User talk:Sean William/April 2007

Fool!

3RR Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. PTO 15:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You guys are on 3 reverts im on two. You guys broke the rules go die! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAmTheCoinMan (talk • contribs)

You have done three reverts. If you revert again, you will be blocked for violating the three revert rule. PTO 15:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hi there, you left comments at ANI about a Checkuser case and I asked him/her if he could explain it further and you left comments saying nad indicating you thought I was violating WP:BITE and said that he may have thought he was being kicked around at Admin noticeboards, I hope you did not get the wrong end of the stick with my comment and could you explain if you were talking to me? Please reply on my talk page as well, cheers - Tellyaddict 16:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I wasn't talking about you when I pointed to WP:BITE. I was talking about the multiple people who accused this guy of disruption for filing a downright strange checkuser request. However, it seems this guy has been here before, so my point is moot. Sorry. PTO 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see, I didnt wish to sound uncivil or anything, Happy editing and Kindest Regards! 18:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

I've promoted you do adminship. Make sure you are familiar with all the relavant policies before using your shiny new buttons, and congratulations. Raul654 01:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! PTO 15:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

I see you have re-designed your userpage! Anyway, I can't believe Florida beat Ohio State again! :-) Real96 04:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

'Tis a shame, isn't it? Ohio State should have won. Thanks! I'll be sure to use my shiny buttons well. PTO 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on becoming an administrator on this Wikipedia, and also congratulations on your very first block. May it be the first of many in your career as an admin. Oh wait, that's not such a good thing to wish for after all, because in order for you to block someone, they have to vandalise multiple times, and that's bad for Wikipedia. Well, you get the idea. Again, congrats! --Kyoko 15:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! May the vandals feel the wrath of my, uh, buttons. Cheers, PTO 15:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Pushtoclose this congrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honda Pilot (talk • contribs)

Majorly's RfB

Hey PullToOpen, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support and I do intend to run again eventually. I hope you've been enjoying your new admin tools; it was a pleasure to support your RfA. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 02:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What a shame; I think that you'll make a great 'crat. PTO 04:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. PTO 04:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

well

now i need to change my cloths!--Tatshro Satou 16:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What? PTO 16:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

i pissed and craped my self(not for real)! whats the difference between a block and a ban? And what will triger a ban?--Tatshro Satou 16:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are a technical way to stop users from editing. They can range in duration depending on the severity of the offense. However, blocks are never punitive, but preventative. Bans are formal declarations of a user's inability to edit. Bans can only be issued by Jimbo Wales, the Arbitration Committee, and the community as a whole (via Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard). If you want to know more about these, you can read WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN for more information. PTO 16:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Help

University of Phoenix: 204.17.31.126, per DNSSTUFF. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 21:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Reason

User:C.m.jones/Essjay -- and your decision at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:C.m.jones/Essjay - "The result of the debate was Delete. This "work in progress" hadn't been edited since March 8 when it was nominated for MFD." Simply untrue. You should double check the page history. The editor in question had made several changes to the article, including labelling it as a work in progress, and correcting typographical and content errors. If this was your primary reason for deleting the article, you simply made a mistake. And you should consider correcting it. Plus, WP:POVFORK specifically states userspace should be used in this manner - One technique sometimes used to reach consensus on difficult articles is to create a temporary copy ...New drafts should be written in the "user:" or "talk:" namespace and not in the main namespace.... Do you disagree? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 17:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rest assured, that was not my only reason. I should have been more clear with that sentence; what I meant was that the article wasn't edited between the March 8 and the time it was nominated for MFD (April 2), which shows that this article wasn't a work in progress. This lack of editing shows that C.m.jones wasn't using this as a draft page, but instead a personal POV fork. This kind of point of view fork is avoided by the community, as it is a way to avoid keeping a neutral point of view. Quasi-articles like these show up in search engines too, so they still have to be written in a neutral point of view. I have since clarified my statement. //PTO 17:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made expansions to it, and a clear, bold disclaimer at the top;. Keep in mind that some of us around here who are middle-aged professionals have very responsible and high-demand jobs, growing families, and competing volunteer endeavors in real life. Four weeks to those without them is more like four days to others. Several people in various places ahave expressed that the version I am working one is already a much superior version of the current article. Given more time, clearer heads, and inline cites to the version (although this is NOT required inWP policy), it stands to gain momentum. In point of fact, those crying "Delete" above -- with one exception, perhaps -- are the Essjay pageguards who are using MfD as a tactic to remove a place (my user space) where competition can emerge. That is a far cry from the WP way that specifically says, "One technique sometimes used to reach consensus on difficult articles is to create a temporary copy ...New drafts should be written in the "user:" or "talk:" namespace and not in the main namespace." Responding Admin: please don't give in to the sort of nonsense and abuse going on here. C.m.jones 08:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC) -- I assume you read and considered this? I'm really curious -- is there some kind of time limit on user space projects? In this case, it was clearly labelled as a work in progress; and WP policy, again, seems to ENCOURAGE this kind of use of user space. It's just disappointing to see all alternative thought stamped out. Essjay, and the reverberations from his deception, aren't going away... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 17:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not the problem. The reason why people wanted it deleted is that they believed that C.m.jones was creating a POV fork in the guise of a draft for the article. For example, here's a !vote from Ned Scott: "Delete per nom and above. Bad fork.. will likely never contribute to the actual article". And another, from Leflyman: "Temporary sub-pages are perfectly fine for in-progress work, but this content/POV fork of the article is not in-progress-- it is DOA version, authored solely by the user". If you want to keep your own POV fork of the Essjay Controversy, do so in a text file on your computer. Wikipedia isn't the place to do that. //PTO 17:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You have overtly abused your admin privledges

