User talk:Curps/archive13

Removing Nelson Mandela From the Terrrorists Category

Hi Curps, I was wondering if you looked at the discussion on NM being a terrorist before you removed him from that category. Also I can understand that you might want to remove it because he isn't practicing anymore but I notice that you did not remove him from the category of political prisoners either. I'm not interested in having an edit war, I just want to get a feel for why you did so that we can come to a consensus. How would you feel about adding the category again but perhaps adding the word "former" in parenthesis? Best,TitaniumDreads 19:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

ON SP

Is anyone keeping track of all of this things sockpuppets, and does anyone know who it is? --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Block

Thanks for clearing that mad /16 block so quickly last night. I woke up this morning thinking "Gosh! I did that?" and just checked the log now. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Banning people

Hi, Curps. I'm a sysop here from a long time ago, and I just recently started using Wikipedia again. The last time I was using Wikipedia, banning people was rare, but now it seems more common and acceptable to do without a 5 week mailing list discussion. Now, I need to block 67.66.60.180, but I don't know how. I saw that you recently blocked some people. Could you tell me how to do it, or point me to a page explaining it? LDan 18:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Wow, so much has changed since I was last here. I'll be sure to read all of those pages. LDan 18:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. 141.154.50.8 19:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. 141.154.50.8 19:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:141.154.50.8, as Curps is a longtime contributor to Wikipedia and an administrator, it is unlikely he is making test edits. Could you provide a diff showing the edits you object to? Looking at his contribution history, it looks like he is restoring comments you are removing from a talk page. Please don't remove others' comments, and please don't misuse the {{test}} templates. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Templates

Hi curps, thanks for all the hard work you've been putting into the province templates! I've made an "overview" page of sorts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chinese cities/Prefecture navigational templates, in case you're interested. ;) -- ran (talk) 23:21, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Block conflicts

Regarding block conflicts, I brought this up recently at WP:AN#Block conflict question. Apparently, as soon as one block expires, all blocks are removed. If I were to now block Irate for 24 hours, tomorrow my block and all others would expire. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"du" "of" vandalism

I think that someone was using find/replace to get rid of du and replace it with of but didn't think that this could have negative consequences. It's going to take some more work to translate the list -- but once we're done, it'll be far, far more visually pleasing than the original English version. --Zantastik 04:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I figured that out. I think maybe it could have been done a bit more carefully, to preserve some of the work that had been done previously... for instance, there were a number of redlinks in the new version that weren't redlinks in the old version, I fixed some of them but probably not all. -- Curps 04:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RC

Are you on RC patrol today? Thanks for picking up snafus on supergalactic coordinate system and supergalactic plane so quickly. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just for a few minutes at a time. -- Curps 16:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taipei American School vandal...

Can you help me figure out what I need to do to simply get this person banned/blocked? They have violated just about every wiki rule. 3RR on this article, POV and personal attacks. We have tried to reason on talk pages, both for the IP and the article, and finally had to resort to the request for protection. Aside from calling User:Allentchang a "dumbass" and "phucked in the head", he graciously allowed me in on the fun with "dumb shit". I think reviewing the information shows that Allentchang and I (as well as yourself and at least one other) have worked really hard to be understanding and to communicate with this person on how they can make this a better article. We have not resorted to personal attacks, and have tried to help. It is all to no avail, and I think if we eliminated this user, we could actually work on the article to make it somewhat better. As it stands now, we just end up fighting revert wars or having to get the page protected, where we are also prevented from contributing. Thanks. Wikibofh 19:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I think the anon is a lost cause. I think the article is actually pretty good, and I think it only needs a little help. The only reason I got involved was catching some of the initial 'vandalism'. I actually view this exchange as entertaining, and a good learning experience for me...I just don't have a lot of desire to make changes to the article that will end up in a revert war.  :) Wikibofh 18:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I did add some material after you unlocked, and before his first revision. I'll just look to revert the anon's crap and then edit. As a relatively new user I didn't want to appear to be violating 3RR. Wikibofh 20:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

University of Santo Tomas

I would like to resolve the dispute with the following.

