Misplaced Pages

69.231.194.119

I noticed that you have blocked this user in the past, however he/she is up to old tricks again. Much obliged if you could block again. Sfacets 04:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hipi Zhdripi

Thanks for semi protecting the Serbia and Montenegro article. I would appreciate any suggestions from you as an admin on what is the best action to take against User:Hipi Zhdripi. I know he is behind the IP addresses involved in the last actions for which I requested the Semi-protection. I have marked these IPs as suspected sockpuppets. He has also admitted it was Hipi Zhdripi himself in a few of the edit summaries and previously here. This certainly make him go over the 3RR limit repeatedly. The fact that he got blocked for this before seems to clarify that he is fully aware of the rule. Shall I list him in the 3RR noticeboard as User:Hipi Zhdripi or ask for a CheckUser? --Asterion 21:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

An anon admitting to be HZ isn't direct evidence -could be malice by an opponent, of course. Also blocking 172.some anons is problematic due to their being AOL proxies. Probably worth listing for checkuser, since its led to a page sprotect. Otherwise, make up a sub-page in your space (say) (or in HZ's?) listing anon's you think are him, and why; so you can refer to it in future and not lose track William M. Connolley 21:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do this tomorrow. Cheers, --Asterion 22:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bill

Yes, your right, I went overboard. Haven't been about for awhile, guess I have to stay away for a bit longer. After almost a year of fighting with James I'm no longer rational in my dealings with him. Thanks for warring me. --DV8 2XL 22:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just do something else for a bit... William M. Connolley 09:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

2nd Email

Just letting you know I sent you a second email. It's not urgent, but I'd appreciate your reply.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Answered. Hope thats OK William M. Connolley 09:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

Hi William, I noticed you went through the reports at WP:AN/3RR, but you seemed to miss mine, that of User:Constantzeanu. Just wanted to inform you. —Khoikhoi 23:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

N has done this William M. Connolley 09:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Skinmeister

Thanks. Yeah I unblocked it because I didn't think it was enough to warrant a block. I didn't even see the 3RR vio. Good call. --Woohookitty 09:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty clear cut. 5 reverts in about 12 hours. --Woohookitty 11:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But on the other side CD has 4 reverts too, so I've split 24h between them as a compromise William M. Connolley 11:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I know I deserved it, so thanks for treating me fairly with that ban. Skinmeister 23:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

3rr of those IP's

Thanks for addressing that so quickly. Could you revert their most recent revert (it's not verified). I don't want them to think I'm the only one who will revert their unsourced additions.--Urthogie 20:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I won't. Its not one of my interests; I have no idea who is right! William M. Connolley 20:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I was about to tell you there was no need anymore. What I did is I edited the page with comments so even a blind man could understand how to source the statements. It's all good, thanks for helping make the project better by watching 3RR. Peace, --Urthogie 20:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Block for violation of 3RR on List of shock sites

Sir, I was only reverting Skinmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s repetative removal of the advert tag from the page. That user has a habit of reverting changes and labeling them as vandalism without discussion simply because he disagrees with them. Currently, whether or not that article conforms to Misplaced Pages's policy of no advertisement/promotion is currently disputed, and the tag should remain for the time being. As he was repetatively removing it even after being warned not to, I felt that I was simply reverting vandalism, and did not think that I was violating the three-revert rule, as it does not apply to the reversion of edits that are clearly inappropriate, correct? I apologise if I have violated the rule. - Conrad Devonshire 01:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, if "I warned him, so I haven't broken 3RR" was right, no-one would break it... ditto "I felt I was reverting vandalism". Sorry, but stick to 3 reverts in future William M. Connolley 08:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

