User talk:Lewisskinner/Archive May 2007

For individual discussions, please see my Archive index

Neil[edit]

Hi, Lewis. Just a little tweak to your recent edits to keep them consistent in style - hope you don't mind. Good addition of content, I thought. Best wishes. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 12:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks ok. Is it worth linking the dates to 2002-03 in english football (and link the other dates as well)? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 13:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there is no over-linking i.e. one example per article preferably, but certainly no more than one example per definable section. Some "quality article" editors (their words) have actually been de-activating date links in articles due to some controversial discussions within their circle (my archived talk page shows some of the difference of opinion I had with one editor over this). Wikipedia Manual of Style, however, says moderate linking of dates, not over-used, is acceptable in articles, especially those multiple combinations designed to display the date according to user preferences set from your 'Special' top menu i.e. 22 April 2007 may display differently - for instance April 22 2007, 22 April 2007 or even 2007 April 22, according to how you set up through the browser. By the way, invitation to Project graciously accepted; although not a fan of the Blades, I shall add their article to my watchlist forthwith. Best wishes. Lee. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds)

Co-ordinates[edit]

Hi - I'm using our list of United Kingdom locations. These generally seem pretty accurate, although Totley and Woodseats were incorrect. Have you spotted any other errors? As they are districts, rather than monuments, I don't want to get bogged down with overprecisions; 2 or at most 3 d.p. seems appropriate. Warofdreams talk 18:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Chapeltown was also slightly away from the centre (as I know it anyway). It's fine, it's just as easy to copy from the address bar of google or multimap. No worries! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 18:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Coldspot (Wi-Fi)[edit]

An editor has nominated Coldspot (Wi-Fi), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coldspot (Wi-Fi) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should not the editor him or herself have informed me they were AfDing an article I worked on? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayden54Bot is a bot account and so unlikely to reply. There is no requirement to do notify users of AfDs but WP:AFD says, "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Regards. Adambro 17:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realise it's a bot - just making the point. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maps[edit]

Sorry I've not got back to you earlier - I've been a little tied up in real life! I still intend to create the Greater Sheffield map. I also agree with you that we should be using legally defined divisions of land within infoboxes - this is an encyclopedia after all is it not (though I do wonder!). Thanks for your contact and patience. Jhamez84 11:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Regarding User:Pigsonthewing[edit]

Hi Lewis. Andy has on a number of occasions expressed his opinion that some of your comments in discussions have been uncivil. I'd ask that you carefully consider any comments you make to ensure Andy doesn't misunderstand them in this way. I've also asked him to try to concentrate on the issue of discussion rather than highlighting any discomfort he has with your comments. See User talk:Pigsonthewing#Regarding User:Lewisskinner. Regards. Adambro 12:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no "misunderstanding". Andy Mabbett 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adambro. I'm sure that if Pigsonthewing has a problem with my edits or discussion comments, he can say so himself on my talk page. He has not done so, so I am not sure to what you are refering. Anyway, as you can see from his above comment, this user appears to have a personal problem with me (see also [1]), and so I doubt whether it would be productive for him to comment anyway. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 14:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your answer, Adambro. Andy Mabbett 16:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested, Instead of trying to resolve the issue or posting a message on my talk page outlining the alleged incivility, Pigsonthewing would appear to be directing you (a third party) to an edit I made clarifying my position in an AfD debate. May I ask why? Pigsonthewing has never come to my talk page to explain the alleged incivility, so how can we come to a solution? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also note unhelpful blanking of a polite request,[2] rather than addressing the issue or apologising. I realise that his talk page is his own, but still. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 23:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield United F.C. chants[edit]

Hi Lewis, you may like to know that I've nominated Sheffield United F.C. chants for deletion. If you have anything to say on the matter, please join in the AfD discussion. Regards, RFBailey 09:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest mate, I more than half expected that someone would! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 14:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I take your comments on the AfD as an author request for deletion as per CSD G7, if so I'll delete the page and close the AfD. Would you wish to retain any of the text? Regards. Adambro 14:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note you've copied some of it to your userspace so I've deleted the article per your comments and closed the AfD. Adambro 16:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser[edit]

(initially on user talk:David Gerard, copied here for my own records).