† ^†cross-reference foot note at the bottom of both the San Carlos and Santo Tomas pages should be posted:

At the bottom † University of Santo Tomas(1611) is considered by some as the oldest existing University. Others consider University of San Carlos as the oldest. It was foremerely called Universidad de San Ignacio and was founded in 1595, closed in 1769 and reopenned under a its current name with essentially the same Jesuit staff and at the same location.

premier: I suggest placing AA is a leading/premier university, AA meaning Ateneo, DLSU, UST .(place in all pages)

For myself I feel we need to consider ontological views.

I believe that University of San Carlos really should be considered the oldest existing University considering that Universidad de San Ignacio is San Carlos. An entity(person, school, organization) can change its name but it is essentially the same entity. We really have to consider ontology.--Jondel 05:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda

Could you please vote on the proposed move Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda → Alleged links between pre-invasion Iraq and Al-Qaeda? The vote is here . Thanks. ObsidianOrder 17:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Zenupassio

I am sorry your impotence is obvious. But I am not sockpuppet and have not engaged in the behaviors you allege. I hope you apprehend those responsible. Zenupassio 02:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are right, please amend as required. My PC is a brute. Zenupassio 02:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Ward Churchill. Nor was I even aware of Wikipedia last night. I have a good alibi actually, I was at my grandmother's house having dinner. I wouldn't lie about that surely if it wasn't true. She's special. Zenupassio 02:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I went to the Ward Churchill article and see what you mean. Misconduct of that kind has no place on Wikipedia article. I agree though the article does seem to be a rather ugly white-wash. So to speak. Zenupassio 02:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From what I see TonyMarvin is a guilty white leftist like most of those editing that article. Why has the disease of political correctness tainted our campuses so much. It is just anti learning. Anyway, I don't care about Ward Churchill. I am just following up on some interesting articles I have noticed around. Zenupassio 02:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you're really interested in being nice to me you will review your bourgeois anti Rufio policy which I know has caused a major disturbance in the Force. Zenupassio 02:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And I see from your record you are a trigger happy blocker of people. Can't you see that authoritarian leftism is failing here. Just as it failed everywhere else it's been tried. Only by respecting diversity can Wikipedia be anything. I have been editing very briefly and I see many problems. I doubt I'll be back. Zenupassio 02:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's certainly not my objective. But I can understand why those terrorized out of articles chose desperate means to make it clear that there is dissent. It hasn't effected me though. But I respect dissent. All you do by bullying edits, blocking, reversions, operating in packs, all of which I have noticed in the very brief time I've registered is create permanently frozen articles which warnings about their neutrality. This is probably a second best option I would hope for sincere editors but this is the monster you - more than anyone - have created. What's that saying about being careful what you wish for. You've got it. Zenupassio 02:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Be honest, you're a leftist. It's obvious. I have no problem with that. But the authoritarian streak in the left probably caused more misery these past one hundred years than anything else so forgive me for just not agreeing with you about a subtle approach. I've edited one or two articles and one COINTELPRO is basically an FBI bashing joke. Now that might appeal to some but it just is very 1970's politics. Zenupassio 02:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) Show me a leftwing editor you've blocked recently and I might reconsider.

I have stated clearly disruption is certainly not a goal of mine. I respect though those people excluded in brutal form by groups of leftist editors from areas they call their own. They refer to "like minded souls", send each other messages, I have just been reading some of these. It's really disgraceful. So again I ask you, can you name a left leaning editor you've blocked recently? Zenupassio 02:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I can't hear you. Name one left wing editor you've blocked ever? Not recently. Ever? Zenupassio 02:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An utterly disingenuous response. You haven't nominated a left wing editor ever have you? It's a disgrace. I don't wish to be rude or disrespectful to you but for you to ask me (who has been around 20 minutes) for disruptive left wing editors or people who breach the rules is frankly outrageous. You pointed me to the Ward Churchill page. Look at the edit history on it. It's disgraceful. The resulting article is bizarre. I know not much about Ward Churchill but I do know how to Google search him. Why is it that Wikipedia's take on him is so different from the respected local newspapers of his area? We know the answer. You take it on yourself to police Wikipedia, well that's great but like a corrupt cop you are only interested in enforcing the law against the gang that isn't your gang. And if you can defend that and pretend you take "the project" seriously then you are able to straddle both sides of Ross Perot's wire fence. Aside from not being good for reproduction it is just plain dishonest. Enforce the rules against some lefties before darkening my door with your faux piety. Zenupassio 02:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have demonstrated you're a smart person capable of arguing your case and I respect that.

