User talk:MarkSweep/archive4

Fascism

Can you please have a look of the posts by this user Stlemur? He puts a tag on every page HE thinks related to fascism. That's a very serious accusation, but he uses his own interpretation to say who is fascist and who is not, so maybe there are some rules about this? Thanks for your help. Bobbybuilder 23:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality

I wonder if it wouldn't be better to do an IP block on the vandal (it seems to be only 62.255.64.7 and 62.255.64.6) rather than a vprotected on the whole page? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:53, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

Let's try a two-pronged approach. The problem is that the IPs belong to NTL and should not be blocked for more than 15 minutes, as any block will impact legitimate contributors. --MarkSweep 19:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But do you think individual IP addresses are rotated so quickly among subscribers? My impresssion is that even dynamic IP addresses are not all that dynamic (e.g. a given house, or at least street, will get same IP for weeks/months). I don't know about NTL specifically though. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:06, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

Well, the fact that (apparently) the same person has been editing from two different IPs indicates to me that they do, in fact, get rotated pretty quickly. Presumably, those are the IPs of HTTP proxy servers. --MarkSweep 20:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just dropped by to leave Mark a note and read your conversation. As someone who was just accidentally blocked for about an hour or so because of a roughly similar IP to a drive-by troll, may I just say that it's not true that dynamic IPs stay relatively the same. I have a dynamic IP connection and so don't really know at a given moment what is is. But when I was blocked for a while, it occured to me to check. So I "disabled" and "enabled" my broadband a few times, and each time I went to check the IP both in my wireless connection box, and online at those websites that can tell you what your IP is. It was different EACH TIME I logged on and off! And I don't mean a small difference too. The only thing that stayed the same for me was the first three numbers, the rest all changed each time I enabled the connection. For example: YYY.XXX.XX.XX , only the Ys stayed the same always. The Xs changed everytime. So when you block dynamic IPs, please remember you are inadvertantly affecting a lot of innocent users. Not saying it should never be done in certain extreme circumstances, but just thought it would be good for sysops to be aware of the power they wield in their hands. :) Regards—Encephalon | ^ζ 22:29:45, 2005-08-17 (UTC)

Bisexuality

I saw you reverted 62.255.64.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on this article. It's the same vandal that you protected Homosexuality over, FWIW. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Salnikov vfd

Hi Mark, you voted on the Salnikov VfD a few days ago and may not, I suspect, have had all the information on that page and a related VfD when you made your choice. Just thought you might want to lok at it again and confirm that your vote is indeed to keep. I had forgotten about it until someone voted on it today. Regards—Encephalon | ^ζ 22:11:10, 2005-08-17 (UTC)

My comment about The eXile does not make sense in retrospect, as it does not address the real issue. So, strike that, but I'm not planning to change my vote because I still think that this seems like a worthwhile topic. One could argue that the current article is atrocious, but that suggests to me that it should be cleaned up and improved, rather than deleted. The title seems biased as well, but renaming it is not a problem. The real question is, then: can something be said about this person or persona in a neutral manner and based on verifiable facts? I'd have to say yes, given that the current article refers to published reports in newspapers. --MarkSweep 02:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, we are in fundamental agreement. The only reason my vote (delete) differs from yours (keep) is that I'm looking at this from the closer's POV, in which he has to decide whether the page at "David Whatsisname hoax" has to be deleted, or kept. Because we all agree the title is itself biased, it should be deleted (or as you say, "renamed"). A redirect is unsuitable for the same reason, and unnecessary if the new title contains his name anyway. I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to anyone writing an article now or in the future with a suitable title ("David Whatsis") and dealing with it with the NPOV. The reason I didn't vote "merge" is that there is nothing in the article that needs to be merged, there is no other article at present to merge to, and currently the article is itself an unrelenting personal attack from start to end, such that it really should probably be deleted on sight. WP should have as many good articles as possible and as few poor ones; but it should have zero personal attacks. Kind regards—Encephalon | ^ζ 16:25:43, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Hey there, I just wanted to thank you for your support in my recent RfA, I look forward to working together with you again in the future, and will to my best to ensure that your vote of confidence in me was not misplaced. -Loren 00:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probability Distribution standards

Hi MarkSweep - I took the bull by the horns and made a first cut at some standards for probability distribution articles into the Wikipedia:WikiProject Probability page. Can we get a consensus on this? I would like to start standardizing the discrete probability distribution articles, at least the PMF and CMF names, and method of handling parameters. PAR 14:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huaiwei

I'd like to hear your suggestion on how to deal with the recent edits by user:Huaiwei, such as [1] and [2]. To me he seems to be trying to modify every occasion Hong Kong is mentioned, and spreading the disagreements to affect more articles. — Insta ntnood 16:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Thank you for blocking those All Your XXX Are Belong To Us sockpuppets. :P Acetic Acid 04:08, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Abuse of Admin powers?