Hi there. I note you were involved in this checkuser. I'm am not sure what policy is on checkuser, but I do feel it would have been nice if someone had told me about it. All I am able to say on the matter is that I have no idea where those edits came from. I live in a shared house, as does my girlfriend Jen Kettle (talk · contribs), though we do not live together. We also both use Orange, so I guess could have similar IPs. We both also leave our Wi-Fi open for our Neighbours, with whom we get on very well, and have often discussed wiki and the sometimes hilarious arguements I seem to get into, particularly with the user who requested the check. I do not know if those edits were from housemates, neighbours or someone else, but I know I did not make them, and I'm sure Jen didn't either. I enjoy editing wiki, and did not come here to be consistently dragged into daffed debates/arguements. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 09:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then, looking at the edit pattern, I find the confluence of interests and writing style remarkable and likely to break new ground in the study of coincidence. Or perhaps not - David Gerard 10:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Jen Kettle connected with the Film Unit in Sheffield. I was surprised at the wide range of IP addresses given - is it the case that LJS has logged on (as LJS) from all these IP addresses at some point? -- roundhouse 12:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is a Jen Kettle in Sheffield, there doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt Lewis when he says this but as David has noted the pattern of edits is somewhat suspicious. Whilst this may be others who have been made aware of conflicts Lewis has found himself in, it does seem slightly unlikely that the edits would be made without Lewis knowing. For example, the prodding of a userpage doesn't seem like something someone with little knowledge of Wikipedia would do. I'd draw his attention to the Meatpuppets section of the sock puppetry policy which is certainly relevant. Adambro 13:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as confirmed in the RFCU. On balance, my considered opinion as an experienced checkuser remains to suggest to Lewis "come off it" and to point out that Wikipedia is incredibly tolerant, but we're not actually stupid - David Gerard 13:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict). Agreed, but a sockpuppet and meatpuppet are not the same, so it is wrong to try and convinct me of the former, in addition to the suggestion that Jen is merely an extension of me (she'd have a right go at you about that! :) ). The wireless systems each of us have is set up as a network, with my (or my girlfriend's) PC set up as server/master, and all others connecting via it, so that it cannot be used without our knowing, and the master has to dial up to the router every time it is turned on. This would likely explain the many IPs alluded to by Pc1dmn, and also the timings of the attacks. I do not make a habit of making personal attacks on users (although heated debates have been known), and I bear no grudge against the user - indeed, on two occasions, I actually reverted the vandalism![3][4]

Incidentally, I am currently on a university computer, so I assume my IP will be different again. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 13:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you lock down your wifi, then. Any WEP is provably crackable in two minutes or less; WPA is the only sensible option - David Gerard 20:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, from tomorrow, I guess I'll have to close it. I don't want to, but I suppose it's the only way. I do not need this. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 01:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotspot[edit]

Hi,

A quotation from you: "There were no socks - only my girlfriend posting from the same IP, with the same opinion (no canvassing). I do not believe that there is a rule that two related wikipedians are not allowed the same interests are there?"

Unless your girlfriend discloses her relationship to you, she is in violation of (at least the spirit of) Wikipedia's conflict of interest and canvassing guidelines. Albeit out of ignorance, she does become a meatpuppet (unfortunately, this word is a bit vulgar-sounding; I assure you, I mean it strictly as a technical term.) The manner of your exchange with David Gerard above suggests, to my reading anyway, that you were "playing coy" a little bit: I think it is fair to say that you were aware of the potential for the appearence of deception in your girlfriend's anonymous comments. Everybody has relatives, friends, and acquaintences: it is not helpful to have their comments solicited for discussions (that's "vote-stacking"); on the off-chance your girlfriend found the discussion out of coincidence (you probably, after all, have similar likes), she should have been thoughtful enough to mention her connection to you. That failure rightly caused her comment to be disqualified. I'm sorry, but the reasons for the disallowance of suck/meatpuppetry are compelling and uncompromising.

By the terms of its former article, "coldspot" is a neologism. Whether the word (as an obvious opposite) deserves discussion in the article "hotspot" is a matter of editorial discretion at that article, subject to talk page discussion at that article. I decline to undelete the history of the article "coldspot" for incorporation therein, because I believe new, sourced, text additions would be a better alternative. If you take the matter to the "hotspot" article talk page, you may find editors willing to help there. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hicks Building[edit]

Whilst I'm getting very tired of the whole coordinates issue which seems to be spread across numerous articles, I must comment on your edit summary here, in particular that you say "Please leave editing of building's article o those wjo use the building". Regardless of my opinion on the coordinates issue, and it is turning into annoyance with the whole thing, your suggestion that only people use the building should have a say in how the coordinates are presented seems astonishing. I note that as I write this, Pigsonthewing has highlighted this same issue. I fail to understand in this and the other circumstances, how a knowledge of the subject should impact on how the coordinates are presented.