You have not demonstrated your honesty.

You know as well as I that you just go to that Block List and look one up. One left wing editor, scum like Viajero or such. I have just reading his trail of destruction.

But you cannot.

You cannot find one.

And you know why you cannot find one.

Because there isn't one. Not one.

Dozens of right-wingers blocked.

And not one left-leaning editor every blocked by a supposedly honest cop.

And you ask why some users have no faith - forget about the process and the tragedy of certain articles - in you.

You should be protecting the editors from the mob-bullying going on in various articles. You should become familiar with what the effect is of your intervention. You cite Churchill. I refer you to COINTELPRO, it's bullshit. It says the FBI killed people and beat them up. Well it might have but I imagine that there is no evidence presented. Not one valid source.

Absurdities like this are the consequences of your 'police' work.

There are dozens of examples. Dozens. And I've been here very briefly so I can't really in good faith tell you but I'm sure you know where the bias cancer has spread. Zenupassio 03:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I deny sockpuppetry. Totally deny it. Sorcery too. Perhaps burning these witches at the stake would address the problem. But seriously, there have been different approaches on different articles from what I've seen. Your favorite example of Ward Churchill is a case in point. The article seems to obscure what is well known about the guy. He's going to be fired. Read the Denver Post, the guy is toast. So why is there no mention of it. Zenupassio 03:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How can I possibly know who you've blocked? You know, at least I hope you do. You haven't blocked any of the editors of COINTELPRO who have produced the most outrageous pap you could read this side of 1970 Pravda. Zenupassio 03:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no mention of the inquiry in the introduction, it reads as if he doesn't have a problem in the world. Whether your wish that he stay, or my prayer that he is axe-murdered by the ghost of a real Indian are answered is not the point. I'm not saying it should say what will happen, but it should identify what's happening. The only reason it doesn't is that it's a whitewash. If Churchill had said Iraqi babies were not innocent victims, the article would read quite differently. You know it. I know it. The article is scorched earth and while I don't agree with them, I understand how it ended up that way. Zenupassio 03:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

People don't get blocked for writing outrageous pap, they just get reverted. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy. They only get blocked if they get into an edit war and break the Wikipedia:Three revert rule, or if they lose their cool and start committing clear-cut vandalism (blanking pages, replacing other user's pages with obscenities, etc).

You're slipping, by the way. First you said "Dozens of right-wingers blocked." then you say, "How can I possibly know who you've blocked?" Well, do you know who I've blocked or don't you... and if you don't know, how could you know unless it was you (your sockpuppets)? And admit most of those sockpuppets did indeed cross the line into vandalism... the cases that didn't were cases where a sockpuppet was used to evade the three-revert rule, which is also covered in the blocking policy. No admin can block a user merely for their opinions... of the "dozens of right-wingers blocked", name one that wasn't justified by the provisions of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. -- 03:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes but the reverting is the problem. There are multiple sock-puppets of Viajero for example who act in unison to revert on sight - and with no reason anything outside their narrow political agenda.

So you want to balance it. You either match them sockpuppet for sockpuppet or you get blocked.

I've never been blocked so I don't know but I assume it's frustrating and actually adds to the problem.

I don't doubt as a corrupt cop that you have technically acted inside the guidelines. No doubt. Doesn't make it right.

OK I lied about not knowing who you blocked, I just thought it was rich for you to ask me who you blocked. If you don't know you shouldn't be doing it.

No admin needs to block a user merely for their opinions. They can use the rules and just do it anyway. They can devise some corrupt spin to explain it but we know why it happens. The Churchill page is a good example. It is scorched earth, was it made better by your intervention or worse? It's a protected page. It's a catastrophe and I can blame Viajero and he can blame the users trying to get some balance in there (unsuccessfully) but to be fair we should all blame you. Zenupassio 03:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes but when you're a victim of terrorism you can either laugh or get angry. I laugh. Zenupassio 03:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW, if you're a corrupt cop perhaps you'd consider a payoff to join my gang. I'm very generous.You could start with blocking Zen-master for breaching the 3 revert rule I was just reading about. Zenupassio 03:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reverting simple vandalism isn't subject to the 3RR. Please stop vandalising Zenupassio and your fellow sock puppet Zen-masturbator (which is also impersonization). zen master T 04:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it's protected I believe. Gee I love the comment above that "Zen-masturbator" is impersonating Zen-master, I think that counts as an admission.

