User talk:MKoltnow

Archives

Interesting comment and question by you here[edit]

I noted your interesting comment and implicit question. I was going to try and leave this page alone but your comment was positive and I thought it deserved a follow up. Take care.--VS ^talk 04:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look. I always think of myself as smarter than your average bear, but I can't figure that one out. Either it's serious, in which case I simply cannot follow the assertion that social engineering is malware spam, followed by what appears to be a diatribe invoking several wp-abbreviated (but not piped) policies which seem, at best, loosely connected to the original assertion. Or it's a joke, in which case, it's executed poorly, as the early paragraphs contain the complex humour, but they're perplexingly followed by serious policy discussion. I'm concerned by the creator's awarding of barnstars to loosely affiliated admins effectively congratulating himself on his essay. Problem for me is, I don't know where to take it from here. I'm sure that the article belongs in the bin. Whether the creator's judgement and poor behaviour (things such as mis-indents which have the effect of making it look as if self-paid compliments came from others) is subject to sanction remains to be seen. I won't rush to MfD, but I won't drag my feet either. MKolt now 05:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I will be watching closely as well. You should feel free to contact me at any time to discuss.--VS ^talk 08:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be watching but if not then here for further returns on this joke page.--VS ^talk 10:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments[edit]

Thank you for your observations. The troll Internet I agree with you and other editors and will not add the statment again. Cheers, Igor Berger (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent synopsis of the situation concerning Igorberger and you receive my commendation for taking the time to try and present him with an overview of his problematic editing. I very much hope that he adjusts considerably as a result. Best wishes.--VS ^talk 03:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, well synopsis may not be quite the right word. Tome, monograph, or long-winded diatribe may be more accurate. I appreciate your compliment, but I fear I failed the brevity test. MKolt now 03:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way - I am 194cm - tall heh?, but not when I stand next to some of my basket-balling colleagues who are well over 200cm. Yours was a "synopsis" of great clarity when I look at the voluminous material that you were trying to incorporate. I also note that his return comment in another thread (lower on this page) still leaves me with much concern but I keep my fingers crossed. Cheers!--VS ^talk 03:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help[edit]

Need help with an editor User:Maglev_Power He is removing the word Totalitarianism from many articles. here Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this issue is being dealt with on his talk page pretty effectively. MKolt now 01:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you may understand why I may look out of place. I am a security analyst, so I deal with Spam, Malware, and vandals. Cheers, Igor Berger (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help, please.[edit]

I just saw this and I have to say: If you really have that much patience, there's another user I'd appreciate it if you could speak to.

BigK HeX (talk · contribs). So far, he's been pretty much a single-purpose account, to push the conspiracy theory, "The Federal Reserve is secretly bankrupting America," on Monetary policy of the USA. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zen, I appreciate the offer. I don't know whether I am qualified to be a dispute resolution source. Something you might want to look into is that the section you've referred to in Igor's talk page is non-existent, because it was archived. If you meant to link to my comments there, you have inadvertently reopened a can of worms (see Igor's comment below and this). You might need to do a little housekeeping to clean that up. It's kind of you to ask, and I will have a look, but I suspect the process (AN/I and dispute resolution) will work in this case. MKolt now 16:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an edit blanked out in this here. So you better look at it carefully. Only sysop can blank out an edit. Igor Berger (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think I might have copied it from somewhere else, where it was also piped? I don't remember. In any case, I wasn't talking about the "Roughe Criminal Admin" section, whatever that was. I was talking about the "Concerns about your edit style." If you're really going to put that much effort into doing something like that, I figured you could be helpful.

So far, the user has already been getting on the nerves of the people at WP:ANI and they're still pushing for contentious edits on Monetary policy of the USA. [1] ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment. I don't really have the time right now to get involved in that matter. MKolt now 07:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wednesday 13[edit]

I changed my mind about deleting the article and restored it, hence no salting. The user hadn't been blocked before; we'll see if he continues this when he comes back. Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I probably got confused. In any case so far he's only created that one once (I think). Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help[edit]

Hi there, I'm completely new to creating and editing pages on Wikipedia and an entry that i have recently added for Octagon UK has been deleted. You left a comment on my disscusion page saying that you might be able to offer help as to why this has happened. I would just like to know what is so fundamentally different to the Octagon UK page that has been deleted and the "IMG" and "Weber Shandwick" pages that are still up? Also is there any way of retrieving the page or has all the information and lay out been lost? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

--S0504280 (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this?[edit]

You might like to comment - I have linked to your previous assistance here--VS ^talk 23:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I was (practically) on a two-month wikibreak, because of travel and work. I am pleased that we can put this unpleasantness behind us, I assume, once and for all. Igor will never change. The continual second and third chances granted by senior editors who should have known better needed to end. Every time a discussion came up about his edits, someone else thought we were overreacting. It is scary how much some editors allowed themselves to be played by Igor, the editor with the ever-changing story, the editor with every excuse as to why his bad behaviour was not so bad. He even managed to get in a plug (23:22UTC 16April08) for his deleted humour essay on social engineering. Honestly, it was part of the reason for my wiki-break. I think a lot of us can get back to work now. MKolt now 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there - you just popped up on my watchlist. Meant to say some time ago welcome back and yes things have been quieter although I put my hand up to co-nom an RfA and that has kept me busy - parry - thrust - over the past few days. Anyway trust you are well. Cheers.--VS ^talk 11:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help[edit]

