Jump to content

User talk:Izehar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikibofh (talk | contribs) at 17:01, 2 January 2006 (User:65.5.128.20). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Izehar/Switchboard

Note: If you post a message on this page, I will normally respond to it on your talk page.


Archives

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the format I accidently deleted for AIV. --Doc ask? 12:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question regarding user behavior

Hi, Izehar. I have seen you making edits on some of my watchlist pages and was wondering if you could help me out with a question I had. Bumpusmills1 (talk · contribs) has been adding discussion forum like comments to talk pages across the Wiki. I have made comments at Talk:War on Christmas to which he responded flippantly. I repeated my comments at his talk page after he made more edits in a similar vein. My question really is: What is the remedy for behavior like this? Thanks. -Scm83x 12:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I hope you'll keep an eye on this. Also, I had another question (yell at me if I'm being annoying ;-) ). Fluterst (talk · contribs) has twice moved Bill O'Reilly (commentator) to Bill O'Reilly (journalist) and while I assume good faith, as our discussion on talk has been civil, this user has a clear misunderstanding of how page moving and coming to a consensus works. Can you take a look? -Scm83x 13:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for quick response. Sorry if I got you roped into anything here. Let me know if I can help you out in anyway in the future. Thanks!! -Scm83x 13:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up, I don't know exactly how things are done around here but I can smell propaganda when I see it. Calling a journalist one doesn't like a commentator seems like an obvious and reprehensible stunt. There is a class action lawsuit being organized in the United States in the light of the publicity generated by false claims in Wikipedia recently and I believe the O'Reilly article to be a particularly bad example of the concerns they're raising. The article's title is really just a small part of the issue. Fluterst 13:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Sorry about the tardienss of my response, the holidays you know. I don';t think anymroe notice than the discussion occurring now needs to be done. If there not interested neough to watch the AMA page and join in then they're not interested enough. I say we proceed with a vote.Gator (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

Hi - I'm aware of the rule there; a new user had moved the page to journalist so I moved it back to commentator and I instructed her how to request a page move, but while doing so she moved it back to journalist and I moved it back again as she hadn't read the message about how to do a proper move. Now the vote is set up so people are discussing on the talk page as they should be. Trust me, I know next to nothing about this O'Reilly guy and don't have an opinion, just instructing someone on how she needs to request a move. Plus I forgot to click the box to move the talk page and everything got screwed up for a while. Heh. Mithridates 13:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:64.27.5.168

Oh OK, sorry for the extra burdon, however we do block IPs on some occasions indefinately, I really suspect that one is an open proxy. --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Oh noes! I suspect that you may be a sockpuppet of Izehar! :) Radiant_>|< 17:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar Award

Dear Izehar,

Many thanks for The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar Award; although I do not know for what.

A Happy Chanukah and A Happy New Year to you and yours,

Yesselman 17:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Antidote

Hi

After you blocked User:Antidote for the violation of 3RR, the user continued editing under anonymous IP addresses. I posted the evidence on 3RR noticeboard. Shall I move the complaint and evidence elsewhere?

Regards Pecher 18:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. The 3RR article says: "Violations of the three-revert policy can be brought to the attention of administrators at the Administrators' noticeboard." The link brings to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and that's where I reported the violations when I saw them. Did I do anything wrong?--Pecher 21:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be correct thus to change the link in the 3RR article, so that it would lead to WP:AN/I instead of WP:AN/3RR?--Pecher 21:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: You're back

Yes I am, and thanks for the welcome back. Rob Church Talk 21:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sections on PP

I don't see many user pages being SP. Most listed on the PP page are blocked users. Typically, we'll have 2 or 3 "real" user pages protected and I don't see SP increasing that enough to justify 2 sections. We'll see. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham meetup

Hi Izehar, as I got some info from the Hivemind stuff, I think you'd be interested in Birmingham meetup. Btw, any updates about the Brandt case? Cheers -- Szvest 04:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;[reply]

RebelForums.org

How did you reach no consensus on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RebelForums.org There are 6 delete votes and 2 keep votes and 4 votes which are their first vote or two which those votes shouldn't be counted. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Izehar, I have reopened your closing, and deleted the article. As mentioned above, there were a gross of 7 delete votes and 6 keep votes. But four of those "keep" votes were from users created entirely to stuff the ballot box - meatpuppets - whose votes should be ignored when working to determine consensus in Articles for deletion discussions. Keep an eye out for those next time you close :) FCYTravis 09:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonians (ethnic group)