Isn't the Churchill article protected. I haven't added anything to it. I would if I could. Zenupassio 04:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have not created any sock-puppets. Check my IP address please. I am one user on one computer this cold cold night. All alone with only a corrupt cop to talk to. Zenupassio 04:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not impersonating anyone. I signed up as zenupassion. Except I forgot the 'n'. Doh. That's how I stumbled on Zen-master you see. I typed in the wrong thing on my contributions and saw all of these crazy things. SO no impersonation. He's the one impersonating an editor. He's actually something else entirely. Zenupassio 04:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS Why is your user page blocked. Same reason as the British cops in Belfast have strong armor? Zenupassio 04:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Had no such plans although maybe zen-mastur and his 14 yo sockpuppet ugen64 did. Do you think it's right that 14 year olds are up this late?

What do you think Zen-mastur is doing to him? Zenupassio 04:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another_One_Bites_The_Dust

My concern is what Zen-mastur is doing with the 14 yo. Do his parents know? Zenupassio 04:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are slipping now.

It would be easier for Saddam Hussein's camel (the one he used to dry hump geddit?) to pass through the eye of a needle than for me to get the lefty editors to agree to that move. Why don't you do it as an experiment into the liberal paradigm here. Zenupassio 04:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removing blocks on greek socks

It's probably not necessary to remove those blocks. Blocks on IP addresses have a certain overhead, because they need to be checked every time, every edit... but blocks on a username only need to be checked once, at login time. I don't think there's any real overhead at all. -- Curps 05:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. I was also concerned about the autoblocking of IP addresses, but I'm on a dynamic IP anyway. --Deathphoenix 14:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted the blanking of this talk page byWhenwilltheylearn? (talk • contribs). Cheers! Mgm|^(talk) 22:32, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

MIM on The Matrix

It seems rather POVish to remove the MIM review from the Religion/philosophy/theory of The Matrix section, but leave all the others. Especially when you are claiming your rational is that only "mainstream" reviews, viewpoints, and opinions should be allowed. I am willing to leave others alone pending disussion on talk pages but asking for now that you atleast leave the MIM reviews of the Matrix alone. --Mista-X 02:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In this case you are discriminating simply based on POV. The other entries in Religion/philosophy/theory of The Matrix can hardly be considered noteable either. So if you are going to remove the MIM review, which is based on philosphy of dialectics and fits in to the catagory, then it is only fair that you remove the others. In the other cases your argument holds more water, but in this one it does not. I am asking you one more time to please rv. Thanks. --Mista-X 02:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Movie reviews and POV

(I posted this on TheGrza's talk page and am also posting it here as it deals with some of the issues you raise)

" The POV is inherent in these type of reviews the same way Christian reviews are bound by their ideology instead of actually critiquing a film"

TheGrza, I think you misunderstand our POV policy which applies to the content of the articles only, not to external links. First of all if we did not allow POV in external links we'd have to remove half the external links in Wikipedia. Secondly, all film reviews are, by definition, POV (I don't know of any reviews that don't express an opinion) so we'd have to remove all links to film reviews if NPOV applied to external links. We don't remove links simply because of the politics of the site linked to. I think you also misunderstand the concept of "vandalism". We can't simply throw around the term to justify removal of any material we don't like. It applies specifically to activity that disrupts wikipedia or disrupts an article. I've seen MIM reviews quoted in Harper's so they are actually relatively well known if only for their amusement value. There is no reason why we shouldn't have external links to Christian film reviews or Marxist film reviews. A broad variety of links is encouraged. What's discouraged are repetitive links to similar material (eg reviews from a dozen daily newspapers would be repetitive).