Hi there,

I had a page deleted a while back now and was just wondering if there is any way of retrieving the page or has all the information and lay out been lost?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. --S0504280 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penticton?[edit]

Will I be seeing you in Penticton? Let me know, and we'll find a time to have a drink and catch up. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought everyone already knew I was organising the Okanagan Wiki Meetup there. MKolt now 19:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, no, not at all. Well, that's all good too.. I attended the Vancouver one recently and it was fun swapping war stories <grin>. If there's details I should know about, you could e-mail them to me if it's not too much trouble. See you next week! Accounting4Taste:talk 19:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thnkas for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I know it was a couple of days ago but I haven't checked it for a while. If you reply could you do so on my talk page? Thanks again. BigHairRef | Talk 07:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medal of honour vanguard[edit]

I saw you redirected it. I'm not sure that it would be a plausible search term, however. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then if you want, you can put it up for deletion. I just think the right way to welcome a new user is not to mark his first post as vandalism but to point him in the right direction. MKolt now 21:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Franklin Morris[edit]

Hi. I see you've tagged the aforementioned article with {{db-g5}}. Would you mind telling me which banned user has violated their ban by creating this article, and which ban they violated? Thanks, A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I merely accepted the statement of the author that he was a banned user. It seems odd anyone would claim to be banned on their userpage if they were not, in fact, banned. MKolt now 20:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about an another website. General Legume (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you've never edited Wikipedia under another username? (Also, would you mind responding to my question – it's about the article's content, not this – at Talk:Howard Franklin Morris? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so it appears he wasn't banned, just a sockpuppet of a blocked user. I have to admit, though, that this is why I basically stopped editing Wikipedia. We bend over backwards to assume good faith even when it seems blatantly obvious that we are dealing with a bad-faith editor. MKolt now 21:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; that's the worst kind of vandalism - that sort of plausible nonsense that has me digging through Herringshaw's Encyclopedia of American Biography of the Nineteenth Century. He's actually pretty prolific - I'm digging through some other accounts and will tag them asap. Kuru (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bigjohnwood[edit]

You are too slow ! Just before you left the message I'd checked his deleted contributions, came to a negative conclusion, and deleted the article. G3 (Vandalism) perhaps would have been a more appropriate tag though. Just going to look at everthing he's done now Peripitus (Talk) 06:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reconsidering your decision. I will consider G3 for posts such as that one in the future. MKolt now 06:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I blocked that account as a vandalism only one now. Keep up the good new page patrolling - Peripitus (Talk) 11:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops[edit]

Thanks for adding my sig here! Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 21:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I knew you meant to sign it. MKolt now 21:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How's it going?[edit]

Our paths crossed at User talk:Kissykissy and I realized I haven't heard from you in a while; I haven't been competing much in the last year but just won a tournament last weekend. How's everything with you? Accounting4Taste:talk 21:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Things are going well. I have decided to edit again for the time being. MKolt now 23:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail me and we'll catch up! Accounting4Taste:talk 00:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UAA report[edit]

Heya, I wanted to let you know that one of your reports was removed. See this diff for the reasoning. Regardless, your work is appreciated! Thanks, NJA (t/c) 09:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I find quite the opposite. Saying my work is appreciated while working at cross-purposes to it does not make new page/new user patrolling much fun. Without resorting to ad hominem, I think your work at WP:UAA is of poor quality. In three different recent cases, you have failed to act on obvious violations, which to me appears to be avoiding biting the newbies at the expense of insulting the experienced editors. We can only assume so much good faith. Once the spammer makes it clear that he is there to advertise his business, or the teenager makes it clear he's here to post a page about himself or his buddies, we can safely say that a username that looks like a violation is a violation.

Case one, you sent Islainvest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to the holding pen. This is an editor who has created an article in his userspace with a link to his username.com. This is by definition a username violation.

Case two, you sent Sheardowndesign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to the holding pen. This is an editor whose deleted contributions included a non-notable probable autobiography which included reference to the company Sheardown Design in the text. Even if we ignore the promotional nature of the username, it clearly violates the policy as it refers to a company rather than a person.

Case three, above, you actually denied Imabalzac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on the grounds that the user really could be named Ima Balzac. How much good faith do you honestly think we can assume? This was a standard younger editor who created an article about someone non-notable and had it deleted. His username reads out loud as "I'm a ball sac." It's preposterous to assume that's the user's name. And you know what, if you block someone indefinitely and then you overturn it later, it shows that you're a serious admin who is not afraid to admit you've made a mistake.

Spammers often choose corporate usernames, and vandals often choose offensive usernames. The former, when they find out that their autobiographical, non-notable, and conflict of interest edits are not welcome, either go away or begin editing constructively. Either of which is fine with me. The latter tend to vandalise articles under as many usernames and IPs as they can until they get bored and go away. Yes, maybe a few become useful contributors, but most don't. And we let their offensive usernames and vandlism end up in edit histories by not acting as soon as we see the combination of username violation and vandalism.

Yes, I see that in all three of these cases, the editors have not edited since initial contact. So, to some extent, this is all moot. As far as I'm concerned, you've repeatedly ignored the judgement of an experienced editor contrary to policy. And that is an insult I will not tolerate. I'm heading back on Wikibreak now, although I will check this page to see whether there is a reply. MKolt now 22:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]