good faith and give people the benefit of the doubt. Nitpicking is rather incivil isn't it? You've described my tone as chiding, yet you and Chedsky have been doing a lot of reading into my comments and coming up with ill intent. This is contrary to our policies on assuming good faith. In order to promote collegiality and collaboration I have a very simple request: No matter what I say I expect you to presume the very best possible meaning. So if, for example, I call someone an ass, you should assume I mean to imply that they are hard working and sturdy. Don't be a delicate flower Mr. X, I don't want you to wilt. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Because whenever you call me "Casp", I am reminded "crap" regardless of the fact that I know that has no bad faith on your part, and I don't like being called other than Caspian. My choice of my moniker has nothing to do with you, and you're peculiar to choose the nick name for me, and I don't like it. As someone chooses his/her name, then people should respect that. As for the nitpicking part, I indeed was offended by the edit summary yesterday, but I tried to attribute the blame of the small dispute in part to myself. Sometimes, I often get a little hurt by your jokes even though I know your speaking style and you're a joyful guy. I've thought that is purely my lack of English, but that is not. Don't be a delicate flower Mr. X, I don't want you to wilt.-> I really disrespect the naming calling. You know online conversation can cause misunderstandings and online friendship is so shallow, so yesterday's enemy can be today's friend, vice versa. --Caspian blue 23:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay Caspian blue. I apologize for causing you offense. It was never my intention. In my world a nickname is a sign of affection and friendship, a marker of collegiality and informality. I was not namecalling with the reference to a delicate flower, but using a metaphor and suggesting that being like a flower can be a problem as far as sturdiness and staying power go. All conversations have the potential for misunderstandings, but I try to be honest and open and let the chips fall where they may. Thus it is a sign of respect to my friends that I feel I can offer them straightforward assessments even when there isn't agreement. I trust they will make their own decision, confident in knowing that I support them even when I don't agree with them. Cheers. And apologies to Law for cluttering up his talk page and getting him excited with those orange message bars, only to be disappointed that I have nothing interesting to say to him at the moment. :( ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in class right now. I find this discussion amusing, especially since it really doesn't have anything to do with me. Now I know how Jenna feels when I use her talk page to carry on my diatribes. At least it is a good distraction. OK - back to learning more about how 'accidental' death affects the step-up basis in a partnership. Law _{type! snype?} 02:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Have the other recent supreme court nomination hearings contained this level of non-answering? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it, but how many times can you ask someone how if they will overturn Roe v. Wade? I don't care for the gal, myself. She makes it clear that gender and ethnicity are used when making her judicial decisions, which contradicts the notion that justice is blind. Law _{type! snype?} 08:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I saw the only questions she would answer were about her past comments, which she totally disavowed, saying she now believes the opposite. I find it a very strange hearing and am disturbed that the media doesn't report on her total avoidance of answering any of the substantial questions on judicial philosophy with specifics. Why can't she explain her legal understandings and approach and takes on cases without prejudging future cases? And her explanation that she only interprets the law and totally abides by precedent is utter bullshit.

I would vote against her just on the principles of honesty and forthrightness. I think it's despicable to have someone be so disingenous who is going to serve on our highest court. On the other hand, I have to say that the latina women are smarter comment doesn't really bother me that much. It wasn't elegantly stated, but on a court where there have been so few minorities and women, I think the point that diverse perspectives are valuable is legitimate. Certainly our views are shaped by our experiences. But I wasn't impressed with her answers at the hearing at all and she seems totally unimpressive to me as far as being a strong intellect and a great thinker. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not content with her Latina comment. But I'm into taxation law, not the Supreme Court. Law _{type! snype?} 11:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Kiss-the-cop

This user has been at it again since your final warning. What's the next step? Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

One month leave. Thanks. Law _{type! snype?} 21:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

...stolen property properly!
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

OH YEAH. That's going on my userpage. Nice work! Law _{type! snype?} 02:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad you like it.:)

You may want to move it to the top of your talk page though since the "leave a message" edits whichever page it is on...currently that would be your user page instead.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I tweaked it. Law _{type! snype?} 03:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Apology from me to you.

Allow me to say sorry for my personal attack towards you this morning, I regret it and hope you were not upset. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC))

I was upset, but I could have been more pleasant as well. All is well between us! Law _{type! snype?} 00:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Recourse debt

I was mucking about in the new articles created during the dramaout, and I made some modifcations to this article. What a pleasant surprise that it's yours. Thanks for making sure I didn't restate anything in a way that's too wildly innaccurate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You did fine. Always great working with you. Law _{type! snype?} 04:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

East Dereham Windmill DYK

Ref added as requested. See comment on T:TDYK re reliability of Norfolk Mills site. Mjroots (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Pink Dot

I did a DYK nom for Pink Dot so it will need to be expanded. :) I need to run some errands, but I will try to fix it up a bit when I get a chance (assuming you don't get there first). ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log [2]

I was inspired by this. Cheers, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If everyone here had a decent sense of humor, I'd applaud the section. I even made reference to some editors who were 'seen' in drama-places. The problem is that, as you can see, the opposers of the idea can be quite serious and I don't want to feed the fire. Law _{type! snype?} 01:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I see and understand your point. In any case, I wish the cause to be successful. Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, this edit was genius. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha. Only RfA goers would get that one. Thanks. Law _{type! snype?} 06:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

July 25, 2009

Dear Admin,

Ramdasia is a sub-caste of weavers. User Bal537 has been indulging in vandalism and posting false information to misguide readers.