As to your point about ideology, I don't know if you've ever studied film theory in university or read academic journals on film such as cahiers des cinema but serious film criticism does actually deal with ideology, subtext etc and is not just the "thumbs up" "thumbs down" type review you see in a newspaper. By your argument we couldn't link to serious scholarly articles on films, many of which "deconstruct" films from a Marxist, feminist, postmodern, or other ideological perspective. For instance, Susan Sontag's important and influential writings on film would be banned, by your argument, as they are ideological in nature and explore the subtext of films rather than simply being a technical critique.

Hope this clarifies things. AndyL 14:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Specifically to Curps, while I agree that linking to hundreds of mainstream reviews would be repetitive I see no problem with listing to a variety of reviews from different mainstream and non-mainstream viewpoints. Whether or not a review is listed on "Rotten Tomatoes" or IMDB is not really relevent as that site really only deals with popular mainstream reviews. Indeed, by your criteria we could not link to serious scholarly critiques of films carried in scholarly journals. We do not determine the worthiness of links by how mainstream or popular they are. Rather we look for diversity of opinions in our links. AndyL 15:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all your reasoning for removing protection is somewhat bizarre and possibly a violation of wikirules. There's no rule against people on "holiday" protecting a page nor is there one stating that such pages should be unprotected quickly.

In any case, I'm not on wikiholiday, haven't been for some time (as you could tell by looking at my user contributions), and have removed the note from my page. Not wise to make up rules to justify unprotecting an article after a few mintues. The article has been protected, it shouldn't be unprotected until at least an attempt to resolve the issue has been made on the talk page. What I'm curious about is what policy you are using to justify removing an extenrnal link? Marxism is a philosophy (at least according to most university philosophy departments) but if you don't think the link fits under that category than why not suggest a new category rather than removing the links altogether. What I am interested in knowing is how the other links such as the one on Jewish history and the Matrix are justified while the marxist link is not.

As with your rationalization for unprotecting the article you seem to be relying on improvisation rather than policy. AndyL 19:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please read Mista-X's talk page, where I explained to him my reasons for believing the link to be inappropriate.

Your reverting the article prior to protecting it was very questionable. You are taking sides in an editing dispute after all. Protection was premature in any case, there has been active discussion at Mista-X's talk page and other talk pages. It is perfectly normal for Wikipedia to be quite selective about what external links are appropriate; this is standard practice. At this point, the global consensus (across multiple pages) seems to be against you and Mista-X... it might be appropriate to back off and call a vote to seek a wider consensus. -- Curps 19:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't revert the article prior to protecting it. I protected an earlier version and your objection is dealt with at The Wrong Version]. There would have been no incentive for going to the Talk pages had I protected the version you prefer and in any case, since the external link in question is not a violation of wikipolicy there's no reason to protect the version excluding it. Votes are not the way to "seek a wider consensus". In fact, settling matters by voting is discouraged on wikipedia. An RFC is the usual course of action. AndyL 19:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your rationalization above simply doesn't hold water. You protected the page at 16:59 UTC, added a "protected" template at 17:01, but then applied a revert at 17:35. If you yourself decided to protect the page against edits, it was not appropriate for you to then edit the page yourself, to your preferred version. I don't believe you have entered into this content dispute as an above-the-fray mediator, rather you are a partisan participant. -- Curps 20:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Curps.27_inappropriate_use_of_admin_power_at_The_Matrix AndyL 20:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd like you to admit that you had no justification for unprotecting the article and to stop reverting protected articles. AndyL 23:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article was protected at 16:59 by you, a "protected" notice was added at 17:01 by you, and then you reverted it at 17:35. If it's protected, then you yourself should not edit it. Why will you not admit that the person who reverted the protected article (that you yourself protected!) was none other than yourself. If you have protected an article against editing, then you should not edit it yourself, especially if you have become a party to the content dispute despite disingenuous denials. -- Curps 23:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"I think my actions were justified. You reverted a protected page (which you yourself know and state to be wrong), and undoing this was justified"