Scratch was blocked. I Looooove blocking people like that. Don't know if Jennet is a sockpuppet or vandalism is that bad. I'm waiting for one more vandalism.--Jondel 09:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying you disagree? Here's some of the evidence to support the charge of sockpuppetry:

Similar phrases on their user pages:
- Jennet: "People with a smug, self satisfied sense of superiority."[3]
- Scratch: "Smug people, and thoes with a superiority complex in general, often win the Darwin award :)"[4]
- NB: I don't have a problem with either of those statements per se, just with the similarities of "smug ... superiority".
Nearly identical vandalism on SPUI's user page:
- Jennet: [5]
- Scratch: [6]
Worse, their very first contribution after setting up their respective user pages was to harass SPUI:
- Jennet: look at his earliest contributions, especially the second one from the bottom[7]
- Scratch: look at his contributions, especially the third one from the bottom[8]
Jennet removed warnings from Scratch's talk page: [9]

I think it's pretty clear that Scratch (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet (either of Jennet (talk · contribs) and/or of whoever Jennet is a sockpuppet of), and the account was used primarily to harass SPUI. --MarkSweep 18:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the protection

if you read the anons comments on the talk page, you can see how ridiculous the whole arguement is. Thanks again! Hamster Sandwich 00:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The ridiculous part is including this person that is not notable in this section

London, Ontario

As an outside observer I plead with you to consider the merits of excluding Bill Brady under the notable Londeners section of the article. Often in todays culture celebrity may be confused with importance. I think this is true of Bill Brady. You have never heard of him before this entry (if the name sounds familiar its because there is a US politician that is that shares the same name) and it is more than a stretch to include him in the article. The arguments for including him hinge on no one activity, but rather a series of involvements which still doesn't amount to a significant contribution in any objective sense. The two wikipedia users that are proponents of including him, I respectufully submit, do so out of an inflated sense of Bill Brady's importance. They think because he is a familiar name to them he is therefore notable and deserving of an entry (and by the way that is not at all the norm for Londoners, being one myself I know most londoners have no idea who is his let alone have been influenced by anything he's done). There is nothing special he has done, no innovation is he responsible for. Why is it important? Because there are others on the list that really are notable and to put non-notables such as Brady creates the impression for all non-Londoners learning about the place on Wikipedia that London is a backwater. London is modest by some measures but it really has produced some impressive people (discovery of insulin for example) and this deserves to be reflected by wikipedia. Therefore I implore you to exercise your right to retroactively and arbitrarily decide what's reasonable, see through the smokescreen of inflated importance, and remove him from a list he does not deserve to be on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.24.235 (talk • contribs) 0:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not care one way or another about any matters of content in this case, and I have no intention to get involved in the content debate. In fact, if I had any special knowledge or opinion, I would not have protected this page in the first place. As a neutral outsider, all I see is a long string of edits and reverts, and this has to stop. Please state your arguments on the relevant talk page and try to arrive at a rough consensus with the other regular editors. Thanks, --MarkSweep 02:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon: Ok, that's fair, its just that the version presently frozen is the one I disagree with.

Well, that's tough, and it will inevitably happen to one side in any debate. Per the Protection Policy, I'm not allowed to pick sides. I only get to protect whatever is the current version at the time. --MarkSweep 04:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan

Please do not change "mainland China" to "China" in Taiwan-related articles. On Wikipedia, we follow the convention that "China" should not be used to contrast with "Taiwan": we do not want to suggest that Taiwan is not a part of China, nor do we want to suggest that it is. Using "mainland China" alongside "Taiwan" avoids both implications. Thanks, --MarkSweep 04:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Mark, but actually, the word "Mainland" specifically implies that Taiwan is part of China. It is not just definitional, though Mainland can imply "the main land mass of a country[...]." Modifying the word China with the word "Mainland" implies that there is another China you are also discussing here, e.g. a "non-Mainland" China. To which territory, then, are you referring? Moreover, if "Mainland China" is "China," why the redundacy? Or would we refer to the "United States" as the "Mainland United States" (to distinguish it from Hawaii)? Or "Mainland United Kingdom" or "Mainland England" to refer to "England" to distinguish it from Ireland and Scotland?

