User talk:Jéské Couriano/Archive 6

Re:Dispute

re When In Rome Band page. Jeske, I am still experiencing difficulties with vandalism on this page. The current page reflects the vandals info. Can you help  ??

No. Administrators are forbidden to interfere in content disputes short of blocking, reporting for three-revert rule violations, or semi-protection.

For future reference, you use a colon to indent, by the way. Indenting with a space activates the "Code" function. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 19:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: WALFULZ

thanx for the revert from Wafulz's junk, i was watching tv and didn't catch it. What a hosier.Vu1kan (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC) (p.s. how would I go about adding a gratitude barnstar for ya?)

I believe there's a template that does the trick, but I can't remember what it is for the life of me offhand... -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 08:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Found what I was lookin' for:

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For contentious reverts...appears to be a pattern for Jéské Vu1kan (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Danke muchly, Vu1kan. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 09:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Crotchduster Article

I wanted to get clarification on your refusal to remove the protection on Crotchduster. Specifically, I wanted to get a better understanding of the notability concern, and express my concern that this article will remain protected based on personal bias regarding the subject matter (the band itself and their themes) rather than their actual notability. In short, I do not want to go to the trouble of writing a well researched article if you are simply going to refuse it's entry to Wikipedia. Please do not consider this a personal attack or judgement, but based on your user page I would assume that my proposed article is outside your area of interest or expertise.

A quick google search will prove that Crotchduster are in fact a real band, below are two links that will help you quanitify that...the first being the label site, which includes links to a number of reviews I would include as citations, the second is a link to their MySpace page should you wish to verify that they do in fact have recorded material available. I other other sources to use as well including published articles and interviews that I would be happy to provide upon request.

Willowtip Recordings Page: http://www.willowtip.com/releases/details/crotchduster-big-fat-box-of-shit.aspx

Myspace Page: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=81918559

My goal here is, ideally, that you remove the protection based on my commitment to add useful and accurate information to Wikipedia. Failing that, I would appreciate some kind of commitment on your part that you will remove the protection once I write the article and am able to provide source material upon its completion. Please let me know if there is any other information I can get to you. -Williamsburgland

Whether or not it's a real band has absolutely no effect on notability, and unless you can provide secondary sources (newspapers, periodicals, and news networks) you won't be able to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. Myspace is unusable (as are all other blogs), but if there are independent reviews on them linked to on their label's website, those will do. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 23:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon games moves

Hey, when you moved each of the Pokémon games, instead of moving them to their original titles, you included the remake in the name (except for Diamond and Pearl.) This goes against already established consensus (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon#Moving Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire to Pokémon Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald), so I was wondering if you could delete the redirects on the original titles, and then move the articles back. For example: if you could delete Pokémon Red and Blue, then move Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow to Pokémon Red and Blue; and continue the process with Gold and Silver, and Ruby and Sapphire. Thanks, Artichoker[talk] 22:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I can, but I wouldn't have objected had you done it yourself. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 01:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a sysop. I can't delete pages. And thanks, Artichoker[talk] 01:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Done and apologies. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 01:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! Artichoker[talk] 01:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: War on Redirects

Hey - about the subpage, please get rid of it. Thank you very much. Rory (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Done and Done. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks. Rory (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayen Varma

Thank you for handling the creation protection request regarding article Jayen Varma and for replying on the user's talk page. Thank you also for restoring the history on User talk:Jayenvarma prior to deleting User talk:Big Head Ache Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Null persp. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 03:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your recent post at User talk:Jayenvarma I have a question as to if oversight will actually accomplish what the user is looking for. The problem is the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayen_Varma which displays the standard screen for an article name that has been deleted. Will oversight remove the deletion log entries? This seems to be what the user is asking about. I personally think that User talk:Jayenvarma is over reacting, but his concerns need to be addressed, even if that can not be complied with. And as you well know, even if oversight is able to remove the deletion log entries, google will continue to link to the deleted (or non-existant) page. And if the page is create protected the problem just becomes even greater. I do not think that it is possible to accomplish what the user wants. If I am guessing correctly, what he really wants is to delete the google entry. see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Jayen+Varma%22+%2B+Wikipedia&btnG=Search I think he is asking for the impossible Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oversight can't touch log entries, unfortunately. And as I said, even if it could, Google would still link to a cached version of the page. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 20:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, and thanks for posting on the user's page as well. The google cache would actually disappear fairly quickly, but that was not the real problem, which was the deletion log listing as seen in following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayen_Varma It is just going to be something that Jayen Varma is going to have to live with. Thanks for the information about how oversight works. Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Lulu