I would keep it protected simply because there is no guarantee that they will behave once they come back. The 3RR blocks are typically only for 24/48 hours. I would just keep it protected until they come back at least. Hopefully the 3RR blocks will have taught them a lesson but often, it doesn't. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for letting me know about the block lifts. Given the parties' interest in resolving their dispute, I agree 100% that this is the correct decision. —David Levy 14:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See also Macedonian Orthodox Church and especially Manakis brothers where the same parties engaged in numerous reverts, far exceeding the revert rule. Please watch those as well. Jonathunder 16:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks

I realize what you did. I just explained on their talk pages. I was in fact responding to your protection request. Blocks are generally preferred to protection, as they are less harmful to the encyclopedia. Dmcdevit·t 18:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it's a much easier choice when both have violated 3RR. Also, at that point I have no confidence that they are going to work together, but perhaps after the block they'll be more willing. Considering that it spanned two (three?) articles, that's more reason that I thought protection was not as good of an option as blocking. Dmcdevit·t 19:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

I've been blocked twice by you for supposingly "violating" the three revert rule. I don't know what your intention was and if you really were familiar with the actual situation before proceeding with the blocking. But the articles on Mesa Selimovic and in later days Bosniaks have been the targets of editings and reverts distinguished by a milosevic, karadzic, mladic and a Greater Serbia mentality mainly by the two users user:Millosh and user:Duja. If someone actually needs to be blocked due to violation of the three revert rule then it is these two users, their nationalistic vandalistic edits, statements and reverts are unappropriate. On the discussion pages sources and reasonable statements have been provided by me whereas these two users have not provided anything. I have tried to introduce them to the citing rules on wikipedia but without any real effect. Their only deffense is to call me vandalist and a lier, which is not very mature for grown up men. Damir Mišić 15:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Shalom l'olam ve-shalom l'Yewanim, Sanser ha'Maqdon ha'Yewani ve-Melekh Yewanim. Hi. I was wondering whether you'd be able to translate the following message for me. Thanks. Miskin 18:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was an auto-message left under the edits of some user who used to edit a while ago in Talk:Ancient Macedonian language, and I've been wondering what it meant. I knew 'Shalom', 'Yewani' and 'Maqdon', but I had no idea about the rest. Thanks again. Miskin 19:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin support

By the way Jonathunder's reverts are about to instigate another edit-war in Macedonians (ethnic group). Considering my recent past on "edit-warring", I would rather not revert him again (although I do have the right to do so), and inform an administrator immediately. I'm not sure on whether Jonathunder is a sympathizer of that certain ethnic group or does it only to annoy me. Either way, their current extremist edits justify the constant tensions that governs this article. Regards. Miskin 19:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mainland China

I'm not sure if protecting the frequently edited article is a good thing, but I'd like to let you know the trouble has been around for several months. Would be nice if you can share your opinion regarding its usage in that article. Thanks. — Instantnood 19:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re:block notice. I saw. sorry for the tl;dr below. SchmuckyTheCat 21:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity

Is there any sanity here? I don't know. I'm too involved to know. Of course, I do think I'm sane.

The main point of most of the edit warring is Instantnood trying to push his agenda.

  1. Renaming China, or the People's Republic of China, to "mainland China" (which you saw on the 3RR)
  2. Renaming Taiwan to Republic of China (Talk:Media_in_Taiwan for one of the latest)
  3. Insisting that Hong Kong be presented as an independent country equal to the PRC ([2])
  4. There is another series of article he wars on that I'm not so involved in, but I guess the gist of that one is to insist that cantonese, rather than mandarin, be the primary form of Chinese presented in articles (mostly about food).

Mainland China is a term that has a place in any vocabulary, but he pushes it to denigrate the PRC on the justification that any mention of China that doesn't include Hong Kong must be named "mainland". He also seeks to remove Hong Kong from lists of Chinese things, by setting the "scope" (see) of the article to be mainland only - thus, the appearance of Hong Kong as separate from the PRC. Pretty much all of these things have been done dozens of times, repeating the same arguments each and every time on every talk page. Look up any article named "list of X in China" and it's the same thing over and over.

Taiwan/ROC is another split where there is some justification for what he does, but he takes it to an extreme - insisting that any reference to "Taiwan" can only refer to the single island. We use common names here on wp, and the world has referred to the ROC as "Taiwan" for sixty years. A lot of times I just leave these alone, but inevitably it will occur on an article I care about. On occasions where I don't care, just as often he gets into it with someone else.

I don't claim to be innocent, I've edit warred with him repeatedly. But I try to stay within the boundaries and even turn it into something constructive. I often insist on NPOV, or verifiability, when he pushes it. On the Guangshen Railway that went to 3RR, I tried to use the edit conflict to add new information and verify the points under contention. (The best he could say for insisting on mainland is that it was translated that way from zh-wikipedia). Other times I'll use processes like tfd and cfd [3] to try and get the rest of the community involved. There have been times when the "conflict" was entirely constructive, even, we both edit back and forth without reverting and come to a common agreement that is better off that it was before - it's great if we can do that if the subject matter doesn't touch his agenda items.