Oak Island article vandalism

Hi Mark. Last week you responded to a request I put on the Administrator intervention against vandalism board about vandalism to the Oak Island article. You left a message on User:192.197.71.189's talk page asking him to refrain from adding his disclaimer to the article and to discuss his issues. Unfortunately he's continued with the daily vandalism since then. This situation has been ongoing since May, and I was wondering if you would consider blocking him for a week since he doesn't seem willing to talk and a previous 24 hour block did nothing. Thanks. --NormanEinstein 16:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Norman, I completely agree that a 24 hour block will be ineffective in this case. He may not even notice that he was blocked when he comes back two days from now, or on Monday. How about protecting the page? Do you know if there are any major edits or disputes going on? If it's protected from editing, the only thing he can do is to state his case on the article's talk page. --MarkSweep 01:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any major editing to the article in a while, so protecting it wouldn't upset anyone's work plans. Generally I don't like articles to be protected except in cases of major edit wars or vandalism, especially since I think Oak Island could use a good copyedit and I wouldn't want to stop anyone from fixing it up. I'll leave the decision up to you. I'm going to chill and ignore the article or a while. :-) --NormanEinstein 13:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I won't protect it for now. I started a discussion on WP:ANI about this, and somebody suggested adding an invisible comment to the article as a means of getting the anon's attention. I did that, so let's see if it does any good. If the anon keeps ignoring these requests and does not contribute anything worthwhile, my patience will start to run out, though. --MarkSweep 13:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move of Politics of Taiwan to Politics of Republic of China

Would you point me in the direction of the consensus that led you to move this article? To me, it is obvious that Taiwan, being a term that could mean the place or the ROC is the most neutral term (as a result of its ambiguity), and of course, there was a whole big discussion on the talk page. I do not see why it's a minor edit either, though I will wait to read a consensus decision.--DownUnder555 02:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). In a political context, "Republic of China" is the more accurate, neutral, and thus preferred term. This is just the two-sentence summary of a much longer previous discussion, which is archived here. --MarkSweep 03:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I read the "consensus", but actually the official policy page is disputed. Further, the associated talk page is heated and I see no reason why it should be taken as authoritative. There are few and infrequent edits to the Chinese naming convention official policy page--it cannot be taken as relevant. The discussion that took place on your talk page explains your own personal reasoning, but that is not helpful. If we disregard the votes you mention, that could be fine, but where is the _discussion_ where a bunch of people agree with you. Otherwise shouldn't I "be bold" and just change it back or find someone who can? And then won't you just change it back again?

I don't see how the ROC can be a neutral term. Chen Shui-Bian is the president of the ROC. But politics of the ROC? That violates POV since many of its participants don't believe in an ROC. Also, the PRC's official position is that there is no ROC. Whether they believe it is a part of China or not, they do believe there is Taiwan.--DownUnder555 08:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is an NPOV-section tag there because some people disagree about the proper uses of "mainland China". The parts about "Taiwan" vs. "ROC" are not under dispute, and the policy was hashed out by consensus and has remained essentially unchanged during the last two years. But even if it were disputed, that doesn't all of a sudden render it inapplicable. The rationale for "Politics of the ROC" is that political parties exist in the entire ROC, not just on Taiwan, and compete in national elections, which are held all across the ROC, not just on Taiwan. --MarkSweep ✍ 21:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for You

I hereby award you the **RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar** for your heroic efforts in repairing and repelling the Willy on Wheels vandal — Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} (KC)

A Barnstar for You

Re Image deletion warning

thanks, but I was the one who put it up for deletion! No worries though. Super Saiyan Plough 02:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hearby award you another Barnstar

I hereby award you the **RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar** for your heroic efforts in searching through the userlist and blocking numerous impostor accounts and inappropriate usernames. Awarded by Zzyzx11 (Talk) on 06:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some...

Well, I was going to give you a barnstar, but it looks like you've got a ton already, so....

Thanks for getting rid of the WoW sleepers :).