Considering that it took you less than a minute to post on the 3RR page and the ANI page, I dont think you put a great deal of effort into looking into that. Lulu had undone at least 6 edits in whole or in part, just as he had done the other day. CENSEI (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I edit-conflicted twice with you, CENSEI. I even looked at the diffs and saw no 3RR violation. Put the stick down before you're hit with it. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I dont think you looked too terribly close at the evidence presented. Lulu has had a history of edit warring on that article, as supported by the prior 3RR that was stale, and his block log in general. 3RR is more a tool to stop edit warring, and there is clearly edit warring on the page. Where can I go to have your decision appealed? CENSEI (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Ilsensine would have a word with you over your attempts to become an illithid. Expecting a report to actually succeed when you have 0 proof of an actual 3RR vio for that incident is like looking for hen's teeth, regardless of the reported user's record on that article. I will say it again - drop the stick before the horse resurrects and takes it from you to exact revenge. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Whats with the stick comments? Are you saying that I will be blocked if I continue to ask for justification of your decision? CENSEI (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that if you keep on, you may end up being blocked for disruption, and not by me. From what I gather at AN/I you've been acting rather bullheaded. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 03:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but please recognize that the other editors on AN/I currently complaining about me have a nasty habit of singling out other editors and harrasing them via ANI and other articles. Unfortunately they outnumber any editor they disagree with 10-1, work in concert together on articles and edit war like a wolf pack ... when one runs up to a 3RR, another one or two steps in. You allways see a coulple of them on election related articles, and they act in concert to dominate and own these article to the detriment of the entire encyclopedia. I am just frustrated that they can continually get away with the bullshit that they do and no one says boo. Chalk it up to frustration. CENSEI (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Given as I know those editors rather well to do just the opposite, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to ask you to step outside. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that expalins you 3RR decision. BTW, I dont think you want to "step outside" I did spend 3-1/2 years with the 26th MEU. Thanks anyway. CENSEI (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, my 3RR decision can be explained in two words: NO VIOLATION. I saw no violation there; you were just throwing crap into a frivolous 3RR report and hoped it stuck. Now slot off. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 17:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I told you, fair enough, I understand your point and how you came to it, and there is no reason to be uncivil with me. I consider this conversation over and thank you for your attention. CENSEI (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

sorry

Sorry i don't know how too get to the page protection page other then that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo81001 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You've been filing reports on the Main Page unintentionally. Might I recommend using this quicklink instead: WP:RFPP? -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou Apollo81001 (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

GdS s-prot

Hi Jeske, I'm told that a rangeblock instead of the semiprotection is not going to work because he edits from multiple huge ranges. Ryan Postlethwaite recommends that new IP edits be reverted on sight instead of the semi... I'm not sure about that - personally I'd rather not have to deal with repetitive legal threats until the case, if there is one, resolves itself. Up to you. Thanks, Avruch ^T 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'll lift the semi and c&p this response there. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 23:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fraser Forster

Hiya Jeske, just responding to your comment at here regarding the unprotection of Fraser Forster. I've created a template at User:Doberman Pharaoh/Forster and if you could sort that out for me it'd be great. Thanks. User:Doberman Pharaoh 21:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems in order; unprotected. Move the subpage there and I'll be by shortly to remove the redirect. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 20:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

/b/

the header says it all. Do what you want, though. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

They targeted you again. Are you sure.... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I know who it is. I block them three months apiece when I see them, and leaving my page unprotected allows them to feel like they're harassing someone rather than making them go off and harass others. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 00:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

kk, your choice. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thought I was helping

Sorry, didn't know I was getting in the way. I just thought I was trying to help. By the way, thanks for biting the newcomer. I will leave now, all of a sudden I don't feel like editing anymore.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to bite. I was telling you that your warnings were of no help. I apologize if I came across as rude. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. As if someone knew I needed to be cheered up, I was left a message on my talk page by someone who appreciated the way that I reverted vandalism on his user page, just after I read the one you left, asking me not to help. So its nice to feel useful, even if Im not an admin.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Null persp. It's just that, in a 4chan flood, the IPs are only on long enough to vandalize before fleeing. As such, warning them's not going to do anything. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I see, but I know the step is to warn first, then report. I have seen many IPs that have have made over ten vandal type edits, but have never been warned. I know Im not an admin, so Ill leave this all up to you fine gentlemen.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's actually quite simple. If an IP has only the one harassment edit in their contribs, just don't warn them. They're, for all intents and purposes, Grawp meatpuppets anyhow and are to be blocked on sight. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Excessive dynamic IP blocks

Hi Jéské Couriano, I just thought you might be interested to know that many of IPs you are blocking for extended periods are clearly dynamic and likely to change owners in less than a day. The blocks are excessive, unlikely to affect the intended user, and likely to affect innocent users. Please consider reasonable periods based on the probability of disruption from the same IP. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem - I am. Any less and they would get involved in the next revision-paste vandalism. Now, unless you have ranges I could reasonably block to prevent the sort of crap as is going on at User talk:J.delanoy, I'm maintaining a six-month AO/ACB block on each one as socks of JarlaxleArtemis. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What proportion of 4channers have you seen edit twice from the same IP? It is a simple fact that many of these IPs will not be used by the same user ever again. For example you are blocking AOL addresses that change hands within a few hours - what use is a six month block? Blanket months-long blocks only serve to block and deter genuine contributors. You will find semi-protection more useful. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen what 4channers do? They will move on and find another admin or user to harass, which is worse than the cure. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, then we'll move on with the semi-protection until they get bored. It is clear from this that the extended IP blocks are useless. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As are the prots, as some of them will get an account to continue their rampage or move on to an inactive low-profile user. I'm sorry, Zzuuzz, but I honestly don't think your suggestion would work. I would much prefer week-long rangeblocks to six-month whac-a-Jarlaxle-marionette but as I can't figure ranges I have to play whac-a-mole.-Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly this does nothing but provide more lulz to the vandals, since they can get everyone on their ISP banned. I had to refresh my IP just to post this comment these blocks are so bad. Would Jimmy Wales give 6-month blocks on dynamic IPs? En masse for single petty vandalisms? A 6-hour block would be just as effective as a 6-month block on a dynamic IP. There is a button on these ISPs routers to change your IP...you press it and wait 3 seconds... These ban terms just end up looking like an absurd admin power trip before some admins more in tune with the policies and spirit of Wikipedia finally say something.71.37.56.163 (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And even if they change their IP I will block it if they continue. I can take the whac-a-mole. Now, unless you have a range I can block that is reasonable, go buzz. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 03:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I feel bad for some reason. All the vandalism, all the long drawn out philosophical arguments for the rights of Mudkips. Maybe I just have a stomach ache, but maybe its guilt. I'm sorry for trolling you for the last year or two, Jeske. You seem like a nice person now that I think of it. I've begun contributing a lot to Wikipedia, and suddenly don't feel like vandalizing anymore. I hope you accept my apology and have no hard feelings, it was never anything personal. 71.212.43.160 (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I try to be nice to everyone, I really do. It's also been brought up (at Wikipedia Review) that I have somewhat of a fight-or-flight mentality when it comes to vandalism. The truth of the matter is, this harassment has no more purpose. I've left Mudkip's list alone for almost six months now. It's time 4chan realized that they're wasting their energy trolling someone who officially no longer is trying to stymie them and go off elsewhere. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 03:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeske, despite zzuuzz's comments above you haven't really explained why it is necessary to issue long-term blocks to dynamic IPs that cycle rapidly. Since it has no impact on the vandals, and potentially a significant impact on unrelated IP editors, I'm not sure I understand why you continue to do it the way you have been. Can you explain? Avruch ^T 14:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeske, just block the IP's for 6 hours - that's all that's needed. You certainly shouldn't be blocking them for 6 months! Within a few minutes, the IP will belong to someone else who hasn't been doing the vandalism. 6 months is completely excessive - please just take our advice. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