On a slightly different note, I'm slightly sceptical about whether the building is notable enough to warrant an article when looking at the Notability criteria. Adambro 18:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing is known for moving into areas where he has no expertise, and adding multiple instances of information/suggesting merges etc which make no sense. It is an agenda on his part, and I for one am absolutely sick of it. Off the top of my head, I can think of his suggestion to merge two opera articles (Comic opera and Opéra comique), without reading them first, and then being very hostile to the editors who disagreed, indeed, he seems to have long-standing distain towards members of wikiprojects opera and composers, seemingly believing that his membership of WP:Bio trumps all else. On these issues specifically, a consensus was formed on Tinsley Viaduct not to have 6 coordinates, so he then added him in the title bar and the infobox. These were removed, and a new consensus formed, so he went and added this to Sheffield Town Hall, and others. If you need more examples, please look at items such as this, and the frequent incidents of Pigsonthewing throwing his toys out of the Pram on AN/I. Most recently here, where he was told that:

"Step one in dispute resolution is to talk to the other parties involved. I couldn't find where you've done that yet, so I'd suggest you start there.".

There was also this comment:

"there seems to be some difficulty between you and this user, or at least there was a month ago. However, this is--as the header explains--not the Wikipedia Complaints Department. If you are actually offended by this user's page (rather than sustaining or inflaming some running foofaraw) then please proceed through the steps of dispute resolution"

It seems clear to me from this that he is a repeat offender of wasting admins time on AN/I (indeed, he has previously reported me for my /Archive of disputes, a page which I suggest you look at to see just how incivil he has been to me).

Also, may I ask how do comments such as this from him can help anyone? I am trying to get both sides to engage in a discussion, (and I gave a little concession), and he is assuming I'm already "against" him and calling me a child (and in a very condescending manner) and failing to admit any fault on his part. This is the behaviour of a coward and a bully. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 22:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(also, he would appear to be a stalker. The Hicks article stood as it was, untouched, for 11 weeks. As soon as I edit it, he crops up to plaster his little mark over it. Likewise Coldspot (Wi-Fi) which I created and he AfD'd, Tinsley Viaduct and many others, and only because I had the cheek to try to delete some West Midlands tram stop articles! If he were doing to me in real life what he is on wiki, he'd be in a police cell by now. He has already murdered another wikiuser - he should be removed from wiki for life. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 22:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you for 48 hrs for incivility for the above. Please see: WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Also, given the Sockpuppet activity you're doing, WP:SOCK. Continuation of this behavior is unacceptable. Please calm down and edit in a constructive manner.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Georgewilliamherbert 23:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lewisskinner (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I assume you are talking about the latter of the two comments. Well, stalking true - he never appeared on Sheffield-related articles until after the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Paul's tram stop (3rd nomination). This is a fact. I was falsely accused by Pigsonthewing of vote tampering here (see also [2]. Again, Hicks Building was only edited by Pigsonthewing when he noticed it (maybe watching my contribs?). Ditto Coldspot (Wi-Fi), where he engaged in incivility on the discussion, and also the talk:Tinsley Viaduct is full of uncivil edits from Pigsonthewing. When these occur, I usually bring them up on his talk page (as article talk space is not the correct place for this) and he almost invariably deletes my comment. If indeed, it IS stalking, then it follows, does it not, that he'd be in custody now? And the wiki murder was a quote, from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence#My Worst Fear, Realized - "...bringing me to believe that Andy's actions regarding Leonig are very similiar to the Wikipedia version of Murder". As for sockpuppetry, a) it was meatpuppetry (VERY different, as I'm sure you are aware) and b) I have explained and taken steps to prevent the like from happening again. As far as I am aware, it has not, so it is false to block me ten days later, when no action was taken at the time. Also, why 48 hours for a first block? I hope you will see fit to unblock me

Decline reason:

I have no looked into the other reasons why you are blocked, but the sockppuppetry alone is well worth 48 hrs. In future I hope you will play it straight or you might find yourself block again. — Viridae ^Talk 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi Viridae. The sockpuppetry (I assume this is regarding the vandalism of Pigsonthewing's page) was not, in fact, sockpuppetry. It was a neighbour (and supposed friend) mis-using my internet connection, as explained. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 00:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, the attacks by sockpuppets stopped over a week ago after I took the actions I said I would, and the offence was not deemed necessary of blocking at the time. So why is admin1 blocking me for offence A, and then admn2 refusing my appeal on grounds of offence B, which has already been dealt with by admin3? It doesn't make sense! I still stand by my unblock request. I have never been blocked and am very proud of the fact, and don't intend to have this black mark on my record now, especially for comments on my own talk page! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 03:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, [5] - another example of Pigsonthewing wasting admins time at AN/I, as I have suggested. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 22:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And can I also ask why the reason given for blocking is "Attempting to harass other users"? The comments were made on my own talkpage. How is that harassment?! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 23:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The murder comment was inappropriate, uncivil, and doesn't belong anywhere in Wikipedia. I am not going to stop another admin from unblocking if they feel like it, but you need to not do that again. Georgewilliamherbert 23:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, it was a quote - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence#My Worst Fear, Realized - "...bringing me to believe that Andy's actions regarding Leonig are very similiar to the Wikipedia version of Murder".

