User talk:Malinaccier/December 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election begins December 1, using SecurePoll

• News and notes: 35k donated, WikiProject for Wikipedia-Books, 2M rated articles, and more

• In the news: Reports of Wikipedia's demise, prescriptions for its ills, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

• From the editors: 250th issue of the Signpost

• Editorial: A digital restoration

• Election report: ArbCom election in full swing

• Interview: Interview with David G. Post

• News and notes: Wikipedia's death report premature, fundraiser, usability, new CSD, noms, and more

• In the news: Ron Livingston sues vandal, disclosure of IP address ordered, brief headlines

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which failed with 21 support, 39 oppose, and 11 neutral. This is highly belated, but I wanted to thank you for your comments in the RfA discussion. I do apologize for taking so long to reply to you, after the failure I laid back for a while for several reasons and WP took a backseat. I just dove into another article and am working more diligently on WP. I have taken your concerns about Disambiguation pages and have been working to improve my skill set regarding them. I hope you return soon.

Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer privileges

Hi, Thank you for the courtesy.Fsmatovu (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

• Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections

• News and notes: Mapping geotagged articles language, import sources enabled, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Protection

Thanks. Hopefully this will stop their persistent changes. The Flash ^{talk} 22:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Re semi-protection

Grateful if you could review my request here. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Noted and responded. Thanks for the notification, Malinaccier (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

toe-stepping

Sorry for the toe-stepping at RFPP. I learned about the change in rationale of user requests, so it wasn't a reflection/judgement of you, it's more a general note about what should be done in that general situation. tedder (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey it's no problem. I'd rather get it right this time so I have it in my head for the future. Really don't worry about it. Happy holidays, Malinaccier (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

IP sockpuppet of Historain19

41.249.64.248 (talk · contribs) seems to meet the duck test and be a sock of Historian19 (talk · contribs). I'm not sure about the wikiquette of blocking this one though. Would a month be in order, or something longer/shorter? Mjroots (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for a month. Left a note on their talk page - not sure if I had to but thought it the right thing to do. Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Block of Ratmrulez

I am wondering about the appropriateness of the block you just made of Ratmrulez. The edits they made was not vandalism. The information was not appropriate for the encyclopedia but it does not rise to "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." as described in the lede of WP:Vandalism. Yes they did violate the three revert rule but did not revert again after being warned. So I am wondering what they did in your opinion that deserves a one week block? The block appears to be very bitey to the new editor. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I now see that someone else blocked them as a sockpuppet. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion needs your input

See here. Thanks. --Jayron32 02:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

UAA Mychemicalromance

Hello there...no offense taken at the removal of my report, but I thought we were supposed to block accounts that represent celebrities, in the manner done to User:Stephencolbert (see last paragraph of linked section). Am I missing the point here? Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 20:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In this case, no. Only if the editor is actually claiming to represent the celebrity or is impersonating the person. This user for example, is just a fan (similar to established editor User:Sunderland06 who is not representing the Suderland AFC, but is just a fan) so there is no need to block them for the username. Thanks and happy editing, Malinaccier (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

user:Zaferk

Hi there; you have recently blocked this user, and I have absolutely no quarrel with that. But you have used a template which I have not seen before, and am having some difficulty in reverse engineering it. Would you care to give me the structure thereof? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. That would be {{Block-reason}}. I think it is explained how to use it on the template page itself. I'm not sure how the template works exactly except that it uses Parser functions. Another user who has more experience with the template's formatting would be User:Deskana. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let me go right back to first principles; I have never, ever claimed to have any IT skills. At all. What do you type in? If you have Firefox then OK, forget I asked, because I am still using IE. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were asking for an explanation of how the template was written. Alright, so the base for the template is {{subst:b-r|r=|x=|p=|o=}} The x= parameter is the block length which works for any inserted time period and if the block is indefinite then type in "ind". The r= parameter is the reason for the block which uses the following codes: "v" for vandalism, "b" for page blanking, "vp" for vandalism to a certain page (which will be entered in to p), "pa" for personal attacks, "s" for spam, "3" for 3RR on p, "sock" for using sockpuppets abusively, "o" for other. If you enter in "o", then you use the o= parameter to enter in your own reason. The p= parameter is for the page the vandalism or other violation occured on. Each of the parameters is optional so usually I only type in the time (x= parameter) and the reason (r= parameter). Malinaccier (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful, thank you. I am well known for being totally committed to the integrity of wikipedia, but very ignorant as to the technical details of the functioning of the software. Thank you. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I know what you mean. Sometimes I feel like the only person who knows almost nothing about C++ or javascript around here. Enjoy the template. Malinaccier (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick note

See here?