6-hour blocks for what amount to meatpuppets continuing on the edit patterns of a banned user? Uhh, I seem to recall escalating from those. I have lowered my block length to three days, however, but will start escalating again if the problem continues (apologies for taking so long). What I told Zzuuzz still stands - gimme reasonable ranges and I'll block those for a short time, but until then, escalating blocks are to be expected. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 07:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be having a miscommunication here... When you say "escalating blocks" are you referring to blocks of increasing length on successive (i.e. different) dynamic IP addresses? If so, who do you believe you are effecting with such blocks of the vandalising user cycles away from that IP within a couple of hours? Avruch ^T 15:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That is what I mean. Now, if I could work out ranges or had someone willing to give me ranges I wouldn't have to resort to such blocks. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic either. It's my impression that ISPs with dynamic IPs cycle through thousands or millions of IPs before the same customer is ever assigned the same one again. Are you expecting the vandal to be re-assigned the same IP at a later date? Habanero-tan (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm expecting more than one user on that range to become involved in a 4chan attack. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

So you aren't expecting the vandal to be re-assigned the same IP at a later date, but that a completely different vandal will be, and you have pre-emptively blocked them? Habanero-tan (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

67.234.104.242

Hey Jéské, I've seen you around a bunch doing great work defending the 'pedia. I noticed this thread and wondered if you would mind discussing it with me. I didn't see the whole thing unfold (so I don't know if you have info I'm missing) but I felt like I might have handled it differently by discussing it more thoroughly with the guy. I wonder whether it would have been possible to calm him down by taking more time to explain that we're on his side (e.g. "thanks for bringing this up, it's really important to us that articles be accurate") and explaining the relevant policies in depth. (Apologies if you or someone else did that, I didn't see much discussion with him on his talk page but I might be missing it.) It seemed like he came away with this feeling that Wikipedia was trying to persecute his sister and wasn't interested in the truth. Personally I would have ignored his misbehavior and attacks and focused on trying to calm him down, but of course I can't order anyone else to do that (and he was definitely out of line). I felt like if a confrontational dynamic is set up it could cause him to act more out of line and be more persistent (e.g. saying "tough" in the resolved template, may have made him feel like it was him against Wikipedia). Like giving him a cause to fight, you know? Anyway, sorry for the long post, I certainly don't mean to sound critical, I just wondered if you would be interested in discussing it. Peace, delldot ∇. 06:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get involved in the content dispute that caused his block except tangentially, so I'm afraid you've got the wrong guy. I merely extended his block after he used his unblock request to troll. He wasn't discussing with anyone. I also explained why we couldn't act on his word after I used "Tough" in as civil a manner as I could have. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 07:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to reply! Yeah, I didn't mean that you were remiss in any of your responsibilities, just that I thought it was possible that there might have been more you could do to convince the guy that it wasn't us against him. Your point about him being unwilling to discuss is well taken though. Still, I just meant it couldn't hurt to try. Anyway, I'm glad you were conscientious about making your wording as civil as you could, keep up the good work. Thanks again for doing it, I know the stuff you deal with daily ain't pretty. delldot ∇. 04:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Preventing vandalism

I want to become a vandal fighter. Who will help me become one, and teach me how to notice vandalism (the sneaky type of vandalism). Perhaps there are certain tools I could use? Please give me some more information on this. I eagerly await your answer, J.B. 10:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In order to become a vandal fighter, all one has to do is be quick to revert any vandalism that pops up. As soon as you have the community's trust, you can receive the rollback tool at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions and use automated editing scripts such as WP:AWB and WP:TWINKLE (but be careful; abuse any of them and you may very well be blocked for it). -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 10:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

I'm sorry if I came across as canvassing. I contacted you as a result of this edit of yours, which indicated to me that you had a strong feeling about the proper way to handle death hoaxes. I know that when I have participated in a discussion and feel that we came to a consensus, I appreciate finding out when others are overriding/ignoring/changing that consensus, and I still think that the previous discussion came to a consensus. Obviously not a widely held consensus, or last night would have gone much differently than it did.—Kww(talk) 12:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the proper way to handle a hoax is to expose the faux news article as a hoax, link to the site of the news agency it's spoofing, and block any users continuing to try and post the hoax link. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 19:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

To Jéské Couriano:

Thank you very much Jéské Couriano.