If you had really thought so then you wouldn't have cited my "wikivacation" as an excuse. AndyL 23:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ahoy...As a result of User:Mista-X's vandalism spree and my subsequent attempts to revert his actions, he was blocked by User:UtherSRG. Having not edited these pages in several hours and listing it on the vandalism in progress page, User:AndyL found it necessary to block me for the one time I passed three reverts, The Battleship Potemkin. After blocking me, he reverted the page. This is a complete violation of his Admin trust and he should be removed from such a position from now on. Would you be willing to help out in this?--TheGrza 17:52, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

If it was indeed a 3RR violation then I don't think he was violating policy in the sequence of events you described above. I did object to some of his other actions, and have discussed this with him. -- Curps 18:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was almost exactly 10 hours after the 3RR violation and only after User:Mista-X had been blocked for his spamming, after which he himself violated the same rule by reverting on the same page he blocked me for reverting. There's nothing wrong with that?--TheGrza 18:32, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I believe the justification UtherSRG gave for blocking Mista-X was for 3RR. I don't think AndyL's revert in that particular case constitutes an incidence of spamming, although Mista-X's overall actions might indeed be considered link-spamming. AndyL's involvement at Battleship Potemkin seems to be limited to applying 3RR (apparently fairly) and getting involved in a content dispute... I don't think there's grounds for complaint against him with regard to that specific activity at Battleship Potemkin. I suppose you could ask UtherSRG or some other admin for a second opinion. -- Curps 18:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you interested in being a Bureaucrat?

Hi, I am considering nominating you to become a Bureaucrat. The role would involve giving administrator or bureaucrat access to other users following consensus on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Although there are currently 18 bureaucrats, it may be helpful to have a few more. If you would accept a nomination, please let me know. Kingturtle 04:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation

"Scroll upward for your answers"

Please show me where you've spoken about your 3RR violation. AndyL 08:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. -- Curps 10:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just kudos

Keep up the articulate arguments and good common sense. Bravo. Mason 08:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Could you please certify/add to my basis for dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AndyL? Thanks! — Phil Welch 18:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC has been commenced on you at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Curps. AndyL 03:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"I think my actions were justified. You reverted a protected page (which you yourself know and state to be wrong)"

So then you wouldn't have had a problem had I initially protected the earlier page?AndyL 16:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I have made extensive comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AndyL (I would have done so sooner, but real life intruded). You should find your answer there. -- Curps 18:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

You've placed your comments in the wrong part of the RFC. Since you are not the bringer of the RFC and the RFC has already been certified your comments, as far as I understand, do not belong where you've placed them -- I've moved them to the RFC's talk page. Since the RFC has already been certified you've also put your endorsement in the wrong section. It belongs in the "Other users who endorse this statement" section. AndyL 20:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's acceptable to rewrite an RFC after its been certified and replied to and I am unaware of any precedents where this has been done. It makes a mockery of the RFC process. AndyL 20:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The "Other users who endorse this statement" section says (in HTML comments): If you agree with the summary's presentation of events but did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, please sign in this section. I don't fit in that category... I was part of the dispute.

As I posted to your talk page: what is your proposed solution? Should I file a second RfC over the same dispute? Should I file an RfA? You tell me. -- Curps 20:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

(I withdrew my original response shortly after having made it - I see now that Curps responded to it in the meantime).

Perhaps the most reasonable solution is for all RFCs to be withdrawn and for us to go to mediation for guidance, particularly since the dispute at The Matrix seems to have been resolved and this is no longer a pressing concern it may make more sense for us to obtain clarification of what both of us did wrong so we can abide by that in the future. AndyL 20:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Given the lack of outside comments made on either of our RFCs would have been resolved. The most likely scenario would have been for them to languish for a few weeks and then been removed as old. We seem to be four or five people nattering at each other, all thinking our actions, and those of our "opponents" to be of far more significance than they really are.

