User talk:WJBscribe

User:WJBscribe	User talk:WJBscribe	User:WJBscribe/Gallery	User:WJBscribe/Barnstars	User:WJBscribe/Drafts
Userpage (commons · meta)	Talk (Archives)	Gallery	Barnstars	Drafts

Hi! Please leave a message and I'll get back to you... Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have a question or need help. I'll do my best and can probably point you in the right direction if it isn't something I can sort out myself. Will

Blatant sockpuppet of indef blocked editor

This doesn't seem like much of an apology to me. It's also a clear evasion of a block. --ElKevbo 20:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems like an apology and they stopped after that post. Which blocked user do you think they're a sockpuppet of? WjBscribe 20:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

MaxwellTeke, as indicated by the contributions, particularly the contribution noted above. --ElKevbo 20:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

mmm - the WHOIS on the IP traces it to BellSouth.net which I believe is a fairly major internet provider. I'd rather not block the IP without ongoing vandalism. They seem to have stopped - if they resume they can be blocked straight away. WjBscribe 20:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Dunin AfD

Hi there, some serious concerns about the sources in this article have been raised and whether the claims made in the article are really backed by the citations. Could I ask you to have a careful look at these citations and see what you think? Thanks Tim Vickers 00:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Seconded - I agree that if the claims in the article text were true, Stanley Dunin could be considered notable. However, it appears they are comprised of exaggerations and outright fabrications. Neil ム 08:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I found this NASA history of geosynchronous orbits. It doesn't mention Stanley Dunin at all. All the best Tim Vickers 17:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think my comment on the AfD is still valid: "Aerospace engineer published in his field. Head of the astrodynamics section of a NASA project and part of a team that launched the world's first geosynchronous communications satellite." I don't think he needs to have been the first to work out the geosynchronous orbit to be notable. The article suggests his role was in the engineering over the project, not the theory behind it... The article contains OR and some elements may be overstated but I am satisfied the underlying person is more worthy of inclusion than the ridiculous number of minor modern celebrities kept at AfD every day. WjBscribe 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That statement about him being head of the project was contradicted by the first paragraph, which stated he worked under two other people. I changed the lead to agree with this section. The real problem is that there are just no reliable sources that discuss this guy. Believe me I've looked, everywhere you might expect to find some mention of him there is nothing. I really don't know if anything in this article is true, have a look at the present page anyway and see what you think. Tim Vickers 18:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I have absolutely no reason to think its untrue - just unverified. I don't know much about the field but my experience of other areas is that those who develop the theory tend to be more widely mentioned in publications than those whose job it is to put it into practice. I remain reasonably happy that we should have an article about this man. WjBscribe 18:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If its unverifiable, it will have to be deleted. Have you been able to find any sources about him? Google is a dry hole, the only things that mention him are Wiki mirrors. Tim Vickers 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unverified and unverifiable are different things though. It seems there's enough to know that this person did exist and that he has been involved both with NASA aerospace work and with the world bank. I wouldn't really expect much google information but I'm sure sources will surface. If the consensus at AfD is to delete it (seems a close call at present), it can of course be recreated once such sources are found. That would also have the advantage of removing the present WP:COI problem. WjBscribe 19:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose so, but I can't vote to keep something that makes claims that nobody can verify. I'm particularly amused that there are more reliable sources discussing me than this guy! :) Tim Vickers 19:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Things are a bit clearer now. I wandered into Matt57's talk page when trying to get feedback from previous contributors to this article. Reading the thread in the admin noticeboard that was linked from there I now see why some people in this AfD discussion have made such heated comments. Can I reassure you that I have no personal opinions whatsoever about any of the past wikidrama surrounding this set of articles and have just been trying to apply WP:V to the subject. Tim Vickers 16:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've found that it was Harold Rosen who made the advances in the Syncom project. A description of the project in Discover magazine lists several engineers who contributed as well link, but doesn't mention Stanley Dunin as having done anything important. Tim Vickers 19:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

John Stallings (model)