This is the first meaningful communication I have received from the wikipedia to date and thank you for spending your time to explain the issue.

Please let me know what will happen now. Will bjweeks defamatory statement be corrected and/or be out of Public View now?

Appreciate your response in here very much,

Kind regards

210.55.128.254 (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Siavash

___________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.128.254 (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Bjweeks WASN'T being defamatory, and I can't help you if you aren't able to understand that. Also, I am a volunteer, NOT a Wikimedia Foundation employee, as is Bjweeks. Retract the legal threat you left on his talk page now - I will not ask you again and I will block you if, when you respond here next, the threat remains on there. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Might i suggest that you and anyone else that gets targetted by 4chan, ask East718 to look after your page and let his bot do the blocking. It seems to be working quite well for him do you think he will let you? Seems to be a good idea, then you can go back to having your talk page exactly that instead of your "discussion" page. Ta 211.30.109.24 (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll only resort to that if I'm expected to be away from my computer for any long period of time, largely because other administrators will intervene first, and I do not want my talk page semi'd or else they will harass someone else. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 06:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender is being closed as partially resolved/stale. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender/Trim moved to Talk:Kender/Draft for use outside of mediation. If further assistance is needed on the Kender article or the broader topic area, I remain available on a case-by-case basis to help out on an informal basis. If some outside assistance could be used to resolve a dispute in the topic area, please let me know and I will do my best to help out. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject: Dungeons & Dragons

Hi! I’ve been working on a lot of ‘’Dungeons & Dragons’’ articles lately and saw that you were a member of WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons), and am inviting you to rejoin Wikipedia’s D&D group. I've been hard at work removing tags placed inappropriately on D&D articles, as well as modifying articles to remove tags that were placed legitimately. In addition, I have been compiling related articles together so that the articles are longer, making it easier to remove tags and to have short articles on lesser topics by just putting it into another appropriate article (links to such compiled articles can be found on my userpage). Check out the project here , and ask any questions that you may have here. Thank you for your time. Drilnoth (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I am not going to have Wikipedia access for a while due to lack of Internet. However, when I return if there's still work that needs to be done I'll gladly help out. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins

BOZ directed me to ask you about this. Gavin.collins has been causing some difficulty for WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, again, and we thought that your viewpoint might be fairly neutral in the situation. You can see the current discussions here and here. We would appreciate any input you might have, one way or another. Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I hope your intervention will bring some calm to the discussions, as I think the D&D Wikiproject is working itself into a frenzy, but not for positive or constructive reasons.
  I know that the cleanup templates are unpopular, but in good faith I feel they have a useful role to play in getting the articles improved. Recent edits in which cleanup templates are being removed without any improvement are becoming surreal: not only are cleanup templates being removed without reasonable justification[1], but their replacements put in by other editors are being removed as well[2]. Personally I see their removal as vandalism, and I would be grateful if you could intervene to get the unsupported removal of cleanup templates stopped. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Gavin you're saying that the project is getting worked up? I think you have it backwards. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

A positive and constructive frenzy sounds like a good thing, so I'm glad we're on it for a change. BOZ (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think that your previous version was correct, Gavin. New version:"I think the D&D Wikiproject is working itself into a frenzy, but not for positive or constructive reasons." Old version: "I think the D&D Wikiproject is working itself into a frenzy, but for positive or constructive reasons." We are in a frenzy because we are trying to make the coverage of the game better. Also, I highly recommend that we now cease discussion of this matter here, because it is a talk page not affiliated with you, a member of WP:D&D, or a D&D article itself. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I like what he said better the first time as well. I'm sticking with my statement. ;) We were on a roll until Gavin came along with his usual disruption. I agree with Drilnoth anyway; this is not a messageboard. BOZ (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Shadzar

Hi. I just wanted to make sure that you saw new discussion on WT:D&D, where Shadzar has left the WikiProject because of discussion regarding Gavin.collins, although Gavin WAS NOT involved in the discussion itself. I thought you might want to comment. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for removing the canvassing message from my talk page. It's much appreciated. For some reason, I've been hit with more of that lately (which explains the new message on my talk page discouraging it). --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 21:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting rid of the rest of Seeyou's canvassing messages as well unless they've been responded to. It's worth noting Seeyou's under the Pseudoscience restrictions in re Bates method (which is what he's canvassing about). -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

Hello, Jéské Couriano. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the dispute between the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject and Gavin.collins. Thank you. -- BOZ (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Woot! You doublethinker you!

Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith#Quote of the Week Congrats on making quote of the week! [3] Hope you get net access back soon, I am sure it is bugging you to not be able to get online especially during holiday season where the net can often be a good place to hide from the other stresses. Hope [insert your end of year holiday iconic figure here] brings you a new computer and a year worth of internet service! Know anyone on wikipedia good with law that might could help explain something for an article that I am curious about? If so and you have time to tell them, or want to visit yourself, please send someone to Talk:Game System License to help my curiosity and prevent form making mistakes about the law and this strange 4th edition license to make sure the article here on wikipedia doesn't mislead people or accidentally give any legal advice inadventantly by way of misunderstandings of the terms of the license itself being put into the article. Thanks much! shadzar-talk 08:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Shadzar, I don't know anyone whom is good with law on Wikipedia, sorry. If I did, I'd send them your way in a heartbeat. And thank you for your condolences; according to my sources I'll be getting it back w/in the week and I won't have to use this slow wireless card anymore. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 20:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Darwinski

Could you please place a block notice on this user's talk page as other editors are continuing to place warnings despite him being permanently blocked. thanks Michellecrisp (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean the sockpuppet notice on the talk page isn't enough? Generally only blocked users get those... -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 19:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins RFC/U

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed against Gavin.collins. Since you have been involved in the dispute regarding his disruptive edits, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Gavin.collins

Hello. :) Could you please comment here on the latest outbreak of activity from Gavin.collins? Thank you. BOZ (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Link

Try the "live" link at the top of here. May need extra software. Not sure if only UK residents can use that live stream? Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I managed to work it out, Carch, and I can hear the weather report for the UK right now. I had to install RealPlayer, but hey, England sounds too much like the Seattle area. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 07:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Glenn McGee

Thanks for the page protection. Not that I'm complaining (the version you protected it in is one that I favor) but I thought usual practice was to protect the wrong version? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The edits by the anons were whitewashing and disruptive, so I reverted first. If there was a full-blown edit-war going on rather than attempts to stick an air freshener in an old car to try and sell it as new, I'd've protected the wrong version. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

_David^WS _(contribs) 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.

Happy holidays! _David^WS _(contribs) 19:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You are a Train Spotter

make a new year's resolution and try and get laid!! There's a real world out there, stop hiding behind your keyboard and eating junk food!

I know there's a real world out there. It's white and very powdery right now. Besides, the fire still needs to be fed with Spy corpses, and I don't live near a railroad *to* trainspot. :P -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 12:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC Update

Thank you for endorsing one or more summaries in the RFC. Please note that two proposals have been put forward on how we can move on after the RFC: Casliber's proposal and Randomran's proposal. Please take the time to look over these proposals, and consider endorsing one of them, or writing one of your own. Thanks again for your participation! BOZ (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't hold any hope that either will help. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Me either. :) But filing complaints through proper channels at least slows him down and/or pauses him for a bit. Until it flares up again and we need to step it up... BOZ (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Request Notification

Hello, Jéské Couriano! A user you have blocked, Gestapotwodividedbythreesorryit'sabadmovie, has requested to be unblocked, and your username is listed on my notification opt-in page. The unblock request is on his user talk page here. If you no longer want to recieve these notifications, remove your name from my list. If you would like to be notified about future unblock requests from this user, remove this template from your page. Thank you, DavidWSBot (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Seeyou

Just to get the correct meaning, you said: As soon as you've made the An/I post, get out of Dodge or else Seeyou will drag you in. Specifcally, get out of Dodge is what has me confused. Is there a specific reason dodge is capitalized? Is there a reason it is worded the way it is? If you respond here, please post a talkback on my talk page. Thank you for your time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The source of the idiom "Get out of Dodge" is from a Western movie, lest I'm mistaken, where Dodge is a place, not an action. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 06:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Fdguiofdufdugf and User:Hatruthnoble

I don't understand the attitude you three admins are taking at WP:RPP. This is a banned user. It isn't easy to get completely banned from Wikipedia. I simply can't comprehend why you guys are even talking to this person, who is clearly deranged and an abusive sockpupeteer, and banned to boot. Assuming good faith is all well and good and I am all for it to a point, but we are well beyond that point here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I honestly saw no disruption on User talk:Hatruthnoble other than good-faith attempts to get the page speedied as a temporary page (which wouldn't work); he has stopped trying to campaign. I did not deal with the former userpage or the main user page since blocked users cannot edit userpages (save their own Talk page) anyhow.

And allow me to give you some advice: Don't obsess over this. You'll end up like Gp75motorsports with his "Peewee Herman vandal" or myself with JA/G and see every avenue as an attack or sleight. Step back and change your perspective a bit, or else you're going to go down that dark path.-Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• My goal here is to bore this lunatic by giving him nothing to edit. WP:BAN states that any edit by a banned user is unwanted. This guy often seems to be acting in good faith for a few edits, but then he goes nuts again and starts making bad edits. I appreciate your advice, but I'm not taking any of this personally, I just think it is a bad idea to dignify this users activities by taking anything they do seriously. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Boring banned users doesn't work unless you have their IP address and their ISP's phone number. They'll just move on to different areas of the encyclopedia if they want to continue their disruption. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Normally, yes, but this one is obsessed with a small circle of articles on children's films (which I find creepy in the extreme) and never seems to edit elsewhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• And Mmbabies was obsessed with Manic Mansion, until he started posting death threats on celebrities' BLPs. Just because he edits in one place only now does not mean he will continue to do so. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

unprotect page "Kurukshetra University"

Hi!Jéské Couriano.......i wanna talk about my pages those are quickly deleted by you without any reason.....i created a page about "Kurukshetra University" which is completely reasonable........i didn't use any copyright information...........only some information i use from university site to give complete information about this university.......which is not illegal......i am student of this prestigious University & i have all rights to use information from university site.......so please unprotected this page as early as possible......... Mamboitaliana100 (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamboitaliana100 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

We do not have those rights, however. By submtting something on Wikipedia, you signify that you release it under the GNU Free Document License, and as such we cannot accept copyrighted information/words. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. No unprot. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 23:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If you keep re-creating those articles it is extremely likely you will end up banned for rampant copyright violations. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 23:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude

dude, checkuser and other policies are SO fucked up it's so funny. I don't know what all the other guy was on about you and Tony1's page but he is absolutely RIGHT about the checkuser policy.