monobook

You seem to use the article name for 3RR blocks rather than the history page (which also gives the name). I suppose that is a bit cleaner, should change the tab script then to reflect that? I can also have a history page link generated based on the name (so it can have a link to that too).Voice-of-All 06:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the history-page thing links with "these are the reverts in question" which I feel is confusing... "This is the page history" would be better. But putting the page title into the header is good, I think. Also I often remove the leading ":". William M. Connolley 08:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the title a bit. The ":" is assuming that you warned them, and it goes under the same section. The warning now lets you assume that you din'nt warn him for that instance (like for a repeat offender), so it uses the title. Is there anything else I can clean up?Voice-of-All 17:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I was looking forward to trying this out, but... I've lost all my buttons. Has something gone wrong? William M. Connolley 19:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...refresh your browser chache...should be working now.Voice-of-All 21:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, works now. Couple of comments: rather than the semi-cryptic "was the user warned?" just "would you like it indented" would be better. Um... did it just change somewhat? William M. Connolley 22:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll change the prompt box this week. Any other request?Voice-of-All 00:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Not at the moment... seems to work well. Thanks William M. Connolley 08:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

three-revert watch

Would you be so kind as to visit the history of the Billy Graham page to check the propriety of recent actions taken by an editor named Rogerman(talk)? I have noticed that you have been conscientious about blocking three-revert offenders in the past, and I am not familliar enough with the process or criteria to pursue this editor, although I strongly suspect that there is a problem. Even in the event that his actions were not to violate the rule, his thinly veiled POV activity in this case should at least constitute vandalism. Thanks. Projection70 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, I see no 3RR there (only 3 edits). As for the rest... talk to him; its too early fo admin intervention William M. Connolley 18:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for checking. I don't know what the technical distinction is between an edit and rv when the text to which an edit is returned is identical to the earlier edit. The user in question calls them rv in his summaries, and I would agree with him that they are, but it isn't clear. Could you advise as to the difference? Also, please note that the user has made the same rv (edit?) again since you last checked his activity. Beyond what point will admin intervention become appropriate? Projection70 02:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Projection70, going around talking behind my back is not cool. If you have a problem with my edits, why didn't you come to me directly? That would have been the appropriate step if you indeed wanted to resolve an issue rather than causing trouble. That said, I am always willing to work with anyone, no matter how many conflicts I may of had with them in the past. Please contact me if you would like to make amends and work together for a better Misplaced Pages. -Rog Rogerman 04:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

• I raised my concerns about your behavior in the appropriate place, on the discussion page of the article. Indeed this was the appripriate step. When you then continued your activity instead of checking or engaging the discussion page, I checked your user talk page and realized that you have been notified of the same infractions before, as you hop from page to page to interject your POV (in the name of NPOV) regarding public figures whom you dislike. This is when I took the next appropriate step, as it became clear that your pattern needed admin attention. I was aware that you could read the user pages on which I asked for admin attention, so it was not, per se, behind your back. Projection70 05:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let's leave Dr. Connolley alone and stay off his board. That said, let's stop arguing and work to build concensus instead. Rogerman 05:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

3RR Report

Greetings William M. Connolley, I appreciated your fair response to User:Anonymous editor's previous post about my supposed 3RR violation on Muhammad that I thought you should take a look at this report. I've reported myself as well so you may need to block me too but once you read the report then I suppose it'll be your call. Take it easy. Netscott 18:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi William. Both editors were reverting on the articles and so both should be blocked for the same times. Both users violated the 3rr. --a.n.o.n.y.m 20:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that both editors were committing the same offence. I don't agree that gives the same block length. I applied the std rules: first offence gets you 3-12h depending on severity; multiple offences pushes you over 24h eventually. This is somewhat Hard Cheese for IPT, I agree. Just to make it worse, I've unblocked N cos he plausibly promised to be good. But I'd do the same for IPT. William M. Connolley 20:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you should reduce the 3rr for IPT too. Like IPT, NS was warned for this before recently and unblocked after he agreed that the reverting stop. --a.n.o.n.y.m 20:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Having just checked, you're right, this was not N's first offence (I thought it was but must have stuffed up the log check). OK, so N should have had 24h. I'll go and talk to IPT. If you wish to change IPT's block, please feel free to, I don't object William M. Connolley 20:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR Report