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 06:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking IP's of transparent proxies

The block has timed out, but there is a major bug in Bugzilla that relates to the address of the proxy being picked up rather than that of the users. This relates to WikiMedia 1.5. I will put the information I have from my ISP that relates to this problem in bugzilla. Is there anything further I can do? Softgrow 12:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this! I see you're using Internode – awareness about their proxy setup is spreading, and I've added a note to Wikipedia:ISP contact information. I'm not sure if the issues in the MW software have been addressed, so if you experience any problems in the future, please let me know or contact the developers. --MarkSweep ✍ 21:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The developers are looking at it but it is actually non-trivial and will require more work than a simple two line change if the vandals are to be kept at bay as well as helping those behind transparent proxies. I've written a much fuller comment in bugzilla Softgrow 02:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark

Regarding:

217.140.193.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) = Arrigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), PLEASE READ User talk:HappyCamper#Without doubt --Francis Schonken 08:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and your comment:

"I don't see any vandalism here that would require urgent intervention. Can you please expand on this issue over at WP:VIP and also explain the significance of 217.140.193.120 == Arrigo? Thanks,"

-> Please did you read User talk:HappyCamper#Without doubt?

-> I could move the content of that section on HappyCamper's page to WP:VIP ("possible sockpuppets" section?), but would that be wise? Please tell me what to do best. What I wrote on HappyCamper's talk page might be far too elaborate for WP:VIP (which suggests "short comments")

-> And whatever way one turns this, a sysop would need to "click edit histories for over half an hour" to see how the disruption by this user takes place. And I repeat, he always gets away like this, disturbing in vote procedures and the like for over a few months now. What to do? Anyway, whatever much of your time you choose to devote to this: thank you. --Francis Schonken 10:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that there is a real issue here, I just didn't think that it required urgent intervention. WP:AIV is basically there for obvious vandals that have been warned and can be blocked immediately or on the next violation. This case seems to be different. As you say yourself, it requires sifting through edit histories for evidence, and at this point the most helpful thing you could do, since you're most familiar with the issues, would be to write up a short report on the alleged disruption that includes a few pertinent diffs and pointers to relevant histories. You don't have to go into too much detail; a few pointers to evidence would be helpful, but it would be even better if you could summarize any recurrent trends and patterns. Regarding the sockpuppet allegations in particular: sockpuppets are tolerated in general, so you'd have to provide evidence showing deception, double voting, or other mischief involving sockpuppets.

You are right that WP:VIP isn't the most appropriate place for this. How about listing it on your user page or a subpage of your user page? That way, you can point to it from WP:VIP or any other page where this may be discussed. In any case, it's important to have everything on a single page for easy access. I'll review the information and will take action based on it. Cheers, --MarkSweep ✍ 10:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk continued, along the lines you suggested, at User talk:Francis Schonken/Arrigo disruption, took me more than half an hour to put together! --Francis Schonken 12:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violations

Thanks so much for stepping in MarkSweep. It was like helpless. If you take a quick glance at the edit history of some entries, e.g. Category:Law enforcement in Macau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:Law enforcement in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), you can tell with what excuse the first contentious edit was done. It was simply marvellous that Huaiwei avoided his 4th revert to group them under the currently mainland China-specific category, and start removing them from the by country category. It was a helpless time.. I should have come to you earlier. :''-( — Insta ntnood 10:46, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much for regrouping the disputed categories. Of course the better way would be having three categories for mainland, Hong Kong and Macao, all under the PRC category, with the PRC, Hong Kong and Macao categories grouped under the by country category. The China category can be kept for the historical perspectives, as well as a "categoryredirect" to, if not parent category of, the PRC and ROC categories. But I agree with the current way as intermediary. Another set of categories under fire are category:cinema of Hong Kong, Taiwan and China. The discussions at talk:cinema of China clearly have a consensus the cinema of China article focuses on the thread developed on the mainland. — Insta ntnood 12:30, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention in the above, Marksweep, although I would just like to point out something which raises my eyebrows. From the edit history, and from the text above, it seems like while the two revert wars were sparked because of [10] and [11] (actually, I did not realise the PRC one exists, otherwise I would grouped them under that category), yet he seems completely warm to the idea of them falling under the PRC category. I have a feeling, that if I was the one adding them to the PRC cat, he will also be fiercely reverting it nonetheless. I am left wondering if he is editing based on a rational mind, or doing so based on personal vendettas against his "opponents". I hope you may look into this matter, and in all cases of edit disputes between us. Thank you!--Huaiwei 13:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from what user:Huaiwei said in the edit summary: " My edit was in response to you removing this from the Chinese category. " and " i said article " [12]. I thought it was user:Fat pig73's edit on Aug 30 to Macau Security Force [13] and my subsequent edit [14] that made Huaiwei to do these edits [15] [16]. — Insta ntnood 14:53, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken

Hi Mark, I did as you suggested above. Now Arrigo was on my talk page again, to which I replied:

Hi Arrigo, whatever way you turn this you didn't follow the WP:VIP guideline that says

Use the {{test}}, {{test2}}/{{test2a}}, {{test3}}, and {{test4}} templates as appropriate. Only if vandalism continues, add user to list.