And on the advice for mediation, yeah, we tried. It fell apart because before we even started, 'nood gave an ultimatum that he wouldn't participate unless certain articles were reverted to what he wanted first [4].

So, there is a little background. I can't judge my own sanity on it but I can tell you what I percieve and what is behind my actions. SchmuckyTheCat 21:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


In contrary to what SchmuckyTheCat has accused, I am not renaming every single reference to China or the People's Republic of China to mainland China. This is only done depending on contexts. Hong Kong and Macau are excluded from the rest of the People's Republic of China for many matters. For this reason I don't find any problem with creating list solely for the rest of the PRC.

According to NPOV policies on Wikipedia, Taiwan and the Republic of China should not be equated, and the differences between them should be maintained. The NPOV policy on Wikipedia is not defining Taiwan as the single island. It's reflecting the fact that some areas contemporarily under effective control of the Republic of China are not part of Taiwan.

Countries that are not sovereign states are conventionally listed on their own, with their own sections, instead of being treated as ordinary subnational entities. As for the list of airlines, User:Huaiwei has ignored the convention, and has targeted only on Hong Kong and Macau, but not the other territories that are not sovereign states on the same list.

For things that are clearly of Cantonese origin (not to mentioned names that have entered the English language through Cantonese), it's natural to use Cantonese pronunciations, that Mandarin's status as an official language is irrelevant.

I don't give any ultimatum. In the case SchmuckyTheCat has mentioned, it was he and Huaiwei who insisted not to withdrawn from their pre-advantaged positions. All I can try has been tried, that I don't think anything can actually be reached to get out of the deadlock without the input of the community, especially from individuals who're familiar with all these complicated issues. — Instantnood 22:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In other news, carts continue to follow horses, and sub-divisions of nations continue to follow nations. Renaming the PRC to "mainland" on the basis that it might exclude Hong Kong is putting carts before horses. SchmuckyTheCat 03:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau are constituents of the same sovereign state – the People's Republic of China. Hong Kong and Macau, as special administrative regions, have their own international presence and take care of their own affairs (except diplomatic relations and national defence), while the rest of the People's Republic of China (i.e. mainland China) is represented by the central government of the PRC in Beijing, with administrative duties held in the hands of the central government in Beijing (through the ministries and provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities). — Instantnood 08:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Hello Izehar! Would you be so kind to unblock Moldova page? Bonaparte talk 20:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parys Blocked 1000s of Library Users From Wikipedia

Parys Blocked 1000s of Library Users From Wikipedia

Parys managed to get blocked the main ip address of the 100 or so computers at the main branch of the Los Angeles Public Library. There are regularly 1000s of people who rely on these computers for internet access and now none of them can edit Wikipedia pages anymore. Several days ago i made Parys very aware of what he did, and yet he has taken no steps to contact the administrator who did the blocking in order to get the block removed.

Since i had previously edited his incorrect information from a computer in the UCLA library, i think that it is quite possible that he also blocked the ip address of the many computers in the UCLA library which, again, will prevent 1000s of people from using Wikipedia on those computers. It is possible that he also got blocked several other ip addresses that were used to correct the incorrect information on his pages. Would somebody please let me know how to get these ip addresses unblocked so that these 1000s of people can start using Wikipedia again. I feel that Parys, himself, should be permanently blocked as a result of his very malicious behavior.

Also, Parys' original 'Once Moore' had gotten deleted by an administrator after a period of discussion in which everyone, except for Parys, beleived that the information was incorrect. Yet, Parys somehow has managed to get the page started up again, i beleive he may have used some Wikipedia technique called 'merging' to do this.

Parys has also made threatening remarks on Mandy Moore's message board.

He has already proven himself to be a liar by claiming he heard the Hey! song on the radio. People on Mandy's board proved him wrong about that.

Also, here is absolute proof that Hey! will NOT be on Mandy's forthcoming album:

Mandy has repeatedly said that she has either written, or co-written, every single song on her forthcoming album. She has also said, on her official message board, that James Randle, who also her wrote her 'Cry' single, was the sole writer of Hey!. Therefore, using simple logic, it is plain to see that Hey! will not be on her forthcoming album, and that it will, therefore, not be released as a single. Mandy actually put the demo of Hey!, which she described as being a 'crappy demo' on her website as a freebie for her fans. Parys keeps saying on Wikipedia that the song was removed for 'legal reasons', yet Mandy never revealed the reason why the song was removed after being on her web site for around a year and a half.