Is 3RR blocks made selectively? --Andrei George 19:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they certainly are. Admins are expected to use their judgement when blocking. One factor was you: you are a "red user" yet you're clearly not new. That makes you someone trying to hide your past, which is obviously dodgy. The other factor was that I decided to protect the page, which made a block pointless (read WP:3RR) William M. Connolley 19:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Another potential Lightbringer Puppet on Freemasonry

Hi William, I think we may have yet another Puppet on the Freemasonry pages. He seems fixated on proving that Freemasons supported Hitler or something like that. In any case, it forms part of his pattern to attack this section and try add a particular citation ... these edits may help you see what I mean: this edit by User:Anderson12 was made way back when - Anderson12 was subsequently banned for being a Lightbringer Sock.

Then there is this edit by User:Keystrokes - also shown to be a Lighbringer sock.

Now User:VQHernandez wants to make suspiciously similar edits: here, here, and here.

If this is not enough for a block, I will run a sock check on his IP to see if he uses something in the 21.68.240.98 range (used by other Lightbringer Socks). Thanks Blueboar 23:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well I did nothing and you didn't scream and it doesn't look too bad now... William M. Connolley 19:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR and Community Portal

Just dropping you a note to say I think you acted unwisely with regard to User:HereToHelp and the Comunity Portal. The Portal is a hot bed of recuring edit wars over format and content, and it does need someone prepaired to step in and break 3rr and protect if it's needed to maintain stablity on the page. I think HereToHelp acted correctly in this case. --Barberio 10:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, Zzzzz is now reporting your action in this as admin support for his activities. I hope you will clarify to him that it was not. --Barberio 11:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've commented on your page. I don't understand Zzzzz's comment. I don't accept your view of HtH - there was nothing urgent enough to justify breaking 3RR. William M. Connolley 14:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the Comunity Portal is a one of the four main navigation pages on Misplaced Pages, ensuring stability is always urgent. --Barberio 16:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

But the reverts in question did not threaten the functioning of the page one way or the other. Face it: *lots* of people watch that page. There is no need for anyone to 4R over it William M. Connolley 17:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with WMC. Nandesuka 18:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, thats definitely worth something to me! William M. Connolley 18:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Earth Day

Happy Earth Day! LOL! __earth 16:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

So it is. We don't seem to do it over here... I had a Water Day William M. Connolley 19:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Strange...I had an Air Day. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

don't tell me there's a fire day too. __earth 06:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Heart! With our powers combined... EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights

Hi, just to make sure; if I am given a picture free-of-charge, to be used in one, or two Misplaced Pages articles, only, and the original author has the copyright, yet, gives non-exclusive rights to, I--is this the correct tag for it?; PermissionAndFairUse. Thank youZmmz 09:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know, sorry - a message on a copyright page might be best. I'm not sure you can restrict use just to certain pages William M. Connolley 09:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say that this picture is unusable for Misplaced Pages, because it does not have a free-enough license (unless, of course, fair use applies).--Stephan Schulz 09:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

So, if the owner of the pic has given permission for it to be used in Wiki, which tag should be used then?Zmmz 09:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to find the appropriate copyright-type page and ask there William M. Connolley 09:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to help this user out. I manage copyrights at work. The short answer is: he must have the permission of the image's creator. The only thing that changes this is if the creator attached a "free for non-comercial use" or some other such license to the image or to the page that serves the image. --CTSWyneken 21:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not correct. We're not allowed to use images with permission if it places restrictions on commercial use. Zmmz, you're better off asking on one of the licence discussion pages. SlimVirgin 21:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Over to you... William M. Connolley 21:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

On the Jews and Their Lies

Thank you for dropping by and helping Paul McCain. He is new and I'm glad you noticed that.