You have overtly abused your admin privileges. — C.m.jones 03:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Take it to WP:ANI if you really think I did. Or file an WP:RFC. I have the right to have almost whatever I want in my userspace. // PTO 04:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Back to abusing your admin rights again, eh? Why don't you deal with my substantive comments rather than making wild and unsubstantiated charges to try to avoid them? You cannot make potentially libelous claims in userspace. — C.m.jones 04:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, if you think I abused my admin rights, go to WP:ANI or WP:RFC. Don't edit war over a simple template. // PTO 04:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

PullToOpen - I need to speak with you.

Re your post on Jimbo's talk page - please message me as soon as you get this! We need to stop this little knobbler and quick. I just hope its not the same wally - Christel banned him/her last night. Regards, Thor Malmjursson 21:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page per request. // PTO 23:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar, Sean! Appreciate it :) How are your new tools suiting you? – Riana ^ऋ 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

They've been suiting me very well so far...although I was introduced to image backlogs the other day, which was something I later regretted. :). Cheers, // Sean William (PTO) 14:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they're a pain... but it's kinda fulfilling when you go back to the main page and see one less number on the backlogs :) I think at least 70% of my logs must be deleted images! – Riana ^ऋ 14:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Good

I applaud your linking to said article on Jimbo's talk page, SqueakBox 20:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. As soon as something like that happens, Brandt always advertises his "wise" actions at WR. // Sean William (PTO) 20:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

For reference, SqueakBox is an active participant in the discussion here, on a proposed guideline. I've linked your edit as a reference case for the participants in the discussion - I hope you don't mind, and if you do, I'll remove my comment there. JavaTenor 22:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. Good luck getting the guideline to work. // Sean William (PTO) 01:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Of interest

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Tobias_Conradi. ShivaIdol 07:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Email

Hey. Since I seen you wrote on Darkness of Meta's userpage about that dodgy emai. It turns out hundreds of Wiki-users has recieved it, and one of the users has created a userpage section about it, where you can comment, [1]. Plus, this user has became a big, big problem after violating several policies and has been using open proxies to create hundreds and hundreds of sockpuppets. Just to inform you, the debate is here. [2]. Retiono Virginian 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have commented on the ANI thread above. Thanks for informing me. // Sean William 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey PTO. I see you've got your name changed :). Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 01:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's unfortunate that your RFA failed again. I'll be sure to support you whenever you run again in the future. // Sean William 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Due to some "transclusion confusion" I apparently went and deleted some pages under U1 that User:Andrew Hampe did not want deleted. Sorry about that -- the CSD backlog was large at the moment and the U1's are usually the easiest ones to knock of. Well, I thought so anyway. Thanks for cleaning up my mess. Dina 22:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Andrew Hampe explained his situation to me over IRC. Cheers, // Sean William 22:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow!