I would request you to permanently block Vandal User Bal537 so that this user does not indulge in vandalism again.

I would also request you to delete Heading of this page "Ramdasia Chamar" to "Page Does Not Exist".

The purpose of Bal537 is to vandalise Wikipedia and spread fabricated stories to malign Ramdasia Community.

This user has previously used various I.P addresses to indulge in vandalism.

1. 12.182.80.222
2. 72.79.80.198

Since he has created a false page with Title "Ramdasia Chamar" he will try again to post some fictitious information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravinder121 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

AyersWright

I'm wondering whether this block is justified by policy. Normally we give people 4 warnings (which usually means 5 edits) before a first block. Unless other edits have been oversighted, this user had only 2 edits and got only a single level 1 warning before being indefblocked. Additionally, the block was in part for a "blatant violation" of the username policy, which I don't see at all. Now you've hardblocked them following a single misuse of the unblock template. Am I missing something? Exploding Boy (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

We obviously have different standards. The user needs zero warning before a block.

But let's look at this user's first edit here. "cretinous cunts" and "liberal selves, and their stupid liberal idiot parents" and "unemployed philosophy graduates who live in their parents' basement and think that anyone who doesn't own the complete 100 disc set of South Park on Blu-Ray should be sent to a concentration camp." I would have indeffed the user for this comment alone.

But how about the second edit - here. "some chuckling douchebag on the Daily Kooks or PSMBNC" or "anyone who says otherwise is a filthy racist. Man I have the munchies really bad. I'm gonna go get some Cheetos."

And then the unblock request which contains "Poverty is wealth. A cut rate, state-paid doctor imported from a country where they still wear towels on their head is a much better idea than free enterprise." I'm really failing to see which one of these edits leads you to ponder over whether I was adhering to policy, or that this editor was going to end up a constructive one. To be honest, I have no intention of unblocking. However, since you are questioning my block, I would say to bring the conversation to WP:ANI so we can have impartial editors have a look. Law _{type! snype?} 07:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not arguing for them to be unblocked. I probably wouldn't have indefblocked right away, though. But I am curious about the username vio. Is it something I'm not familiar with? Exploding Boy (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

A portmanteau of Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright used by an editor who is obviously very angry about the election of Obama and doesn't have a problem using racial stereotypes to get his point across. Calling someone a 'cunt' and saying that ANYONE deserves to be sent to a 'concentration camp' is about as disgusting as one can get. I find it ironic how he referred to others as 'cretinous' and puzzling still how this user deserved 4 warnings, 5 edits, and then a block. Law _{type! snype?} 08:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that his edits were unacceptable, but I think you're wrong about the username which, as far as I can see, violates no part of the policy. Anyway, thanks for your responses. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Promotional usernames, as an example, are not so obvious unless they are editing an article that is perhaps the same name as the user. In that case, one uses judgment and decides the name is not within policy. This editor detests Obama, and so choose to pick a username comprised of two highly controversial associates of Obama and proceeded to speak disparagingly about the President. He obviously picked the username as a jab, or political poke - either way it's disruptive. If user:Judas Pilate started talking smack on the Jesus article, I'd find it a disruptive username as well. Law _{type! snype?} 00:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject TRANSWIKI

Hi. In light of recent events and community concerns about the way in which content is transferred I have proposed a new wikiproject which would attempt to address any of the concerns and done in an environment where a major group of editors work together to transfer articles from other wikipedias in the most effective way possible without BLP or referencing problems. Please offer your thoughts at the proposal and whether or not you support or oppose the idea of a wikiproject dedicated to organizing a more efficient process of getting articles in different languages translated into English. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Pink Dot

On July 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pink Dot, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know 12:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for creating and working up the article. I tried to get a pic from Flickr and asked some peeps there if they would change their licensing, but no dice. Anyway, I think it's a good addition the the 'Pedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll be back in the Motherland next month. I'll take some pics for the article. They wouldn't change their license? Stupid. Aren't you on a topic ban for alcohol-delivery-related articles? Haha. What a joke. Law _{type! snype?} 01:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel

On July 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum

Hi Law/July 2009,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

• Each casebook will have a subpage.

• Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
• It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
• Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

• I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

• Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
• Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 06:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind if I delete the entire project so WP:LAW redirects here? Thanks. Law _{type! snype?} 06:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ummm ... haha. I will remove you from our mailing list. :P Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 07:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a great task force, Andrew. I appreciate the invite. My expertise in tax law is not going to help here, haha. Thanks again. Law _{type! snype?} 00:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)