The same user stated "Almost since I met Andy, I said that every day, every minute, even every second he is allowed to go unchecked on Wikipedia is a ticking time bomb that will go off in the face of a user."

"Shame is I'd love to add to the North Worcestershire and UK Transport history articles - but many of the interesting articles are on his watch list and he'd soon un-cover me, like he's uncovered other user's aliases. Funny thing is this all started because he thinks my writing style is too florid!!!! Hardly crime of the century! This man is a socio-path!!" - Quote from User:Leonig Mig.

This user as stated has form, and has scared one user away. In the words of one user (sadly unsigned comment) he is a "ticking time bomb" and has committed "The wikipedia version of murder". Please do not lambast me for quoting (which I have attributed twice. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 00:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to attribute you quotes (though your original PA was not a quote), which were lies and personal attacks made by User:Karmafist; clearly an esteemed Wikipedia contributor. Oh, hang on... Andy Mabbett 10:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The original alleged PA was an analogy Pigsonthewing, based on a quote from another wikiuser. Their standing within the community is not the issue here - my allegation of your stalking and disagreement of your general behaviour is, and this quote shows you've a history of disruptive edits and strong personal disagreements with users stretching back over 18 momths. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 14:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"he never appeared on Sheffield-related articles until after the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Paul's tram stop (3rd nomination). This is a fact" - Like other allegations you make against me, it is a lie. Andy Mabbett 10:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so you found one instance of your visiting Sheffield before I had the damned cheek to say I thought individual tram-stop articles were superfluous (well, we knew you were a fan of superfluous information didn't we?) Well done anyway though, for finding that! And, um, I know I asked you to raise any issues you have with me on my talk page (as you have almost exclsively failed to do Pigsonthewing), but if you are seeking me out to insult me, I'd rather you didn't bother if that's OK. Have a nice day anyway. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 21:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cease making false accusations and personal attacks. My name remains, Andy Mabbett 23:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no attack. It is you who is making false accusations. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 23:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP sockpuppeting on WP:ANI[edit]

Lewis, it is not credible for you to expect that an IP address in a block from which you have sockpuppeted extensively in the past to come to ANI in a dispute you're involved in and edit like that and for us not to conclude that it's you. Knock it off. You're violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Georgewilliamherbert 18:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I see no personal attack in the comment to which I assume you are referring (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Accusation_of_murder), so how I can be violating those pages you've thrown at me, I do not know! It looks to me like a list of disputes Pigsonthewing has been involved in. Secondly, it was not me (and I'd challenge you to prove otherwise). The user in question would appear to be an ornithologist from Mansfield (see their contribs). Simply because it is from a block which I use means nothing. As I have previously stated, other users used to use my internet connection! Please stop invading my talk page with false allegations. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 02:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Registered Historic Places in Coconino County, Arizona[edit]

Hi, I might be going out of process, and if so I apologize. However, I think that it was a mistake for this list to be deleted. I am willing to take it to AfD or Deletion Review to argue my case. It seems to me that AfD is the most straight forward place to do this, but if you insist we can go to deletion review. Dsmdgold 03:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD had been closed and I have started a discussion at deletion Review. Please comment there. Dsmdgold 04:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. I PRODed the article on on May 11th, and it was deleted on May 17th. You, a contributor to the article and an admin, then abused your admin powers to undelete it, and then sent it to AfD. This AfD lasted precisely 7 hours and 25 minutes, before being closed and meanwhile, the article was sent to DRV, which itself lasted around 3 and a half hours, before this was also closed (funnily enough, belfre the AfD was closed). The whole process started at 3:11, and ended at 10:36 - leaving me no time to get my opinion in. The only reason it was reinstated at DRV was because you said you contested the PROD 3 days retrospectively - you did not give any substantial reasons why it should be reinstated. This is a total abuse of admin powers! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 13:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PROD deletion is only for uncontroversial deletions. If anyone, admin or not contests it, it is no longer considered uncontroversial. This can be done even after the article has been deleted. (see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Contesting after deletion). For the record I reinstated this article and started the AfD. When some other users objected to this process, I deleted the article and took it to DRV. I did not close either the AfD or the DRV, or re-reinstate the article, that was done by pgk, an admin whith whom I have not interacted before this. In short I do not believe that I have abused my admin powers. If you believe otherwise, you ar free to follow the apropriate complaint procedures. If you believe that this article should be deleted you are still free to start a new AfD for it. Before you do though, you might read WP:LIST. One of the purpose of lists on Wikipedia is for development. That is, list of items that are encyclopedic but do not yet have articles are used to help spur the creation of those articles. This list clearly fits this description. Dsmdgold 18:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]