There was no "test" message according to the required format, followed by "continued" vandalism by me. And you know that perfectly well. While on the other hand you received the test2 message several days ago, on both of your user talk pages (the real and the sockpuppet one), and continued your disruptive behaviour, by adding to wikipedia what I'm perfectly entitled to call "further nonsense". Ask Deb (for example your attempt to "move" Elizabeth of Bohemia to Elisabeth of England). Ask John K (who unmasked your sockpuppeteering). Ask so many others. --Francis Schonken 13:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please, and again please, some sort of action is needed. I don't know what to do. --Francis Schonken 14:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, test templates are not mandatory. They are intended just to save work. Almost a week ago I already warned Francis Schonken to erase any comments of others from talkpages. That has been sufficient warning. His removals continued yesterday. If someone is a vandal, it is Francis Schonken. I have written my reasons why the move of my comments is inappropriate to that talkpage, which is the correct location for my those comments, seeing they are intended for NC policy discussion and not to be moved from that. I will not consent to any removal of my comments. Arrigo 14:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You need to sort out where discussion should best take place. If a thread of discussion needs to be moved and the move is done in an orderly fashion, this is not vandalism. --MarkSweep ✍ 01:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps User:Francis Schonken should understand that he is expected to receive criticism at same level at which he himself has "attacked" others: [17], [18] - [19]
Conduct towards others is usually a two-sided thing. 217.140.193.123 12:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading images

Hello, I can't find a way to talk to you, so I have to leave a message here: If I already uploaded some images without claiming their sources, is there a way just to reclaim their sources or do I have to upload them again? Thanx -geisha1021

NPOV dispute on Political status of Taiwan

Hi, there's a dispute going on regarding some of the wording used in the Political status of Taiwan article, as well as whether or not the ROC should be characterized as a de facto state. As I noticed your involvement in the formulation of some of the Chinese naming conventions, your comments and suggestions would be greatly appreceated. -Loren 15:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ROC

After posting on my talk page, Cantus seems to have removed all references to the Republic of China on the various lists of countries by GDP. I don't think this is appropriate. --Ji ang 22:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ken langone

Greetings! I was the one who accidentally created the Ken langone page in error (instead of making Ken Langone), as well as the person who requested the page's deletion. I think I'm a little confused as to how redirects work: If the search function automatically takes me to Ken Langone when I type in "Ken langone", why is the latter page necessary for a redirect? Thanks! GinaDana 03:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but the redirect is from Ken langone to Kenneth Langone, no? So if it's present, you can type any combination of "Ken", "ken", "Kenneth", "kenneth" in the search box and still end up at the correct article. That's why I thought the redirect is useful after all. --MarkSweep ✍ 03:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am confused because of what Wikipedia has to say about redirects: "Note: Go search related redirects are needed only if the article title has more than two words and words following the first have different capitalisations." I understood that to mean that no article with alternate capitalization was needed in a case such as this, where there are only two words in the entry. GinaDana 04:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC) I think I am also confused because if I type in "kenneth langone," I am automatically redirected to Kenneth Langone without a redirect page. GinaDana 04:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, now I'm confused too. Something isn't quite right about the description of redirects. I'll look into it. --MarkSweep ✍ 04:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm kind of new around here, and I'm still trying to figure out the mechanics of Wikipedia. GinaDana 18:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

thanks for the award. I quite enjoy the RC patrol. It's best when I find a small article that I cna help on. CambridgeBayWeather 00:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Yes, I would be interested in helping out as an admin. Please tell me the scope of what I would need to do, how to get going and who to talk to for instruction and advice. Thanks, --Nv8200p (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User name blocking