Parys has also proven himself to be a liar when he claimed he was told, by the people at UCLA, that they were going to have me expelled for editing his Wikipedia pages. The people at UCLA know that the computers in the UCLA library, that were used to edit Parys' pages, do NOT have to be logged into. So, how could they possibly expel someone when they do not even know who it was that did it?

Parys has, repeatedly, done malicious things to make people waste their time and energy. He also may have cost Mandy a loss in income by informing people that a song (Hey!) that she considers to be merely a 'crappy demo' was actually going to be the single from her next album. People who do not like the song may get the impression that the rest of the upcoming album may also be 'crappy' and not buy it as a result. As a result of this false information that Parys keeps putting out, despite the fact that he knows fully well that it is erroneous, Mandy has good cause for suing Parys, and the other people who keep putting up this flase information on Wikipedia, for harassment. I am hoping that this can get settled by administrators of Wikipedia putting a permanent end to this, Parys seems to enjoy the 'cat and mouse' game of restoring his pages every day after they have been edited.

If the action i just proposed is not sufficient to stop Parys, and those that are helping him, then it will be necessary to inform Mandy's managers and law firm and they may advise Mandy that it would be a good idea to sue Parys and the others who are restoring his pages. While Mandy may have a 'sweet and wholesome' public image, i can guarantee you that her manager and her lawyers do not, and they will not have any qualms about litigating, especially if it helps them earn more money.

So, i hope that everybody who is helping Parys is aware that they could, in the future, be subject to a lawsuit by Mandy if they continue in their actions, especially now that they have been fully informed that they are contributing to erroneous information that could have a negative impact on the sales of Mandy's next album.

I will be reporting Parys to multiple adminstrators until he finally stops what he is doing.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Parys"

Counter-Vandalism Barnstar......Awarded From a Vandal Himself

As promised on Acetic Acid's page, here is your Barnstar for your sterling work in stopping my own vandalism activities, designed as a test of the system and to see things from the opposite end of the spectrum. Thank you.

PS I'm switching back to the correct side now. ;)

I, 172.213.1.148, award you this Counter-Vandalism Barnstar for reverting and combating my own vandalism activities. Congrats.

OSJ

Hi there Izehar, Im SWD316. I would like for you to take a look back at the The noticeboard to see comments left by OSJ in response to me posting messages about his sock puppet. I know your a newbie admin but the message left on my talk page by OSJ and the one at Noticeboard certainly qualify for a block. SWD316 talk to me 23:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khotyn

I am writing to you on that because you chose to take action. I usually don't contact particular admins to attract attention to a particular 3RR but since you got yourself involved in sorting this out please note that "both" and "them" in your statement do not apply here. I reverted 3 times and not 4. Anittas reverted 4 times and this is a crystal clear 3RR violation strictly or loosely speaking. These four are 100% reverts with no changes between versions whatsoever:

This was followed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Romanian_Wikipedians'_notice_board&oldid=33225166#Conflict_cu_Rusii these messages] at Romanian board and translation of some of this is available here. The rest is sometimes worse. Finally, take a look at the repeated removal of the statement of the same board [5], [6] and you will get the picture.

In any case, there is a clear 3RR violation followed by offensive postings to the notice boards while there is no violation on my part. Whether you choose to let Anittas get away with this or not, I just wanted to set the record straight on this. --Ghirla | talk 09:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement was removed because you made threats. You remove other people's comments from your talkpage. Why can't we do the same to you? As for my message on the Romanian Wiki Board; I fail to see what the problem is. And what is becoming worse? You have insulted me and my nation and I will have nothing to do with you! --Anittas 09:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see a difference between one's own talk page and the notice board open for everyone to participate, you never will. --Ghirla | talk 09:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We removed what we deemed to be a threat. Your comment was restored by Ron and I didn't change it back. --Anittas 09:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I did violate the 3RR, but so did you. --Anittas 09:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anittas, don't make any false statement. Ghirlandajo did not violate any rules. And his request to speak English at English wiki is not a threat but a common sense. Removal of it was inexusable. You indeed violated the 3RR and it is a 24-h blockable offence. I don't care whether you get blocked or not but find it regrettable that admins take sides when they should simply react to violations. And, again, you violated 3RR and Ghirlandajo didn't. --Irpen 16:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...Come on Irpen, have a break will you? Just look at his revert war here Anti-Romanian discrimination 7 edits, not only 3RR. It could be blocked very easly. --156.17.130.10 16:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that's a funny comment and meaningful too. Anon, stop trolling. If anyone broke 3RR in your opinion, report him. And if anyone is reported and the report is correct, like above, the policy calls for a block. Whether the block is really imposed or not, I don't care. Just don't distort the facts, like "they both" 3RRed. One did and one didn't. Anittas reverted me twice and reverted Ghirlandajo twice in 100% reverts: 2+2 =4. I didn't see Ghirlandajo's 3RR violations. The report on him was frivlous since there were only 3 reverts and not 4. If you know of any other recent violations by this user, report him at the board and don't troll talk pages with unsubstantiated claims. Have something specific? Post it with edit differences. Don't have anything, don't say anything. Above are 4 diffs by Anittas' edit with exact reverts. There is nothing to discuss here. It is that simple. --Irpen