You usually should'nt remove others editor's comments unless they are blatant vandalism. Thanks.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 00:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The editor was indefinitely blocked. It doesn't matter. Malinaccier (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Rollback

Thanks. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

Sal the Stockbroker protection

Your action was obviously inappropriate. The IP who posted the protection request is a well-known vandal who's been harassing me and admin Duae Quartunciae for several weeks. Check the history of our various user pages and talk pages for details. Note also that the IP vandal has posted various similar requests, over and over, and has until your action been uniformly rejected, for good reason. For example, [1]. If you review the talk page, rather than relying on the vandal's personal attacks, you would see that, as admin Enigma commented recently, the IP has a well-established history of having "edit-warred, made inappropriate reports, left rude comments about other users, and then threatened to use sockpuppets if blocked"; as Enigma also noted, there is no evidence of "anyone actually agreeing with the IP, who continues to edit war against consensus." If the article is going to be protected, it is the consensus version rather than the vandal's which should be left in place. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

When I researched the edit war, all I saw was a long discussion on the talk page that seemed to get nowhere and a bunch of reverts on the article. I've looked up the IP itself more and I have recognized the venue-shopping it has done. The page is now unprotected. Please also note for the future that when a page is fully protected for edit warring, the version that gets locked in is not the endorsed version. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

can you pleas take a 2nd look at this there is no consensus to redirect the page this user has a history of doing this and a histroy of complants who gives him the right to make the sole descison on to redirect it or not. this does not make sense. 74.117.61.54 (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor amusement

Did we do exactly the same thing at the exact same time? Funny! Antandrus (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha we did! And that's the second time this has happened to me on RFPP in less than 24 hours! And it's even funnier we picked the same expiry date :). Malinaccier (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoa!

You're quick today! You beat me to two rollback requests, and now a protection! Nice! :D Acalamari 17:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha thanks! Yeah for some reason I am going pretty fast today. Malinaccier (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

EDL protection

many thanks! ;) Leaky Caldron 18:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Malinaccier (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey

What the hell have you done to my talk page! I can't log in and chat (it should be Doughnuthead speaking) due to my block over false allegations i'm a sockpuppet, but tell me what you've done with my talk page.--78.150.238.231 (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Your userpage has been protected because of abuse by your sockpuppets and your talk page has been redirected to your userpage. Malinaccier (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion re Sal the Stockbroker

How about a semi-protect for Sal the Stockbroker? The only objection to having it as a redirect seems to be from anonymous IPs many of which are probably one person; who may have recently signed up just to give the comment on the talk page. I don't have a big stake in this; but I think something needs to be done to manage the continual edit warring. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you please answer something for me? Why does what User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz seem to get everything his way ive tryed to talk about this but yet, it get proteced all he does is undo with no summary, something seems one sided here can you expane your reasoning? A user that edits stuff (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

When I protected the article I was unaware that consensus was to redirect. At that time I was trying to facilitate communication. Now that I understand the situation better along with your sockpuppetry and consensus to keep the article as a redirect, I have decided to take the actions I did. Malinaccier (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I am asking you for help, now that this has been redirected to The Howard Stern Show staff i have edited that page about that guy and added sources, but again User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is removing the stuff i add this is no longer a case of contecnt issue he is picking on me i have properly sourced everything. A user that edits stuff (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record (and I'll be adding this to the article talk page as well), among the problem sources are marksfriggin.com (self-published, essentially a blog, therefore not acceptable to source BLP content), allexperts.com (Wikipedia mirror site), and mahalo.com (user-generated content, not acceptable as BLP source). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As i said before is not marksfriggin.com self-published and I dont think this user has looked at the sources, he is wikihounding me. A user that edits stuff (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is right. Those sources are not appropriate because they do not meet our policy on reliable sources, WP:RS. Malinaccier (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is gaming the system do you not see this my freind everything he does seems to be gaming the system A user that edits stuff (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

One other thing what he is putting has no sources what i am putting has sources can you tell me how this makes senesce? 02:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A user that edits stuff (talk • contribs)

(Unindent) My suggestion to you is that you take a quick look at some of Wikipedia's policies that relate to this situation. First of all, see our notability policy. Next read our policy on reliable sources. Also take a look at our policy about making consensus and our policy on edit warring. Finally, read our policy on "forum shopping". I know you are upset about the article, but if you work peacefully with others you can improve Wikipedia and make it better for everyone. Malinaccier (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy the season!

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

May this season bring you joy and cheer Malinaccier! --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you too! Malinaccier (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election result announced

• News and notes: Fundraiser update, milestones and more

• In the news: Accusation of bias, misreported death, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Bagrami District

We have resolved the same dispute at Talk:Kabul_Province#NPS_tribal_map (where a third party mediator was involved as well). We cannot go over and over the same issue with every one - especially with random IPs. It is not a problem that you have fully protected the article for now, but can you at least revert the IPs information because it is absolutely false information. Thank you (Ketabtoon (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

The same goes for Ghurids. Look at the long discussion we went through about the origin of Ghurids at Talk:Ghurids#Ghurid_ethnicity. It took us days and pages of writings to come to a conclusion/consensus. At the moment, in both those articles false information are present. (Ketabtoon (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

Ok, I've reverted to semi protection. I was unaware that the same point had already been debated. Thanks for the notice. Malinaccier (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of the issue. (Ketabtoon (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