Would you do me a favor and review the talk page? Since I'm in direct conflict with SlimVirgin, I would appreciate an outsider's view of my arguments. I like a little objectivity to keep me honest and rational while I ponder my next posts. --CTSWyneken 21:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, will take a look. I tend to find SV very sensible, though William M. Connolley 21:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've looked. So... clearly this is controversial for some people. It looks like there are some outliers on this (on both sides?). So I hope you and SV can continue to talk and not get distracted by the gunk. On a minor point, getting insulted by the use of "silly" is probably an over reaction... its about the mildest possible expression available. Caveat: I know no background to this. William M. Connolley 22:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Robsteadman

Can you please unprotect User_talk:Robsteadman. He is clearly (at least partially) active again and by protecting the page you're making it hard to contact him. Thanks. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 19:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Done William M. Connolley 19:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've had e-mails from Rob saying this isn't him - the account has edited the Robert Steadman article which Rob knows not to do. As his account was deleted I assume there was nothing to stop someone recreating it. What happens in situations like these?

There's a question for you... the account has a long contribution history, so isn't new. Unless new accounts pick up... lets try WP:AN/I William M. Connolley 12:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The account is the same one. All that got deleted was the user page. So I see no reason to think it isn't the same person William M. Connolley 13:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought the account had been deleted and I wasn't sure if it would pick up the old edit history if recreated. If we're sure it's the same user then he has been editing his own article - what happens with that? Since Rob doesn't think it's him should the account be banned indef anyway?Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTCF 13:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't understand. All Rob has to do is to login, and change the password if he wants to. If he can't change the password, then I'm pretty sure he can request a new one by email anyway. So yes, I or any admin can perma-block it, but why? William M. Connolley 16:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I did ask for my account to be permently deleted at the beginning of April and was told that it would be by user: Musical Linguist. It seems she didn't do this as was requested.

It seems that someone else has been editing using the account because the edits on April 20th and April 23rd are not by me...

Now, could someone now PLEASE permanently delete it. Totally. I don't want any record of my account

OK folks, I've trimmed the discussion. Now... Rob, I cannot delete the account but I can delete both the userpage and the talk page if thats what you want; or how about just protecting them as blank or with the leaving message? Deleting the account requires dev priv I think. If you really want the account completely deleted, reply so here and I'll tout the diff around AN/I or whereever to see where it might get actionned. Bear in mind that if the account gets deleted (which I'm not actually sure is possible), I'm not sure there is anything you can do to stop it being recreated by someone else. William M. Connolley 20:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't discuss this more here - please see the discussion on t:RS William M. Connolley 20:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi William. Apologies if I'm annoying you by adding more about something you don't want to discuss. I won't get huffy if you delete my post! But I thought I should let you know that Rob has been blocked, and his talk page (which he had filled with posts similar to the ones you removed from here) has been protected. The discussion (if there is any) is continuing here. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 21:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - yes I'd noticed, but I might not have. Note to everyone else: I'm out of this discussion now. No more! William M. Connolley 21:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Continuing vandalism of Kellie Everts

The vandalism of Kellie Everts by anon 69.231.194.119 has been continuing. You placed a temporary ban about two weeks ago, but despite that, and repeated warnings from several users, the guy just insists on making the same changes over and over. It looks like we may require admin action once again. Thanks, fbb_fan 02:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Fairly low-level, but vandalism. I've blocked for 24h mostly for the talk page comment. William M. Connolley 19:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm guessing he'll be back, but I guess we'll worry about that later. fbb_fan 01:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Mary McCarthy

Hi -- I notice that you're an admin who has expressed concern about DaveThomas's editing of the Mary O. McCarthy article. Might I request your assistance at the Mary McCarthy article as well? Mary McCarthy is a novelist completly unrelated to current politics. DaveThomas has been repeatedly reverting the disambiguation line on this page to reflect personal bias regarding Mary O. McCarthy. I am concerned that an unrelated literature article is being dragged into a political debate that should be limited to the Mary O. McCarthy page. ~CS 15:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Um... looks fairly low level at the moment. No call for admin intervention William M. Connolley 19:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