Anti-Romanianism

I don't agree with Ghirlo. Look at his last changes at Anti-Romanian discrimination http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Romanian_discrimination&diff=33243234&oldid=33243173 They may be considered as Anti-Romanian. Bonaparte talk 11:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Izehar, I see an annoying pattern of support for Romanian nationalists in your actions. If you perceive yourself to be a "serious" contributor, you should scrutinize the article in question and its talk page before bothering me on my talk page with confused remarks. This crap was kept from deletion only because Bogdangiusca promised to rewrite it, but this never happened. Now the trolls attack it trying to remove necessary tags. Under these circumstances, I'll have to rewrite it myself later today.--Ghirla | talk 12:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"This piece of trash" ???? this is what you Ghirla said??? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Izehar&diff=next&oldid=33244436 ???

And is not Anto-Romanianism but Anti-Romanianism. Bonaparte talk 12:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will add this proof [[7]] to your existent RfC Ghirla! -- Bonaparte talk 12:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. --Ghirla | talk 12:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your comment

I take you more seriously than, say... Anittas.

What's your problem, dude? I didn't insult him. He has insulted Bogdan, Vasile, Bonaparte, and me. Bogdan barely said anything to him, but he keeps calling one of his articles for crap. Why shouldn't I be taken seriously? This guy has made constant insults and reverts. --Anittas 12:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

Let's move forward on this. Call a vote a meeting, just make the changes per consensus, I dunno, you choose. :)Gator (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then no one will object to our reforms. Let's move forward.Gator (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

I noticed that you've been explaining to users that the 3RR applies only when someone undoes all of someone else's edits. This is not correct. If it were, that would allow everyone to easily skirt the rule by throwing in minor variations. Quoth the policy page:

"Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours." (emphasis mine)
"Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new, page moving, admin actions such as protection, etc. Use common sense."

Simply reverting one specific edit (excluding simple vandalism) four times within a 24-hour period is a violation. It doesn't matter if other edits are permitted to remain, or if additional edits are included.

This is why your assessment of the SoM case was erroneous; SoM reverted to the earlier image four times, and the other edits included in the first reversion are irrelevant.

I hope that I've been helpful. :-) —David Levy 16:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I was thinking of Wikipedia:Revert:

A revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time.
That describes the act of reverting a page. The 3RR applies to the reversion of an edit.

I'm not sure now - could you block User:Anittas and User:Ghirlandajo who have violated the 3RR according to my strict definition. I would do it, except I have already said I won't - the revert war continues. Izehar 16:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS those two users are listed at WP:AN/3RR. Izehar 16:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirlandajo reverted only three times on Khotyn, but violated the 3RR on Anti-Romanian discrimination. Anittas reverted four times on Khotyn. This violation isn't terribly recent, but it wouldn't be fair to block Ghirlandajo without also blocking Anittas. I've blocked both users for 24 hours.

Forget it - IMO it's best to turn a blind eye and not get involved. Izehar 17:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had arrived at my decision (and was typing my various replies) when the above addendum appeared. —David Levy 18:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Millwall F.C. page

Please advise why this page has been unprotected, it was protected by karmafist who led me to believe this was the correct procedure to follow. Best wishes, Lion King 18:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parys Re-creates Deleted Once Moore Page and puts Same Information On Main Mandy Moore Page

Parys and Extraordinary Machine( the creator of the Once Moore page) are the same person. The Once Moore page was deleted by an admin about a week or so ago, but Parys/Extraordinary Machine re-created it. Parys has a history of re-creating pages of his that were deleted. He did the exact same thing with the Crystalcherry page when he used the user name 'Cherryrain'. The Once Moore page has a copyrighted image that does NOT belong to Parys/Extraordinary Machine. It also has a link to the entire copyrighted lyrics to a song for which permission was not granted to reproduce them. The page has false information that could result in a loss of album sales for Mandy. Another Wikipedia user already called up Mandy's record company to confirm that the information is totally false, and Parys is totally aware of this fact. Parys, and the other contributors to this page, could be liable to a lawsuit, by Mandy Moore, for harassment. This same false information Parys, and his numerous pseudonym other Wikipedia user names, keeps putting up on the main Mandy Moore page which he has also gotten protected. Parys also blocked the many ip address of the computers in the Los Angeles Public Library and now 1000s of library users can not use Wikipedia. Could you please explain who i contact to get that ip address unblocked, i am new to Wikipedia. unsigned by Quirkywiki (talk · contribs) - post left at 18:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How Do I Unblock Ip Address Of Los Angeles Public Library