They're all you, liar. All of them are Comcast IPs, and trolling the relevant policy page does not bring about change, it brings about community bans. I suggest you stop before a complaint is lodged with Comcast and you are forcibly disconnected. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 06:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia vandalism and trolling isn't illegal. And ISPs don't police their users without a court order/threat. No judge or lawyer is going to waste their time on disruptions to a free-to-edit website. I'd like to see this forcible disconnect happen, and the ACLU/1st amendment organizations reactions. 76.28.231.183 (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Harassment *is* against ISPs TOS's, however, and you've been harassing Checkusers. Oh, and bagged this one. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 07:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

By the by, you and your friends might wanna stop using TOR. It only makes blocking IPs for extended lengths all the more reasonable. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 07:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP you just banned is most likely just someone reacting to an admin threatening to have someone "forcibly disconnected" and felt it was a slippery slope erosion to freedom of speech. Comcast is one of the biggest ISPs out there; that ban is absurd. Habanero-tan (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP was blocked for two weeks for block evasion; there's a monthlong on the master IP there, Habanero. Ask Daniel Case (talk · contribs); he's more involved than I am as he was this user's initial target. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 07:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The first poster has a unique posting style; that's not the same person. I don't like your pre-emptive and hair-triggered IP banning sprees I've seen. It's not how things are done on Wikipedia, and I expect others give it a blind eye because of all of the other great work you do here. And I haven't gotten a reply to the thread about it above. Habanero-tan (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Glenn_McGee

Would you kindly reinstate the semi-protect on Glenn_McGee. The same anon has returned to plague the article. Thanks! Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Move and deletion request

Hi Jéské! I have two requests for you. First, could you move Template:Pokemon media to Template:Pokémon? Second, could you delete the superseded Template:Pokémon games and Template:Pokémon films? I suggested it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon#Templates.. two days ago. No one seems to dissagree with it and staka and MelicansMatkin agree with it. Cheers, Face 21:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Wikilayering"

Please read the negative connotations section in WP:WL and keep it in mind in the future. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not warp my words to say that part of the reason I endorsed the closure was wikilawyering. I never mentioned any part of it in my endorsement rationale; your sentence implies that I did. I merely called what you were saying in that statement wikilawyering (and yes, I am aware of the term's connotations, but be aware that I call 'em as I sees 'em). -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 06:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Threshold (Online Game) AfD and Deletion Review

I am completely unfamiliar with a majority of Wikipedia's guidelines regarding sources and policies. Having followed the discussion and found some (potentially) relevant material, I posted it on the User_talk:Cambios/Threshold earlier (prior to creating an account so as to have folks corresponding with completely anonymous parties). The material I found was within a Masters of Science project specifically mentioning the game and using it as an example of current (as of 2004) prominent game within the genre and in the explanation of what a MUD is (the Master's project was on creating a codebase to support a distributed architecture MUD). I have excerpted the mentions of it on that same page. Could you review and ascertain whether this fits the level of requirements that would be necessary for an article on Threshold? A quick read through WP:Notability shows that it is most likely within a gray area due to "significant coverage", but the definition of this is left broad enough to where the mention of only 3 MUDs in the entire paper could be considered significant.

I will be regularly checking both my user talk page and User_talk:Cambios/Threshold.

Thanks Ismarc (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Gimme a sec. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 03:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to look at that for me. And I just noticed I forgot a key word above...I created an account so as to NOT have people corresponding with completely anonymous parties. Ismarc (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Null persp, chummer. Good luck with the Threshold article - you may end up needing it. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in here. I think we'll be okay if people don't just go through and remove our citations based on personal opinion and biases. We've had the time to dig up several new ones now, and Threshold will probably end up being one of the most heavily cited MUDs on Wikipedia. The place where it would probably be most problematic is simply to have it fit the look and feel of Wikipedia, but this time, we'll know to ask for help and who to ask for help. Kallimina (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

These were the issues I'd found with the article when I endorsed the AfD close at the DRV:

• Conflicted editors (Someone who is heavily involved with the subject needs to be *very cautious* when editing about it or not edit it at all)
• Peacockery (Glowing language throughout an article makes the article less neutral. Wikipedia strives to have a neutral point-of-view on all subjects)
• Cruftiness ("cruft" is minutiae useful only to those who are fans, not laypeople. Stuff like the "Legal system" section is what I'm talking about.)
• Advert tone (The article reads a bit like a commercial. Articles need to avoid this tone at all costs (largely because it compromises the neutral point of view).

There's another issue you might want to be careful of:

• The "mine" mindset (No one editor or entity owns a Wikipedia article, and as such editors acting like they own an article is rather disruptive, as it tends to devolve into edit-wars, accusations of bad faith, etc.)