About anon at IP 87.116.171.209

Hi -- I noticed that you blocked this anon editor for 8 hours. Would you consider reducing this block to half an hour or an hour? For reasons that I explain at WP:AN/I, I suspect that a ban of more than half an hour will be counterproductive: it won't stop this person, but will likely block good-faith editors in Belgrade, Serbia. Thanks, llywrch 21:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll copy to AN/I and reply there William M. Connolley 21:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Account deletion

Account deletions are not possible if a user has made an edit to a wikipedia article. From my knowledge of the GFDL licence conditions, *all* edits made by a contributor/author/creator have to be necessarily credited. Deletion of a username would violate this condition. Also, a contribution made under GFDL is irrevocable. To answer your next question, no, 'crats cannot delete an account. They can only rename. I hope this answers your question. For the rallying bit... Misplaced Pages talk:Changing username might be a good place to start with. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Thats what I wanted to know William M. Connolley 18:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

JedRothwell

Please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:JedRothwell_2, and if you wish, his talk page(he keeps deleting NPA warnings). I've reverted his unsourced additions once, so prefer not to be the blocking admin. In addition, as an "insufferable, outrageous, impolite and uninvited" editor, I would prefer a second Admin support and/or be the blocking admin on this user. KillerChihuahua 15:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks! I probably should have said in my request if you'd disagreed with my assessment that he should be blocked, I would of course have abided by that, but IMHO with 5 reverts and 20 or so personal attacks, vandalism, and edit warring, he was a likely candidate for a brief block. KillerChihuahua 16:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Werner Herzog

There's a bit of a problem over at the Werner Herzog page concerning the ethnicity of his father. I see you've dealt with the problem before and I was hoping you could help out. Thanks.--Staple 18:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Will look, no promises William M. Connolley 18:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Looked. Not 3RR yet, nothing I can do really William M. Connolley 18:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks anyway.--Staple 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

You gave Instantnood a warning about revert warring. and he was banned for 48 hours by another admin. Note upon his return the first thing he did was head to that article to perform the same reverts. . Can you page ban him from that article, per his arbcom sanction (which doesn't require 3RR, just being inappropriate or disruptive)? It's rather ridiculous that he's been attempting to make this claim about a capital city that doesn't exist for more than a year. SchmuckyTheCat 21:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please kindly note that user:SchmuckyTheCat and user:Alanmak are not reverting only what is disputed. They revert materials unrelated to the disagreement. The Hong Kong article is not the first article they're reverting in this manner, despite being reminded, respectively, at their user talk pages. Thanks. User:Alanmak is even refusing to talk, and user:SchmuckyTheCat has kept referring to evidence that is proven invalid and unrealiable. — Instantnood 21:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be more cautious. You are very close to getting blocked (by me) under your arbcomm sanction from editing that page. Stick to 1RR on it and related or you will be sad William M. Connolley 21:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please kindly spend a few seconds or so and read what they're reverting. Please also note whether the most recent ArbCom case was properly and appropriately opened was not ensured. Thank you. — Instantnood 21:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No - I'm not going to second guess the arbcomm, thank you. Live within their judgements William M. Connolley 22:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You may or may not agree, but please respect different views. The validity of the judgements is questioned if justice of the mechanism and its process is not adequately ensured. — Instantnood 22:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: 3RR reminder

Thanks for the reminder. But could you please kindly tell which of my edits are constituting the three reverts within a 24-hour period? Thank you. — Instantnood 21:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Examine your own edits. If you are in doubt, err on the side of caution William M. Connolley 21:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:SchmuckyTheCat was referring to a February 2005 version (which I couldn't recall) and calling my first edit he disagrees a revert . I reverted him since he was ignoring my other edits unrelated to the disagreement (he disagrees only with City of Victoria), and that's vandalism . I don't actually care if he were reverting only what he disagrees (i.e. City of Victoria), for the matter was already being discussed at the talk page. — Instantnood 22:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:SchmuckyTheCat has kept reverting everything, instead of reverting only what he disagrees . As per user:Jiang , this kind of behaviour is " committing simple vandalism ". Please help remind him not to overdo. Thanks in advance. — Instantnood 13:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether its simple vandalism or not depends on circumstances. Don't use it as an excuse for breaking 3RR. If it really is SV, someone else will agree with you William M. Connolley 15:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely right. But since you've been handling the trouble you're in a good position to look into those edits and examine whether they are, and take neccessary action(s). — Instantnood 05:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You're the administrator who've had handled the matter, and that was the reason why I talk to you for user:SchmuckyTheCat's problematic edits. If you're not going to and/or not interested to further deal with this case, could you please kindly refer it to someone else appropriately? Thanks in advance. — Instantnood 21:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If its 3RR, take it to WP:3RR. If its an editing dispute, the WP:DR William M. Connolley 19:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we get a very long block