You said, on another page, that you would tell me how to unblock the ip address of The Los Angeles Public Library, which is used by 1000s of people, which Parys got blocked. First of all, how do find out what that ip address is? Do i have to go through those many pages of blocked ip address on Wikipedia, or is there an easier way to figure it out? I think Parys may have also blocked the ip address of the computers in the UCLA library which are also used by 100s of people. You can respond on my user talk page, my name is Quirkywiki. unsigned by Quirkywiki (talk · contribs) - post left at 19:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, who do i contact to see about getting Parys' ip address blocked? He has a history of re-creating deleted pages, such as his Crystalcherry page and his Once Moore page, and he has a habit of threatening people who edit his pages. See Parys' own talk page to see what i mean. He has also threatened people on Mandy Moore's official message board. He has also, repeatedly, put up copyrighted images to which he does not own the rights. He also has put up links to an illegal mp3 of a Mandy Moore song and a link to copyrighted lyrics of a song Mandy sung for which no rights were given to reproduce.

Thanx in advance. unsigned by Quirkywiki (talk · contribs) - post left at 19:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A while later:

I just checked the computers that had gotten blocked and, apparently, somebody had already unblocked them. Perhaps it was unblocked by one of the number of admins, who had contributed to Parys' pages whom i had contacted, that did the unblocking. One other question: is it possible to find out if Parys has a permanent ip address so that it would be possible for an admin to block him on a long term basis? I have found out that an admin named Nandesuka blocked Parys, when he was using the username 'Cherryrain' around November 19 for a period of 1 week. Nandesuka said, on Cherryrain's talk page( i can prove that Cherryrain and Parys are the same person if you'd like) that if Parys/Cherryrain repeated his actions that that admin would block Parys for a month. I will contact that admin and see what happens.

Part of the reason that i may seem so over-concerned about Parys is that he writes pornography about teenagers and had the bad judgement to put a link to his website, which has a link to his porn book, "High School Whore" on Mandy's official message board which has thousands of users, many of whom are very young. Parys seems to enjoy causing trouble and annoying and threatening people, and since he recently found Wikipedia, he has now found an outlet for which he can cause as much mayhem as possible. He is fully aware of what people think of him because on Mandy's message board he started a thread that he titled "Am I Evil?"

Anyways, thanx for all your help, you are the first Wikipedian to actually come forward and do this. I will try not to trouble you agian with any more questions, now that i have found the list of all the admins I think i can manage. Again, thanx alot! unsigned by Quirkywiki (talk · contribs) - post left at 19:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley Smile dispute

Thank you for protecting the page.

This is part of a long-running dispute over appropriate style/content in pop music articles, and I'm looking for advice over how to proceed next. User BGC has been repeatedly warned by other admins, particularly over the recently concluded infobox style dispute -- e.g., [8], [9], [10], [11] -- and his response has been to delete the warnings from his talk page, sometimes as little as an hour after they've been placed there [12], and to use edit summaries to describe some of the admins who've rolled back or reverted his changes as vandals [13], [14]

It's impossible to have a reasoned discussion with this user; this response is, unfortunately, representative [15]. I'm perfectly willing to set out my reasoning in whatever detail is appropriate (see, e.g., [16]).

Given the set of "last warnings" he's received from other admins, hasn't this reached the point where some sort of formal sanction is appropriate? Monicasdude 21:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Izehar, why don't you take a quick peek at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude 2 to get an understanding of the kind of editor we're dealing with. The last one's fresh; just added a couple of days ago. To earn 2 RfCs in 4 months is quite an accomplishment, and certainly cause for close inspection. As far as the article Smiley Smile goes, Monicasdude is deliberately wiping earlier pertinent informational writings, and attributing them to being Curps' edit when it is in fact HIS. There's no point having a discussion with MD because as far as he is concerned, he is beyond Wiki rules and regulations, which is why the 2 - not 1 - RfC pages exist on him. BGC 23:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ghirlandajo