Hope this helps. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 06:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It does, thanks. We've been reading a few other entries to get an idea of how to write one better. It seems like there were multiple COIs and multiple people treating the article like it was theirs. Cambios will not be working on the Threshold one at all anymore, I believe. That's one of the reasons we'll be working on it from my userspace, and we will use the one on his as comparison/reference. Do you see any problem with this? Kallimina (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I can do you one better. Since, when you start working on yours, Cambios' will be dleted as an inappropriate use of userspace (hosting a static article), I can move Cambios' article draft to your userspace, and that will give you the full history of the article (necessary to satisfy the GNU Free Document License, which Wikipedia follows), meaning that you will be able to refer to older versions of the article thru the "History" tab at the top. Is this acceptable, Kalli? -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 07:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ack! I started a copy before reading this. Will his be automatically deleted? If not, can you move it to mine under a different subspace than Threshold since I'm already using that? I would prefer not to have an overwrite since I just finished detailing some goals in the discussion page. (If this is acceptable, please put it under my user page under something other than Threshold. I will leave it up to you.) Please let me know how to proceed, and sorry, I should have checked this before starting something. Kallimina (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I can do it. Are you rewriting from scratch paraphrasing the old article, or working from the article already in existence and expanding? -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 07:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Move is Done; see User:Kallimina/Threshold II. There is a redirect page from the old title to the new, so a search for the old page will lead you to the link right above. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 08:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Jéské! I am rewriting from scratch with some help. We are going to attempt to not use much from the old article at all and use other articles as an example in order to keep with the tone, look, and feel of Wikipedia. (I think this was a major objection to the article.) I think that would probably do better than trying to figure out what to add and remove from the old article. JediMUD was recommended to me as a good sample. Can you confirm this? In addition, I am looking at Armageddon_mud and Dragonlance as well for more of the fiction content. Any other recommendations would be excellent. In addition, where do I go to look for guidelines of pictures allowed to be placed on Wikipedia? Kallimina (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Question Would it be okay to tell others interested in the project about where to go to work on it, or would this be considered posting in collusion? Kallimina (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to do so, Kalli. Don't sweat over it. As for JediMUD, I'd personally say it's a tad crufty myself, but the opening paragraph is rather good. No comment on Dragonlance right offhand (I haven't touched D&D articles for a while, and I especially have not touched DL, sorry), and Armageddon (MUD) looks like a good one to examine for ideas on how to write an article. Other suggestions may come from looking at FA's. Finally, for pictures I recommend you look at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria so as to get a general idea of what will and won't be acceptable. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 18:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Threshold article help

Hello! You offered to help improve the Threshold after the DRV was over. I know it's early, but I wanted to ask a few general questions:

1) Would it be frowned upon if I created a sub in my User:Talk directory in order to start an article from scratch with the help of interested parties? We had thought to do this because the other one is now such a muddled mess with so many reversions things getting thrown out that it's just hard to work from.

2) If it would be acceptable to do so, how would I create the sub directory (I don't think I'm using the right terms.) in order to work in it?

Thank you!

Kallimina (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody will object to you using a subpage of your userspace, but you'll have to do this in a subpage. To make a subpage, type in, on your userpage, [[User:Kallimina/<name of subpage>]], and then click the red link after saving or in the preview. You will immediately be taken to the page editor. Note, however, that Cambios is already doing this at User:Cambios/Threshold. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. It won't come to this, but out of curiosity, what would happen if we had two different versions and both tried to get it re-listed (assuming it's deleted). Would one prevail over the other one? Kallimina (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be better to try and integrate the best parts of each variant and consolidate them into one. One will be easier to work on than two. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 06:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Given Up?

Hi, I guess I'm still not completely familiar with everything on Wikipedia, so I was hoping you could explain why User talk:Given Up is protected? This user's been doing a lot of page moving vandalism, so I felt like I should put a warning on their talk page. Thanks for your help. --Ships at a Distance (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The page is protected because the blocking editor neglected to realize JA/G likes to goatse his own talk page with a massive table, so I'm protecting to prevent him from doing so and locking up peoples' browsers. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 08:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Practicing

I decided it might be smart to practice bettering other articles and such before I concentrated on helping to write Threshold's article. (Just in case the DRV overturns the deletion.) I removed several ELs that seemed to be breaking WP:ELNO and added a citation to the Amigurumi article. I made sure to detail the things I did in the discussion page. Can you double check and see if this is the right way to go about things? Kallimina (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is. (claps) Note that you don't need to discuss every little edit - people will not mind if you copyedit, revert bored schoolchildren still in their phallic stage, or add a legitimate citation. Only if a legit cite gets reverted or a change affects the article in a major way (i.e. substantial sentences are added or removed for any reason other than vandalism) should you plump for the talk page. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 08:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to go look! I've looked at several other things I'd like to try to improve, but some of them look like they need complete rewrites. I'm not quite brave enough to do that yet, so I've been discussing things on the talk page. It seems like some talk pages are just used to discuss things on the subject that may never get in the article. Before I dive in, is that an acceptable way to use the talk pages? Kallimina (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A talk page for an article is intended to discuss possible or already-enacted improvements to the article. Even if the improvements do not get in, the talk page was still used for its intended purpose, so do not worry. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Threshold DRV Issue