The User GODDESSY that you blocked today, shes been banned before and still made changes to her own bio with her sockpuppet.

Please read this page and then if you so feel (Please Please Please)

Just get rid of her permanently...

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Stephanie_Adams

JuliannaRoseMauriello 22:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

3R rule

I don't understand what a "revert" is for purposes of this rule. For example, supposing that an article states "The dog is blue around the ears." and I edit that to say, "The dog is blue under the ears" is that a revert?

If someone then changes that to "The dog is blue over his ears" and I then change that to "The dog is blue over and under the ears" is that a second revert? -- Drogo Underburrow 01:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the WP:3RR talk page William M. Connolley 06:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

are you not gonna check my report, Dr. Connolley?Ilir pz 10:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

global warming and ice

hey, I was browsing the wikipedia's sci ref desk and . To be exact, its about ice and latent heat. It reminds me of my physics. User:Peter Grey asks "once most of the Earth's ice has melted, we should expect the temperature to increase at a faster rate?". Given what for I know from my undergrad physics, I'd say at least the temperature of the water from the melted ice. But what about of global temperature? Should we expect temperature to increase at a faster rate too? __earth 15:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I missed this. Will reply on your talk William M. Connolley 08:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock and delete page

I request that you unblock my "talk page" and immediately and permanently delete the contents of it. You are free to permanently block me from contributing to Misplaced Pages, as I have no intention of doing so in any case... --JedRothwell 17:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Killer seems to be on the case here, so I shall leave you alone for the moment William M. Connolley 18:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking for suggestion about what to do with an edit war

Hi there, I came here to ask you for advice about what to do with a page in the middle of a revert war, as I see you are experienced in dealing with violations of the Three Revert Rule. The page Latino has been the site of many edit conflicts in the past few months, mostly stemming from User:Henrymark from what I've observed. This user does not respond to notices on their talk page nor the talk page of Latino itself.

I attempted to report the user for a violation of the three revert rule in the past, though it was denied as the user appears to make slight changes each time to his/her edits, not making them a simply revert. Lately, another user has stepped into the conflict by the name of Burgas00. Other users have been reverting Henrymark's changes as well.

If you see the Latino history page, it's quite clear from the edit notes that there is a conflict going on. I was hoping you could tell me what should be done in this case. Thanks. Cowman109 18:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like 3RR to me, and blocked accordingly. Slight changes don't matter William M. Connolley 19:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry about that, I guess I got a bit carried away. But, as you say, I was attempting to establish some contact with user henrymark. Anyways I will try to stick to the 3RR, Im still relatively new to wikipedia. By the way, could you tell me how to redirect an article to another one, or change its name? Could you at least direct me to a site which explains all this? Thanks alot!!! --Burgas00 19:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect is done just by making the first text on a page #REDIRECT new name. Page moving... is too easy. I'll let you find that out yourself :-) William M. Connolley 20:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick help, William! Cowman109 01:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi again! Henrymark is back again starting revert wars, this time clearly writing nonsense on the latino page... Im not going to revert his edits (some other wikipedians are already doing so), could you do something about this. Cheers!!!--Burgas00 22:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

All his contributions to a variety of articles are (minor) vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Henrymark This guy should definetly be blocked.