Dear Malinaccier,

can you please restore on the Ghurid article the following version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghurids&oldid=333560879? which is the best and most including and reliable sources. Unfortunately, the sockpuppet Ketabtoon was changing it. He is the banned User:Nisarkand, AfghanEver etc. who vandalizes many articles related to Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia. Tough many Users brought many sources from experts he still use his own POVs on articles. He is an ultra-nationalist. For example on Ghurid aricle. Just go and read the disk-page. I used well-known sources from German experts with their sites and pages of their works but he was deleting them. Also the artcle Bagram where a User was providing a secondary source concerned to the ethnical composition where they clearly show the ethnical dominace of the ethnics of that district but he was deleting the new source and was claiming it wouldn´t have any value (because it wouldn´t speak the same what he wants). Please, do anything against him. With best regards--188.97.76.95 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please talk to Ketabtoon personally about this content matter. I see that the current version of the article is in line with consensus determined at Talk:Kabul_Province#NPS_tribal_map, which I believe you were involved at under a different IP address. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

and what´s about the Ghurid article? The article was added with new sources of experts. The sources confirm the origine of the Ghurids (look on Origine of the Shansabanis. A happy new year to you and your family. Best regards--188.97.76.95 (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the subject, you will have to contact the other editors of the article and work to create consensus. The key to getting the information included is to work together with other editors. Happy new year to yourself and your family also :). Malinaccier (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The above IP is the banned editor Šāhzādé (talk · contribs) (also known as User:Germany2008, User:Draco of Utopia, and others) and is located in the same location in Germany as User:Tajik.

Festivus protection

Thank you for semi-protecting Festivus. That should cut down on the vandals. Festivus is one of the top terms searched today, and on Wikipedia the number of hits in this three day period seems to be near tripling every year. Last year on Dec. 23rd it had app. 100,000 hits, way up from the year before, so I'm interested if that doubles or triples again in '9. Thanks again, your protection is a Festivus miracle! Randy Kryn (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Happy editing and happy holidays! Malinaccier (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It finished Dec. 23rd (Greenwich time?) with 255,000 views! So not quite 3x last year, but close. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for the semi-protection approval of Timeline of United States inventions... I've worked on that page for almost 2 years in its research and it has been getting hammered lately. Thank you again! --Yoganate79 (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Happy editing and happy holidays! Malinaccier (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protecting the Saul Alinsky article

There has been a long-term problem with it, but for some reason there has been an uptick in the past 24 hours; and so I had asked another Administrator to semi-protect it. If I may ask, exactly how did you catch on to it?<br. />--NBahn (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Another user requested the article be protected at the requests for page protection page. And no problem! :) Malinaccier (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent full-protect

Hello! I just requested unprotecting an article here. I did this not knowing I was supposed to check with the protecting editor first, and that's you, so here I am. In a nutshell: a) the page has actually been full protected for weeks at a time over the past month or two and I feel that this is now hurting the article rather than helping, b), I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy, but the scale of the "edit war" mentioned by the editor that requested full-protection seems to me to have been exaggerated. Please check into it as you have time?--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This is what I'm seeing: (1) 19:49, 22 December 2009, (2) 05:04, 23 December 2009, (3) 11:23, (4) 16:53, (5) 20:01, (6) 22:28. Note how in the later stages people were also edit warring over the content of the lead section, a separate war that somehow became entangled with this one, and of which I have not listed all the reverts. So we've got a snowballing edit war spread over nearly 30 hours, consuming more and more effort with nothing much else going on, and there appears to have been no mention of Pielke on the talk page until I made my comment after it was protected, at 22:42 on 23rd. I certainly think we can probably lift protection soon, but let's give everybody a chance to join the discussion first. In particular I'd like to see a comment onthe matter from GoRight, who made 3 of the 6 reverts I have listed and presumably has the strongest objection to the use of the version sourced from the New York Times. --TS 04:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright guys I'll give it a bit longer on protection. Maybe unprotect a few days after Christmas to give everyone a chance to get into the discussion. I'll cross post this to RFPP Malinaccier (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that TS a) is one of the editors embroiled in the edit war, b) requested full protection after hitting his three revert limit and c) only opened discussion after getting the aforementioned full-protection. I feel this synopsis is from a biased perspective. Best,--Heyitspeter (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It is noted. I still believe time should be given seeing as many of the editors won't be available today or tomorrow. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from. Thanks for hearing me out. (p.s., see here for links to the three reverts TS made prior the day before his request, and the fourth that broke the 3-revert rule.)--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC) By the way, TS is right that the last of these edits was made 22 hours before his request. I misread the 22-minutes stamp as the 22nd day of December. Sorry about that. Not sure how much it changes seeing as how (a)-(c) still stand but there you have it.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring over this. Whatever gave you that idea? My last edit to the article was nearly 22 hours before I asked for page protection and I was not edit warring. --TS 15:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that happy about your suggestion that the article should be protected for an extended period but as at least one important involved party (GoRight) has indicated that he'll be a bit busy for a couple of days, and I expect that will apply to most of us, I think it would be a sensible action. --TS 15:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Malinaccier meant "a bit longer from now" and not "a bit longer than originally requested." But I interpreted the sentence similarly at first. Can you clarify, Malinaccier?--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

• News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news

• In the news: Criticism from climate change sceptic, decade in review

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)