I've already said I should not have left the article alone after initial protection. I'd be happy if you were to concede that rather than unprotect or edit the protected article, it would have been more prudent for you to either ask for unprotection on the Requests for protection page or gone to an uninvolved admin.AndyL 20:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

"If original two certifiers endorse any addition, it should be acceptable to you. "

As I asked Phil, can you show me a precedent where an RFC has been certified and then added to after the fact and "recertified"?AndyL 20:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

"I've wasted far more time than I originally wished to on this, had to take time away from Wikipedia over the past few days as real life intruded, and now I'd like to see this through. If you really intend to boycott the RfC I think I'd need to go to RfA. I'm not calling for your head on a platter, but I do think your actions need some scrutiny and some... admonishing. Anyways, now I really am going to head out for a while"

Similarly, I don't have time to constantly rewrite my response to Phil's RFC just because Phil or someone else wants to rewrite the complaint. I criticised Phil once already for belatedly making minor changes after I'd already responded and now this. I think you should have co-ordinated things better and not presented an RFC until you were all ready. This sort of ad hoc-kery, Phil writing an RFC, getting it certified and then having it change on a daily basis is really nonsense. If you weren't ready you should have told Phil to withdraw his RFC and hold off for a few days. Similarly, Phil should have consulted with you. As it is, the two of you have created a mess and in real life that would result in the whole thing being thrown out.

The dispute at the Matrix page is over. As for the momentous events of 25 April I think we both got carried away. I've admitted that, you haven't (and indeed, when violet/riga said on the incident page that we'd both made mistakes you suddenly disappeared from that page rather than contend with criticism), but I've got better things to do than get a pound of flesh for you. I think if you continue your habit of self-justification and refusal to admit error you will eventually find yourself in trouble here (if not in real life) but I'm fine letting that be someone else's crusade.

As for my ignoring your suggestion of mediation, you should look again at the sequence since you seem to have forgotten that you had just rejected mediation for the content dispute.AndyL 21:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

As for Arbcomm, I've participated in a few ArbComm complaints, a few times as a complainant or witness, once as a respondent (the complaint against me was not upheld and the complainant was ultimately banned for a year) and you should be aware that it is not uncommon for complainants to suffer blowback and have their own actions undergo severe scrutiny resulting in unanticipated outcomes and sanctions that are much more severe than one would have originally anticipated. ArbComm is best left for issues that are truly unresolvable and chronic, not for a one time limited spat that seems to have been resolved in essence. Also, you should be aware that the current ArbComm practice is to ban both complainant and respondent from editing all articles related to the complaint until the complaint is resolved (a process that takes weeks, sometimes months). AndyL 21:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Your Request For Comment Page

AndyL has just removed an addendum by PhilWelch from the page because he is not the official respondent. I think it should go back on there, but I'm not going to be the one to revert AndyL's edits after the way he's been acting. Just thought I'd let you know. --TheGrza 21:26, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Also, AndyL has made some large editions to The Matrix, clearly violating the discussion page. [1] Again, I don't want to get back into this again or I'll inevitably get banned.

I suggest TheGrza reread the discussion page, particularly the section titled "resolution?". I suggest he also look at a few RFCs and familiarise himself with how they are formatted and where people put comments before making specious complaints. AndyL 22:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually I can't find it. I agree with the comments on the AndyL page and if you see the notice, just remove it for me. --TheGrza 22:16, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page but the RFC seems to be quite invalid given what's occured (for one thing, the way it now stands, the RFC was certified more than 72 hours after it was initiated rather than the required 48). Is that agreeable?AndyL 22:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I swear to Christ that I don't see it. Are you sure it isn't a cached page in your browser? I don't intend to be difficult, but I've searched the page both with my eyes and my browser and failed to find it.--TheGrza 22:32, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

"April 20, 2005 A new user, Mista-X (talk · contributions), makes his first edit at Wikipedia."

You're one year off. AndyL 22:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I approve of your undertakings. Really, I'm just bowing out from working on it myself--it was your dispute the whole time, and I'm letting you take care of it from now on. — Phil Welch 05:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've been watching the page and I don't disagree with anything in it; you're showing the restraint that epitomizes a good admin and I congratulate you for it.--TheGrza 06:00, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for the notice. I will wisely stay uninvolved, though if asked questions, I will respond. — Phil Welch 01:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. AndyL 12:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

History of Quebec

Hey, yeah, big mistake with that pic huh? It was next to an article about 1967 and I just assumed really. So someone's already fixed it so no biggie. Bremen 16:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Pelican Shit

who is this user? (PelicanShit (talk • contribs)) He doens't seem to be vandalizing, but shouldn't he get a new account? — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Redirects for Deletion