Two people with usernames that start with 'Sean W', both having recently got username-changed to them? A serious coincidence :) Please respond on my talk. —Sean Whitton / 20:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page per request. // Sean William 21:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 18:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Dear Sean, thanks so much for the heads up and your thoughtful suggestion. In fact, my friend Tdxiang, who's also a Simple Wiki admin, alerted me about this circumstance a few days ago, so I was aware of this unpleasant impersonation event. However, I'm not sure what to do at this point - should I do something to get that account deleted somehow, or can it be usurped in order to register myself there? I'll follow your advice on this matter. I registered my name on de.wiki, es.wiki and fr. wiki, but I completely missed the Simple English one :( Again, thanks so much for your help, dear Sean! Cheers, Phaedriel - 21:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

I'll do just that then :) Thank you, dear Sean, and let me know if you ever need my help over here at en.wiki, k? Hugs! Phaedriel - 21:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, thanks a lot, dear Sean - I'll wait then ;) Cheers! Phaedriel - 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why the block of 71.41.210.146?

The explanation given is one word: "Vandalism".

I can state categorically (but subjectively) that no edit from that IP classifies as Wikipedia:Vandalism in that it's not "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia".

But even falling back to the other two lesser legal standards of "wilful", namely recklessness and negligence, I'm not sure what is objectionable about any past edits. How are they even misguided or unhelpful, much less harmful?

My latest big project has been to add accurate SMILES formulae (preferably the canonical "unique SMILES" form usable for database lookup) to the simple molecules in Category:Biochemistry. It's been a bit of a learning experience, as the chirality annotations are a bit subtle to figure out, but http://cactus.nci.nih.gov/services/translate/ has been very helpful.

It's not like switching IPs or waiting out the block is difficult, but as someone who wishes to contribute positively, the possibility that I'm doing harm without meaning to is alarming. I remember being disagreed with over Endianness, but at least that comment said something about why the reverter disagreed.

The one word "vandalism"—describing an offense for which I know the mens rea is absent—leaves me bewildered. Can someone please explain in considerably more detail?

71.41.210.146 03:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, reviewing your contributions more closely, I've found that the block was in error. Now, the reason why you were blocked in the first place was due to a report on WP:AIV by a bot named "User:MartinBot". This bot works as an anti-vandalism bot, reverting edits that it deems to be "nonsense". Your edits were reverted immediately by this bot, due to the somewhat random nature of the SMILES formulae. MartinBot automatically reports editors who have vandalized more than four times to the bot section of the Administrator Intervention against Vandalism page. Administrators rarely check the contributions of a user when it has been reported by MartinBot because the bot very rarely makes mistakes. I hope you accept my humblest apologies for this block; it was a general misunderstanding between the parties. Cheers, Sean William 03:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Duh, that makes sense. Yes, I've reverted a moderate amount of "line noise" (although usually I think charitably that someone just leaned on a keyboard and hit "Enter" with the edit page open; I only call it vandalism when there's some obviously hostile text), and the SMILES formulae do resemble that. Um... I'll have to figure out how to get the edits past the bot's un-doing. I wonder why it only started complaining today? Oh! I know! Earlier, I had to add "|- | SMILES = <formula>" to infoboxes. The most recent ones already had (blank) "| SMILES =" entries that I just filled in. Thus, the addition was "purer" line noise.71.41.210.146 03:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to notify the bot's creator about this, in hopes of getting it fixed. Sean William 03:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I really think it's quite an exceptional case, so maybe it doesn't need a totally transparent solution, but a solution of some sort would be helpful. I could always make some pointless edits, like a large human-readable <!--comment--> and then remove it in a separate edit, if I expect it'll trigger the bot. In case it helps, though, a basic validation of SMILES formulae can be done by checking for properly nested parens, with possibly one innermost level of square brackets. (Oh yes, and my recent edits have included many more chirality @ signs, which might trigger e-mail address detectors.) 71.41.210.146 03:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, in the meantime, I notice that the block is still active. Is that likely to be fixed, or should I just wait for it to time out? 71.41.210.146 03:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have lifted the block. Sean William 03:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

:o

What are the odds that I should drop by your userpage about 5 minutes after you've blatantly ripped off adapted my old userpage design? :) Spooky! By the way, Springeragh is actually responsible for most of that design - just making sure your credit goes to the right place :) Take care! – Riana _ऋ 00:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! I'm found out! I guess I got tired of the "large user page" thing, so I decided to go with a simple page. I hope you don't mind :). Sean William 00:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

'Course not! I got tired of the big flashy thing too, but then got tired of the small simple thing... and now I'm tired of the big flashy thing again. You know, I'm just going to end up redirecting to my talkpage one of these days :) See ya round, – Riana _ऋ 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)