Hi, I was recently blocked for my username, User:DieYuppieScum. First and foremost, let me explain the situation to you. Die Yuppie Scum was the name of a somewhat commical, NONVIOLENT, NON-(insert bad stuff here) movement of the early '90s. Basically, it was was poking fun at the fact that business-type people were prosspering in the '90s while others weren't. Die Yuppie Scum is also the name of an art exhibit, and the name of a song. Secondly, I don't appreciate the blocking of my username without some sort of prior notice. Other admins of Wikipedia have come into conact with my name and obviously haven't had much of a problem with it(e.g. no one else blocked me). And finally, supposing my user name, "DieYuppieScum", is bad, "yuppie" is NOT a racial/ethnic/national/religious term, nor a slur; thus, this DOES NOT clearly meet Wikipedia criteria. And finally, there has not been any real world (big emphasis here) violent actions associated with "Die Yuppie Scum". --Kurthalomieu J. McCool 08:03, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, relax, it was a mistake and I unblocked you immediately. Sorry about that. --MarkSweep✍ 08:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding --Kurthalomieu J. McCool 17:13, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Arvanites

Could you please have a word with User:Theathenae. Certain facts have been proven on the Arvanites, Megleno-Romanians and Albanian language pages and he refuses to accept them. The sources are UNESCO documents. He has proved nothing and will edid war anyone who does not accept his POV views. If he were to provide some evidence so support his arguments, that would be OK, but he doesn't. All he does is not cooperate. REX 10:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the article's talk page, I don't wish to get involved in the subject matter of the dispute. I stepped in as an admin only to stop the ongoing edit war, but I'm not qualified, nor is it an admin's job, to settle this dispute between you. The only people who can settle the dispute are the parties to the dispute, perhaps with the help of a mediator. I'm not a member of the mediation committee, so please don't count on me for help. I've made a few suggestions regarding productive steps you can take towards a resolution. I still believe it would be best if all of you worked out a short description, perhaps three paragraphs, stating in neutral terms the relevant background of the dispute, the first party's position, and the second party's position. That would be a good basis for an RFC, mediation, etc. --MarkSweep✍ 13:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have already requester for arbitration here. REX 13:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that the ArbCom is, justifiably, very reluctant to rule on content issues. If this case is about someone's behavior as an editor, it may get heard, depending on the severity and other circumstances. My advice would be to go for an RFC on the content issues first. --MarkSweep✍ 13:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

doppelblocking

Hi Mark, I noticed that you blocked User:FreplySpang' as a doppelganger/impostor of me. Thanks for keeping an eye out! Actually, that particular account was created by me to prevent vandalism. Is it worth unblocking it to keep it from cluttering up the block log? FreplySpang (talk) 16:17, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with unblocking is that it will then start to show up again on my list of suspicious accounts. As long as we all agree that there shouldn't be any edits made from that account, it could stay blocked. I often cannot tell if an account was created by an impostor, or as a doppelganger account, or as a sockpuppet account, but I've managed to convince myself that these distinctions don't matter: the account shouldn't be active, regardless of who created it and for what purpose. If someone were to unblock doppelganger accounts, I'd need to make a note that those are benign cases, whereas if they are simply blocked, they won't show up on my radar screen in the first place, because there's no point considering blocked accounts. Does that make sense? I'd be happy to explain this in more detail in a different forum. Cheers, --MarkSweep✍ 23:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hello

I'm really sorry for dragging you into this, but the way he slanders my name (he have done it at least 7 times before, even though I asked not to do so) is very irritating and I find it harder and harder to remain cool. I find the term far-right very offending, and this is just one of his ways. I repeatedly tried to assume his good faith, after 3 or 4 simmilar incidents, I've wondered if he is doing it on purpose, and now I've had enough of it. Please check what I wrote and how he ignored or distorted them. I'll try to write a summary with external refferences, but he'll ignore it anyway, and then he'll start again calling me names or misinterpreting the facts and/or what I said. MATIA 07:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do now? I just discredited all your so-called sources here and now you have no basis for your argument and should accept UNESCO's definition. You do not have good faith, Wikipedia policy clearly requires evedence for questionable edits and you have provided none. Well MATIA, I doesn't work that way. You will either find reasonable sources or withdraw. REX 08:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, please continue this on Talk:Arvanites. Or better: don't continue this debate in its present form at all, since it doesn't look like it's going to solve the problem at hand. Please see my comments on the article's talk page. --MarkSweep✍ 08:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please check Talk:Arvanitic_language#just_the_facts and then if you can check the rest page too. Thanks. MATIA 08:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleting history

How do you undelete a history without undeleting the visible contents? Zoe 08:17, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

It was an undelete followed by an edit to blank the pages. No magic involved. ;-) --MarkSweep✍ 08:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, duh. :) Thanks. Zoe 08:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

TBDSY

Huh? I must've missed something... when and where did TBDSY say that he left again? He was still editing this morning. Lupo 09:37, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Never mind; found it. A pity he has such a low frustration threshold. Lupo 10:15, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Joolz's RFA

Hey Mark, thanks for your vote on my recent RFA, your support was appreciated :) -- Joolz 11:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Country = sovereign state?