Is there a way you can get a copy of the John Stallings (model) page that was deleted and put it in my userspace? I'm not sure how that works, but it is an admin thing, isn't it? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:The Behnam/Local news

Over a week ago, you left a message on The Behnam's talkpage, asking him to remove this page. He acknowledged reading it, but has done nothing to remove the page so far. Perhaps you need to discuss this with him further. Or should I just go ahead and delete it, and let you know if he re-creates it? Jeffpw 06:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

After messaging with Future Perfect (another admin) I have listed the page at MFD. Jeffpw 11:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Name to watch

Please watch User talk:Xaviersutton - a vandal in progress. Auroranorth 13:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. WjBscribe 13:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I need revision for the post "To Speak"

the post was previously as the reason given was "no advertising" however, the post has be edited, furthermore to speak has been speeched at Montreal film festival.

and it was deleted again, the reason given was "Please do not recreate this article without prior approval from an administrator or you may be blocked from editing".

pls help to revised the decision. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesslynism (talk • contribs) 08:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the repost looks to me to be pretty much the same as the deleted version. I wasn't involved in the decision to delete it the first time though - it seems that as well as an advertising concern, the text was felt to be too close a copy to material that appeared elsewhere on the net, raising copyright concerns. As User:Redvers (the original deleting admin) is now back and editing again he's probably the one best placed to let you know what changes the article needs if it is to be validly recreated. WjBscribe 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

user:198.108.222.3

FYI: You recently blocked 198.108.222.3 (talk · contribs · email) for 3 days for vandalism. This user has now resumed his/her disruptive editing. Perhaps a longer (indefinite?) block is in order? Yilloslime (t) 16:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

1 week is the standard escalation for a shared IP - ah, and its school IP - what a surprise! Well I think if they don't get the message this time, at month is in order next time... WjBscribe 16:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply and prompt action! Yilloslime (t) 16:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 19:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

user: 70.91.195.205

Dude when you put up the shared user template you neglected to notice my warning about this user. The IP is registered to Qualters Middle School in Mansfield Ma. If you could please change that I would be most grateful. Thank you Foxtrotman 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How's that? WjBscribe 21:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:195.229.236.250

WjBscribe, I appreciate your fight against vandalism, but this IP address is shared by the entire internet service in the UAE. Therefore, blocking this IP address blocks an entire country instead of blocking one user. I don't know how we can fight vandalism through this IP, but surely there is an alternative to blocking an entire country. Thank you for considering this message. Merond e 12:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look into it. The IP has been bloced for nearly a month however, and little complaint has been received - suggesting it is not as widely shared as you believe. As a compromise it may be possible to block the IP but not prevent account creation. I note that the block is due to expire in a couple of days in any event. WjBscribe 14:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been much complaint because there aren't many serious Wikipedians here (though there are many people who use Wikipedia). Those of us who are serious either a) already have a user name (which is my case) or b) use an IP shield. Though there aren't many serious Wikipedians yet, that doesn't mean we should block a whole country's IP address. If you could block it but not prevent account creation, that would be great. :) My brother is still considering making a user count, and he is having to wait until the block is over to make an account. Merond e 10:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

AIV stats

I got that information you wanted about that candidates AIV stats. I put them on my sandbox. The link is to the edit where the report was added, but the label is the information regarding its removal(a bit non-intuitive, but I just hacked up this report format).

I checked them over and it did not seem to make any mistakes in this case. Thanks for encouraging a double check on my part. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fabrictramp RFA

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 50 supports, 1 neutral, and 1 oppose. My goal is to keep earning your trust every time I grab the "mop". (And I'm always open to constructive criticism and advice!) Again, thanks. --Fabrictramp 16:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request for checkuser

Seeing as your one of the main people that deals with checusers, I thought I'd let you know that a backlog is starting to form at the page. I'm letting you know so that the backlog can be taken control of before it gets any worse. Thanks, Davnel03 18:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I can archive some of the completed requests to tidy the page a bit but unfortunately, as I'm not a checkuser myself, I can't do much to speed things up with the outstanding ones. I will try and encourage the next checkusers I speak to have a look through the list though. WjBscribe 18:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Davnel03 18:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Little intellectual puzzle for you