Ghirla seems VERY disturbed with his block. Do you think he should be unblocked? Izehar 22:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. In fact, in response to his block evasion, I've blocked him for 48 hours. —David Levy 22:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any policy backing to that block? I don't think there is - there is no proof that that anon is Ghirla - I'll be resetting the block to 24 hours. Izehar 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The IP address resolves to Yaroslavl, Russia (Ghirlandajo's self-identified home town). —David Levy 22:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, no policy provides for a doubling of a 3RR block for evading it. Izehar 22:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did not double the 3RR block. Block evasion is a type of disruption (itself a blockable offense), so I combined the original 24-hour block with a separate 24-hour block for that additional infraction. This is well within the range of administrative discretion, and you should not have reset the block without allowing me to explain my rationale. —David Levy 22:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm sorry - I was thinking of bans (as opposed to mere 3RR blocks), where evasion causes the block timer to restart, not to double.
Again, I didn't double the original penalty; I added a second 24-hour block for the Ghirlandajo's disruptive evasion of the first block.
Rest assured I will not mess with your blocks again.
Thank you. :-)
I am more concerned about losing a valuable contributor - we say don't bite the newbies, but we also don't want to lose experienced and valuable contributors who actually write articles, which is more that can be said for you or me.
If this individual would simply stop revert warring and attempting to game the system, we wouldn't have a problem. (Keep in mind that this is not an isolated case.)
Anyway, I apologise - I still am against your 48 hour block and have never seen a precedent for that.
Here's a random example. (Here's a record of the actual block extension). —David Levy 23:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Look, I'd like to make a proper apology with regard to my resetting your block. I guess I did not heed the "discuss with the blocking administrator" guideline. I think it would be best if there were no bitter feelings - if we are going to work here together, I see no point in it. Izehar 22:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology, and I assure you that there are no bitter feelings on my part. Both of us are new at this, and I'm sure that both of us will make mistakes. I never doubted your upright intentions for a moment, and I hope that feeling is mutual. :-) —David Levy 23:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You met my stalker eh?

Well looks like you found the maniac from UCLA full lies and full of other stuff. Well all i can say is this, this student refuses to link any of her accusations to anyone, no proff, just assumption. She apparently has no clue about how this site is ran. another thing is this, she uses my book (which i wrote when i 16 and is so not a porn btw but what does that have to do with anything.) Look at her page history from all her sockpuppets, it's all vandalism. I have upgraded countless articles to keep them fresh. She merely attacks me through articles and complains when she is blocked. Parys 00:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hello Izehar,

I wish to thank you for your vote on my RfA. It has passed with a final tally of 59/0/0. If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Re: WP:3RR

I did respond to SchmuckyTheCat's message on the talk page [17]. I don't think it's appropriate for him to implement his own proposal, a proposal with contraditions to what I've said earlier, before anything has been reached there. What SchmuckyTheCat has done was an attempt to continue the edit warring-like trials to make a point. — Instantnood 20:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The latest one is not a revert of the same thing, SchmuckyTheCat was trying something different from his previous edits (yet for the same purpose). — Instantnood 20:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Izehar. I'm awaiting your illustration on why you did not block anybody in the beginning, but when SchmuckyTheCat resumed gaming right after the article was unprotected, it was me who was blocked. You said all parties should negotiate and consider mediation, but he simply ignores it and continues his attempts by trying something different, something that has already been objected in the talk page. — Instantnood 08:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like how, as soon as you came back from being blocked, you re-reverted all the changes you just got blocked for. SchmuckyTheCat 09:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was not being blocked for reverting those contents, but for countering your behaviour on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 09:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your RFA support

Hi Izehar! I've just come back from a very refreshing wikibreak, so here is a belated thanks for your support in my successful RFA. A big מזל טוב on your own of course. Have a happy new year (if that's your kind of thing) and a חנוכה שמח (if that's your kind of thing)! jnothman talk 17:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User 162.58.0.60

Hi Izehar, Why does your comment on the vandalism alert page show that this user hasn't vandalized for ages? If I check out their contributions log it shows that he vandalized the Oklahoma City article several times yesterday. Thanks, --Claygate 19:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate,

You may remember the war on styles that was waged some time ago and the eventual compromise reached which meant that styles (Holiness, Majesty, Royal Highness, etc) are no longer used in royalty articles. A series of templates were created to enable users to warn other users who attempt to reinsert styles into articles that that is no longer WP policy. However a user who is trying to get a whole series of templates deleted has nominated them on the WP:TFD for deletion. I am thoroughly fed up having to defend necessary templates from the minority of deletion police on WP who seem to act as a group: one nominates, then the rest all vote to agree with them. All help to defend the necessary templates in the styles series gratefully received. Thanks. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why did u block me?