And has been, while I was out... William M. Connolley

3RR by 69.119.83.198

The user 69.119.83.198 has reverted Zulfikar Ali Bhutto he has been warned about Three-revert rule. Siddiqui 17:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I'm off now, best take this to WP:3RR William M. Connolley 18:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

content

Dear Dr Connolley,

I have been looking at your wikipedia stuff, and it seems that you are extremely experienced in your field. It also seems (particularly from this talk page) that your new administrator role now occupies a significant part of your time and effort here. Of course it is nice that you have had the recognition in being given the admin tools, but really such tedious tasks as policing 3RR could be done by people with considerably less expertise than yourself. I think it would be a shame if your doing so reduced the time you have for writing content for climatology related pages, because that would seem to be where you can make the best contribution.

Arbitrary username 21:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, thats very kind of you. Happily, the climate-type pages are quite quiet at the moment. We're all gearing ourselves up to putting in the AR4 text when its public, I think... William M. Connolley 22:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR

William, I'm concerned about your response regarding Nygaard. He's trolling on the RS talk page, and is well known for doing this (lots of bizarre questions and objections on talk that people can't understand, much less answer, and very aggressive), and keeps deleting valid material from the guideline and has to be reverted. Now he won't allow the talk page to be archived because he wants to preserve his trolling posts, even those I think it's approaching 90 kb and no one's going to respond to him so the thread's aren't live. Your response was a kind of "plague on both your houses" attitude, and I've seen you do this many times on AN/3RR. There's no point in having the policy if it's not going to be enforced (and it should be enforced regardless of the content issue at stake). If you personally disagree with the policy, then perhaps you could decide to stay away from enforcement issues. I'm really mystified by this. SlimVirgin 01:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Your response was a kind of "plague on both your houses" attitude, and I've seen you do this many times on AN/3RR. I disagree with both halves of that. If both sides have broken 3RR clearly, then I'll block both, of course, and have. As to this case: FM has now blocked GN; I don't know if thats because you contacted him or because he read my post on AN3. The reason I posted there was partly to prompt someone else to do something, if they wanted to, because it seemed to have got forgotten. The reason I didn't block was... as I said. Bear in mind that "obvious trolling" to someone familiar with the case is not to someone who isn't William M. Connolley 08:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Unreasonable blocking by Jonathunder

Hi, I am sorry for bothering you, but can you please look here and comment on the matter? Thanks. FunkyFly 19:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy. Is this now a dead or settled issue? William M. Connolley 15:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My block expired, but still the blocking is unreasonable. Ideally I'd like a few comments about the legality of the Jonathunder's activities. FunkyFly 16:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks odd to me. I said so there William M. Connolley 21:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi William, could you please check this out? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 22:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Done by another, now William M. Connolley 08:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Megaman Zero

Hi there. I noticed your interaction with User:Megaman Zero about his 3RR violation. I also noticed that he made an edit while not logged in and then logged-in a minute later and re-signed it; I looked-up his IP (204.218.240.42) and checked its talk page and noticed him remonstrating the IP for an edit; there are many, many warnings on the talk page. Further, the IP belongs to the "DoD Dependents Schools-European Region" in Wiesbaden, Germany and I recall a statement on Zero's page that he went to such a school. I know that the IP might be shared, but also know that it is possible that this is an elaborate game he's playing. Anyway, I thought I'd let you know and give you the chance to look into it. --Moby 12:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OK - well, is this any problem? If he starts editing from that IP while blocked, thats another matter William M. Connolley 15:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What most struck me about this was the edit where User:Megaman Zero placed a warning on the talk page of the IP he had proved himself to have edited from; i.e. a game he's playing (assuming the IP was him then, too).