I have some concerns about some of the activites that Mendaliv is doing in regards to the DRV. Today, I went to two different user pages following links from other places I frequent and ran into User:Fred_Bauder and User:Blightsoot. Both of these pages have comments from User:Mendaliv regarding their comments/votes on the DRV in which he states his version of what happened and suggesting to the user what to do with his/her votes. In response, User:Blightsoot removed his vote (I have no idea what it was. I'm assuming favorable.) Is this sort of behavior acceptable? I have to say that it's things like this that made the AfD so incredibly difficult and painful and explains a lot of Cambios's frustration and anger over it all. Kallimina (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with the statement on User talk:Fred Bauder, as Mendaliv's calling out improprieties in his AfD argument and asking him to redact it to remove the advert tone. Were he telling them to do something else, like change their !vote to his preferred rationale, he would be canvassing. I'm not going to deal with Blightsoot as you seem to have worked it out there, good job. v^_^v -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I might just be hypersensitive. Would you be willing to mediate between me and User:Mendaliv to try to basically "calm the waters"? Or should I just leave it alone? Kallimina (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In some cases - this one included - it's sometimes better to step away and have some tea. ;) -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 00:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I will leave it alone. Funny you said that, though. I had a cup of jasmine tea for dinner. Kallimina (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

UGH! Threshold again

Threshold's article got recreated by someone else entirely while the DRV is still going on. Is this allowed? How should I proceed? I'm thinking I should just back off and let other people deal wit this entirely, but the same people who proposed the AfD before seem to be attacking it again, dismissing articles that aren't even supposed to be used to establish notability but are just for verifiability and resources in general. I really have no idea how to proceed, and I think the article will get buried in the same manner as it did before. Should I just give it up as a total lost cause? I'm not even sure what will happen if the DRV overturns the deletion. What will happen if it gets hit with an AfD again right away? Kallimina (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't give it up as a lost cause - just keep working on what you have in your userspace, because if it ends Endorse Deletion or No Consensus [to Overturn] it'll be deleted again, and it looks likely it'll be a No Consensus. And even if it does get hit with another AfD, current community standards are that a month must pass between each AfD, so any rapidfire AfD will be closed as premature. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 00:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's up for AfD already. Will this count against the article if it goes up again? *sigh* I don't know what to do. With the input I've received on the talk page, I don't understand how to establish notability at all. It seems different for other articles. :( Kallimina (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I was at a convention when this article was recreated by an involved administrator. That's unacceptable. It also appears that a poor version of the article was implemented, with unverifiable or unreliable sources to boot. seicer | talk | contribs 01:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. I waited for a while to find out how to proceed, but then someone said the DRV was over and we could start editing. The sources are completely verifiable, though, by anyone who attempts to verify them. They may not establish notability, but they are easily verified. Kallimina (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you still have the draft article in your userspace, Kalli? -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is in discussion at the article talk page. If it is in draft, and is in better standing than what is up currently, it stands to say that it can be replaced in whole or part, with a version that has reliable and verifiable sources. seicer | talk | contribs 04:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Seicer, you're psychic - I was gonna ask that if she answered "yes". -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I do, but it's barely been worked on! I was piddling around in amigurumi and Thailand articles in order to try to learn better how to do things. I was going to follow what you said and give it a month before we relisted which would have given me time to get all the sources that are in print and the harder to find ones. I didn't expect it to be relisted SO SOON, so I just messed around on Wikipedia to learn. :( Kallimina (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Where's the AfD? I wasn't on my comp when it happened, so I'll see what's the dealie here. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 10:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_(online_game). This is the AfD, I think. I'm taking a little break. My edits seem to be hurting the Threshold article since I'm being accused of posting lies. I obviously don't know what I am doing or how to write for Wikipedia. Kallimina (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the *old* AfD that sparked the DRV. Is there anything more recent? -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

"I expect determination from those who are after brownie points or mindless following the shepherd from whose who revere JA/G." - I'm not familiar with JA/G - could you clue me in on what that stands for please. Thanks. Giggy (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

JA/G. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Giggy (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugh

Looks like they're going after you since they can't get at 4chan. Anything I can do to help? MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, watch my talk page while I go on RC patrol, please. I need a few eyes; just don't prot the page, please. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries there; I'm not a sysop, so I wouldn't be able to even if the inclination struck. I wonder why it's just you they're targeting, since I was involved in a lot of "mudkipz" revisions a short time back too. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I called 4channers "castrated rams" (i.e. wethers) since they tend to do JarlaxleArtemis's harassment work for him on his say-so. Notice that all the 4chan attacks have been against addies who've put Jarlaxle to bed; this one's the largest I've seen in a while. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that you could tell for the massive amount it's failing; any edit they've done has been reverted in a matter of seconds. HalfShadow 04:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is; I can't seem to get in a revision anywhere. All these pages are well looked after, I'm quite impressed with the speed it's all happening at. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's because we saw this coming. HalfShadow 04:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The disruption would probably be worse if my talk page were to be protted - they'd move on to the other admins camping 4chan. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's ok

Thanks, I know that but I'm using Huggle which reverts the edits and warns the user with only one button press, so it's not like it's taking me any extra effort to warn them. If they get enough warnings then admin will block the IP. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 05:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

They are to be blocked on-sight as JarlaxleArtemis meatpuppets, which I am doing as they pop up. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

/ b / post

Someone apparently posted this on /b/:

"Please go to (url here) and replace all the text in the text box with "#REDIRECT User talk:Jeremyharmon" After that, click "Save page.""

I can't put the url because it's apparently blacklisted as spam. Let me know if you'd like me to email it to you. Thought you'd like to know why people are vandalizing your page - I don't know how they got past the edit protection... Graymornings_(talk) 06:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My talk page is only move-protted, not semi'd. Thank you, but unless you can tie it to someone - as it's harassment of that user as well (as a false sockpuppet accusation) - there's nothing we can do. Although I will point out this is standard JarlaxleArtemis wether behavior. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 06:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)