Hello Mark. Something like the conflict with category:law enforcement in Macau (edit history) and telephone numbering plan (edit history) has continued. User:Huaiwei has created category:political entities, and moved many categories previously grouped under category:countries, such as dependent territories, to populate this new category. I've listed this new category to WP:CFD, citing the WP:POINT policy. Please take a look at the discussion there and express your idea. Thanks. — Insta ntnood 18:19, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Science pearls

Hello,

Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 09:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WarcraftBOrganization

Hey, thanks for catching that. I had actually lost the page when moving it off my talk page and was looking for it when you put it in the right place. So, thanks again! -Falcorian 04:31, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

New admin seeking mentor

Thanks for supporting me in the adminship process. Now I am hoping you will consider being a mentor to me as I learn to wield my new powers. I may need advice on how to do things and a sounding board to keep me honest. Any caveats you have, please feel free to post them my way. --Nv8200p (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my admin status is relatively recent too, so I'm clearly not the most experienced person, but I'd be happy to share what I've learned so far. --MarkSweep✍ 05:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IFD process

When you've finished processing an image (either delete or keep), remove the listing from the day subpage. When you've finished an entire day, remove it from this page, add it to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Log, and restore the discussions.

Above is a step from the ifd page under the Instructions for Administrators but it does not seem to be done lately. Do you know what the status of this is? and what does "restore the discussions" mean. Thanks --Nv8200p (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've never finished an entire day all by myself; in the couple of instances where I came close to finishing a whole day, there were always a few listings left over that seemed particularly tricky and which I left for the more experienced admins to process. So I haven't done this myself, but I think the instructions mean that when you're done with a given day, remove it from the main IFD page (that's definitely current practice), then revert that day's subpage to the last version prior to any admin actions, and add it to the log Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Log. This is a bit different from AfD. Alternatively, perhaps we could strike through the listings that have been processed by an admin, so that the page doesn't have to be reverted in the end. Does that make sense? --MarkSweep✍ 05:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Value added tax

Hi, I would just like to let you know, that a new edit war has erupted in the above page, sparked off when I discovered User:Instantnood adding back a contentious edit [20] two weeks ago completely unannounced. I proceeded to restore it to your compromise version, which he then reverted. Not surprisingly, the result was a revert war, as it has always happened.

May I also note, that he appears to have a habit of engaging in edit warring, and then revisiting these pages and reinstating his preferred version when the issue becomes forgotten and he suspects no one is observing his edits. With habits like this, he leaves others no choice but to check through every single one of his edits on a routine basis, the very thing he does to others and incurring their wrath in the process.

I would hope you may look into this, and if neccesary, reflect it as part of the arbcom process (if it is still alive). Thank you!--Huaiwei 09:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First I am not adding back the word "mainland" which was considered contentious by Huaiwei in the previous conflict (and the subject matter of the conflict). Second I don't think the fact that they have independent finances is anything contentious and debatable as it is prescribed by the basic law ([21] (Article 106) [22] (Article 104)). To the worst, Huaiwei has responded in a knee-jerk manner and reverted other parts of my edit [23] [24]. — Insta ntnood 10:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the above is a classic example of Instantnood's attempts in playing the ignorance card when his actions were taken up to task. I find it difficult to believe that he is unaware of the fact that our differences do not lie merely over the word "mainland", or the "PRC". The essense of the matter was over the political status of the SARs on the international arena, something I am sure he is fully aware of. By justifying his above action over the "mainland" issue, he appears to be shaking off all accountability and responsibility for the dispute at hand.