He does appear to have made this edit while blocked. --Moby 06:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A doubt

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Anonymous_editor

Hello, I feel nice talking to you. I have a doubt. Did you mean me or someone else while giving your comments on 3RR page? However, I would like to add that I readily agree with your comments. --Bhadani 13:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not you, but TU William M. Connolley 15:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Hanuman Das

Please unblock him - I had blocked him for a week. I had requested on 3RR page. Thanks and also thanks for giving me a new wiki ID of "B". Regards. --Bhadani 16:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for unblocking me. —Hanuman Das 19:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

WILLIAM PLEASE NOTE the following information per the 3RR on Hanuman Das (copied from the noticeboard):

I cannot agree with B here. 1 week is completely over the top for a first offence. Further, its not at all clear that this is even 3RR. William M. Connolley 16:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

NOT A FIRST OFFENCE: Please see HANUMAN DAS is the NEW username of ADITYANATH Hamsacharya dan 21:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

ALSO, in regard to this note:

I'm rather confused about what is going on here, but 1 week is far too long; so I am indeed unblocking William M. Connolley 17:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

William, the edits that I've displayed demonstrate reversions to previous versions of the article or sections of text. As I understand these are the types of reversions considered under 3RR, as also defined by WP:REVERT as well as by Jossi (talk · contribs) who includes the qualification of undoing other people's edits repeatedly in the . It could be that I improperly cited the "previous version reverted to". I would like to get a clear understanding of your logic, if possible, so that I identify the misunderstanding.

1st reversion: clearly a revert to much previous version somewhere in the vicinity of this month old diff 31 March 2006

2nd reversion: undid part of an edit in which a quote was also added a month ago 3 April 2006

3rd reversion: DITTO - this section had been around since almost the beginning of the article 15 March 2006, and in it's mature form here: 19 April 2006

4th reversion: Undid another section that had been in there since almost the beginning of the article: 15 March 2006

5th reversion: SELECTIVELY reverted to his old version, deleting valid, sourced, verifiable, reliable cited text that directly contradicted his weak inclusions 2 May 2006

What you might not immediately see is that Hanuman Das has added almost nothing of value to this article, and on the contrary, since the BEGINNING (see the history for yourself) has vandalized it with his corrosive edits or deletions. His monumental accomplishment was the "conflicting views" section, which carries no academic weight - but it takes someone with experience to see that. Which begs the question why? Well, you might notice that his interest in this article directly corresponded to my interest in the Nath article. He started attacking this article to divert me from adding information to the Nath article - which he has guarded closely like a bulldog for the longest time. You will see that his interest in Yogiraj Gurunath started at about the same time as my interest in the Nath article started . I'm not the only one that feels this way - see contribs of 86.10.229.248 (talk · contribs), Kalagni Nath (talk · contribs), and AgainstFakeClaims (talk · contribs) - other major contributors to this article. Hamsacharya dan 21:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

you blocked me for violating the 3RR rule

You mention that I should take the issue up in the discussions page which I did before being blocked by you so I dont understand why you blocked me? Please explain!

Sorry. Prev block didn't work (or you wouldn't be able to write that). I've done it properly now. Answered on your talk page William M. Connolley 18:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR at Spring holiday

Your poor judgement regarding this is dually noted. I made only three revisions in 24 hours, what you may have established as a fourth revision was in fact not a reversion (), but rearrangement of wording that had nothing to do with recent arguments, and I actually also elaborated on the information that I once was trying to revert. I also removed some original research (see WP:NOR. In my opinion you are not fit to be an administrator if you cannot investigate your blocks to a extent so as that you can actually verify there was a violation of WP:3RR. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 21:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I agree with WMC. The magnitude of the revert is not the issue: a revert is a revert. It's pretty simple: if you do not want to be blocked for violating the 3RR, then do not make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. If you are unable to understand what a revert is, as your comment here indicates, then you should consider applying a 1RR rule to yourself to avoid trouble. Nandesuka 02:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ndru01

Thanks for responding to the 3RR violation by User:Ndru01. Just to let you know that he's now adopted the rather transparent identity of Infoandru01 (see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets/Ndru01). Infoandru01 has continued to change the same page as well as recreating deleted content yet again. Could you extend the block if appropriate? (Although he has also been editing anonymously in any case.) Thanks for your attention --Cedders 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)