Hi! You're one of the editors I've noticed reverting "Matrixism" linkspamming, so I thought you might be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#April_25. Matrixism currently redirects to New religious movement, and this has been used as a justification for linkspamming in the past. I believe an overwhelming vote to delete Matrixism will demonstrate a community consensus against the linkspamming, deterring further vandalism. Thanks for your help. — Phil Welch 19:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

"But then you boycotted the RfC process you yourself started,"

Wrong. Philwelch started the RFC process, not meAndyL 20:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

"and even reverted other people's contributions to RfC pages as a way to avoid answering what they wrote. "

That's a misrepresentation. A third party inappropriately added comments to the response which belonged on the discussion page.AndyL 22:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

"I filed an RFC which you did not reply to"

I replied to Philwelch's RFC and then wrote one of my own in regards to your behaviour. You then rewrote Phil's RFC after it had already been certified and after I had already written a detailed response. I thought rewriting an RFC after it had been certified and expecting me to rewrite my response was inappropriate and a violation of procedure.AndyL 01:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Registration/ Sock Puppeting of Confusing Usernames

I was following another Wikipedian's suggestion to grab up every variant of Wikipedia is Anarchism. Go ahead and ban Wikipedia is Anarchism, etc., indefinitely, but leave User:Rickyrab and my real sockpuppet User:Truthaboutreform alone. Thanx. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC) See my talk page.

Good point. BTW, the Wikipedia block mechanism is still blocking my original IP. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Nope. I may have to log off one before editing. I'm on my account in two separate IPs, thanks to my being on Netscape and AOL. brb — Rickyrab | Talk 05:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I tried. The block still exists. look up the block list. At least you blocked "Wikipedians are Anarchists" indefinitely. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Protected against spambots

Hello Curps, what is the status with Category:Protected against spambots? Is it okay if I unprotect (and delete those that are eligible for speedying) the remaining pages there? I don't think the bot is active anymore. jni 08:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate Articles

Please see my note under the heading ==Duplicate Articles== at Talk:Robert Burnham, Jr. Thanks. --DannyZ 05:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Lee Kuan Yew

Thank you very much for the page protection. ;) Oh btw, as was discussed with User talk:Vsion, I was kinda wondering if the 3RR rule applies in handling obvious cases of vandalism. If it does, and if the talk pages fail to solve the issue, may I confirm if asking for page protection is the proper way forward? Thank you very much for the clarifications. :) --Huaiwei 10:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

You have to be a bit careful because "obvious cases of vandalism" usually refers to blanking, replacing the article with garbled letters, etc. This particular case looks much more like an edit war, and some admins might interpret it that way; however the fact that this anon included sentences like He believed in eugenics, just like Hitler, but the whole idea was debunked when an albino retard was born into his family line pushes it over the line in my opinion. In general though, you should avoid getting into a rapid-fire edit war that clutters up the page history. It would have been better to make a 3RR report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR when the anon first broke the rule. -- Curps 11:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I see your point there, and thanks for the advice!--Huaiwei 11:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Hamilton, Ontario

Hi. Any chance you could block the IP that keeps vandalising this article? Cheers TigerShark 00:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Pelican shit

I'm curious, what is the Australian slang usage for "pelican shit"? → JarlaxleArtemis 00:35, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:Oxag

Hello Curps. I am a regular, genuine, Wikipedian from the French wiki, with accounts on fr:, de:, es:, it:, pt: and th:. These are all under the handle Oxag but the name is unfortunately not available on en:
As it seems, however, that the account was created by someone who only used it last March to vandalize pages my question is thus simple : is there any chance of making an exception to the official policy and cancelling that account so I can re-use the handle ? Thanks for your answer on my discussion page
— Oxag, the one and only :) 08:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
PS: I contact you because it seems from your discussion page that you've had to deal with the rogue Oxag user.

Template:ISO

You expressed interest in an ISO flag template: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template#ISO_template (SEWilco 06:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC))

about Image:Comet Kohoutek orbit p391.jpg

Hi,

I just wanted to let you know that I have uploaded the image Image:Comet Kohoutek orbit p391.jpg to commons. Thanks --Spundun 07:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Full earth.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Full earth.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC) This image is out of focus and is an orphan. Nv8200p 22:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)