Hey, Sugarplum! You're a lawyer, so maybe you can help me out. I'm copy editing a translation of a German article and can't make heads or tails out of the legal mumbo jumbo in this paragraph. Can you give me a nice English sentence to fill in the blanks with????? Without further ado, here's the paragraph:

Sporadic "slavecontracts" are fixated in writing as an formal act of consent to the power exchange, stating "bindingly" both partners common vision on the relationship. From a legal point of few such documents are in no way binding. Following the general conception they do XXXinterfere with (insert Constitutional paragraph for contra bonos mores(against good morals), indefeasibility of human dignity).XXX In the past the existence of such "contracts" led in several contexts to banner headlines in yellow press publications. Uninformed third parties are periodically led by such information seen out of context towards strong rejection and condemnation of the relationship on which it is based.

Thanks, kiddo! Jeffpw 14:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow that is mangled - I'll see what I can make out of it.... WjBscribe 16:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Occasionally, actual "slave contracts" are set out in writing to record the formal consent of the parties to the power exchange, stating their common vision of the relationship dynamic. Such documents have not been recognised as being legally binding. Contracts that are contra bonos mores (contrary to public morals) are generally illegal, and such contracts can even be constitutionally prohibited. In Europe, such agreements may be contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which grants a general freedom from "unhuman or degrading treatment". This right had been held to be absolute and no limitations or derogations are permitted by the Convention. Nevertheless, the mere existence of such purported contracts has resulted in banner headlines in yellow press publications and uninformed third parties are periodically led by seeing such information out of context towards rejecting and condemning the relationship it describes.

How does that sound? WjBscribe 19:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!!! Try as I might, I just couldn't wrap my mind around the legal jargon. You have been a great help and a good friend!!!! Thank you for helping me with my contribution. :-) Jeffpw 22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much!! I r e a l y do appreciate your help! This was very, very helpful!! Kind Regards from the alps.--Nemissimo 22:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

contributors

A contributor is what he writes.Matt Sanchez 21:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Peter Zika AfD

Will, do you think the AfD should be deleted too? I think it should be kept for record purposes... CO₂ 22:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem much point - no one had commented and it was deleted due to the author's request by Orderinchaos. There'd be a courtesy blanking argument for it anyway (it would soon become the top google hit for his name once we didn't have an article on the person) and Jimbo has made some persuasive point that we shouldn't keep meta pages about people's non-importance. I'm not sure it would record anything that the page's deletion log doesn't already do. WjBscribe 22:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco	WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for blocking RandomSheepSaysBah. An apparent buddy of his, Bitch.Im.l337 (vandalised mostly the same articles) is itching to be blocked as well, if you're interested. Precious Roy 20:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. I wouldn't be surprised if those accounts were the same person. WjBscribe 20:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, they were doing it at pretty much the same time, but yeah. Cheers! Precious Roy 20:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

0845 number and 0870 number

Hi Will. Thanks for your reply, even if it wasn't the one I wanted. Anyway, if the page was going to be protected, what format would it be protected in? Would it include the disputed information or not? Regards :) ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It will be protected exactly as the admin who protects it finds it. If you request full protection now, I will protect it as it is now... WjBscribe 21:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. Well, at the present second, my changes (back to how I, and others at Talk: Say No To 0870, believe it should) are being reverted immediately so I think I'll wait a little. Thanks anyway. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've now requested full protection. If you could do that now, I'd much appreciate it. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Unfortunately, even the talk page might need protecting as the user(s) have now moved to that in a prevention of the discussion continuing! ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be inclined to see the blanking of parts of the discussion on the talkpage as vandalism, and would be inclined to block them if that continues. WjBscribe 21:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, they have completely ignored your warning and continue vandalising the page. Can you initiate the next step (I don't know much about warnings)? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have warned them and am trying to express to them the need for discussion on their talkpage. WjBscribe 21:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems to have stopped them for the time being anyway. Thank you very much for your help with this dispute. Regards ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)