User:SqueakBox Three revert rule violation on Costa Rica (talk · history · watch). SqueakBox (talk • contribs):

Previous version reverted to: [Link Time] 1st revert: cur) (last) 18:45, 31 December 2005 SqueakBox (am not disputing its truth but its importance, moved to top of culture section,) 2nd revert: cur) (last) 18:53, 31 December 2005 SqueakBox (revert) 3rd revert: (cur) (last) 19:33, 31 December 2005 SqueakBox (→Culture - rv it is not seen thjat way other by Costa Ricans and a tiny minority of others) 4th revert: (cur) (last) 19:39, 31 December 2005 SqueakBox (→Culture - no you have to source your extreme POV, I don't have to source it is wrong) Reported by: XGustaX

Comments:

</nowiki> He has repeatly reverted the Costa Rica page to what seem to me baist. He has also threated to report me after he also broke the 3 revert rule. unsigned by 24.60.161.63 (talk · contribs) - post left at 21:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recent blocks

Hi there! I'm going to unblock SqueakBox XGustaX. I saw the whole thing unfold, and there was more to it than it seems. I'll come back with an explanation very very soon, so plesae wait; I promise. --HappyCamper 21:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, that is better. I was acting in good faith trying to find a compromise with XGustaX in sppite of a lot of provocation, SqueakBox 21:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think these edits speak for themselves: [18] [19] -- both editors seem happy :-) Let's enjoy the rest of 2005 as we welcome 2006! --HappyCamper 22:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good New Year! We are about 6 hours behind you here which is one of the few things I find frustrating about living here, but mostly I love it and I certainly don't miss the cold. I know about the Hive Mind. Sorry if I got overly wound-up towards you, SqueakBox 22:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Greetings Izehar,
I wish to offer my gratitude for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with the final tally of 65/4/3. If you would ever desire my assistance in anything, or wish to give me feedback on any actions I take, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 09:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

protecting page, edits and push POV of user:Mikkalai

Hello, please can you unblock Transnistria page? It seems that this bias Admin user:Mikkalai had some large edits there, then he blocked the page. I don't agree with him to remove so many refereces including very neutral one from BBC.

He was warned one time by Admin user:TSO1D "rv vandalism -Miky stop " (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=33437730&oldid=33426842) -- Bonaparte talk 10:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If mikka doesn't come back is a great loss. Except the fact that he had with me some kind of relation, you know when he blocked me for content issue for one week and you unblocked me, he still let 48 h, I think he should reconsider and come back again. He should let aside the proud and to be glad that he can contribute to Wikipedia's enlargement. This is the aim isn't it after all? He felt frustating for revert war. Me for example I was never blocked for 3RR but I was always blocked for content issues. I believe that he will reconsider. Bonaparte talk 20:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you believe this? Mikka actually condemns romanians. I don't know what is his real problem but certainly he has some problems with romanians. He is too much politically involved. I don't know what his backgrounds are.
Look what he said there:
I will not type a single word elsewhere until the disgusting behavior of a big group of Romanian wikipedians will be discussed by a third party and condemned. While looking aroung my block I wandered to Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board and find the talk there simply sickening. It is just a snake's nest, with hatred oozing from their fingertips.Mikkalai
He just called romanians using such bad words. I don't like his attitude. He should change first. He proofs no respect for Romanian nation. He should appologize. Bonaparte talk 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bonaparte, you are being intemerate again. The supposed 3RR violation for which Mikka was blocked is anything but clear-cut. It looks to me like good-faith reversion of POV edits by an anonymous editor. It might be harder to call if these were edits from a signed-in editor, but as it is removing balancing words to increase the strength of an allegation of racism against neighbouring regions looks to me like POV pushing. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Look here at Transnistria http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=33394951&oldid=33357067 he was warned by other admin: "Miky stop" [[20]], he didn't. He made edits then he blocked the page. It looks bad. Bonaparte talk 21:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny

She can blank my page, and call me a pedophile. But i tag her as a sock puppet because it's proven and i can be blocked. YUou call that justice? Parys 19:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking a User

Khoikhoi has now vandalize the Spanish People page and Germanic peoples pages twice now he doesnt state his reason( even though most people seems to agree on the talk page that spaniards are Germanic decendants). If you look on the Spanish people page he put a pretty dumb reason also for reverting "adios muchachos" which makes me believe he is a Vandal. I think he should be blocked. Thanks. (24.60.161.63 05:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

User:65.5.128.20

Would you mind if I extended this block? I've blocked this IP for a month in the past with no change in behaviour. 24 hours has been tried a bunch of times. Wikibofh(talk) 17:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Izehar&oldid=33611175"