As for the phrase "independent finances", I do not dispute that factually. However, when a sentence like "These taxes do not apply in the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau" is changed to "These taxes do not apply in Hong Kong and Macau, which have independent finances according to the basic laws," will any one be naive enough to assume no political motive is at play here? The SAR in itself is a result of the basic law. Why favour one version over the other other than to emphasize on certain aspects of the law? Is this a neutral edit? I personally do not think so, and it is for this reason I am reinstating your version. I hope you may look into this and take into account both of our concerns for an amicable solution. Thank you once again!--Huaiwei 15:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's never right to make personal assumptions on the intentions and motives of somebody else's actions, and based on such personal assumptions to counteract.
The status of "special administrative region" should not be taken for granted as something like what rights Hong Kong and Macao are presently having. The legal basis of their rights come from the basic laws. Being special administrative regions does not automatically mean having independent public finances. The actual fact is that "special administrative regions" were a result of the Article 30 of the 1982 Constitution of the PRC, and the Sino-British and Sino-Portuguese joint declarations. And the basic laws were the result of preparation of the establishment of the two special administrative regions upon transfer of sovereignty. It could be catastrophic to relate all these events and consequences in the other way round, counteract in a knee-jerk manner and label everything contentious.
MarkSweep I would like to request for your kind assistance to reach a practical solution, and, if unavoidable, take necessary actions. Thank you. — Insta ntnood 17:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally think it is equally unethical, if not more, to denounce action sover "assumptions" on "personal intentions", and thereby taking advantage of the situation to push forth one's personal agenda. Instead of constantly placing all blame squarely on the opposing party, I would think some acceptance of responsibility would be the barest minimum we may expect for any dispute resolution to take place. It is no wonder, therefore, as Instantnood describes in his comments below, that he somehow feels nothing can be done in that direction. That is true, because he do not consider self-admission, self-accountability, gaining better appreciation of other's views, and adopting a give-and-take mentallity as qualities he is capable to adopt, or refuses to acknowledge the existance of.

Instantnood seems very quick in his predictions that "nothing will come out of any discussion", thereby using this as an excuse for engaging in revert wars without bothering to utilise any other form of communication first. Is this the appriopriate and mature mentality to adopt? Is this the way forward towards dispute resolution? I do not think so. I do hope, that you may consider alternative factors which may contribute to communication breakdown and animosity besides the constant rheotic instantnood bombards in your talkpage, in those of other relevant admins' talkpages, as well as in the arbcom process.--Huaiwei 14:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look and I might comment if I can think of something productive to say, but that's about all I'm prepared to do. Let me just say for the record that I won't use any special admin powers in this or any other present or future debate you guys are having, since I'm not a neutral outside party. I urge all of you not to get into any more revert wars, since the only "result" is that the article in question will be protected and, depending on the timing and frequency of the reverts, you all may get blocked for a 3RR violation. None of this is productive or desirable. My generic advice would be to be more verbose when necessary: complex situations often cannot be adequately described using a single word or phrase. If the situation you're describing warrants it, then explain in detail in the article how the present tax regulations came about and why things are the way they are. --MarkSweep✍ 04:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Mark. :-D Frankly speaking, what should be said have been said throughout several months of debates, and I don't think either of us can convince the other party on anything. As for this article, being special administrative regions does not grant them independent finances, but the basic laws. The basic laws were the outcome of the joint declarations and Article 31 of the PRC Constitution. — Insta ntnood 12:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious questions over Instantnood's deductions that the SAR's financial independence are distinctive from the laws which define their existance. Are the above his own interpretations, or that which is substaintiated widely in all sources available? This remains unclear in his claims above, and I stand unconvinced. I would caution against adopting his viewpoints hook line and sinker without due consideration over its validity and personal bias. May I also warn, if it is neccesary, that protraying personal viewpoints as fact is an exercise not exactly unknown to him.--Huaiwei 14:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MarkSweep could you please take a look at list of largest airlines ([25]) and foreign relations of Singapore ([26])? Many thanks. :-) — Insta ntnood 07:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And land borders [27] as well. Thanks. — Insta ntnood 13:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. Another issue is over the ROC/Taiwan [28]. As far as I know the Hong Kong Government (and the Government of Macao as well) cannot conclude aviation agreements with "Taiwan" in the same way as it does with other country, but some certain special treatments. Anyhow flights between Hong Kong or Macao with the ROC should not be taken for granted as international (although it might seem to be apparent). — Insta ntnood 08:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But as I have repeatedly pointed out, it cannot be taken for granted that any country who has no political ties with Taiwan should be able to conclude aviation agreements with them too, so what makes this a special case worthy of mention?--Huaiwei 08:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's natural that flights between the ROC and any other place on Earth are international, but not Hong Kong and Macao (after 1997 and 1999 respectively). Whether flights between mainland China and the ROC should be international or domestic when santong is available is already a big subject of debate. — Insta ntnood 09:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the former be "natural", when govt-to-govt negotiations are taking place dispite them not recognising ROC's sovereignty? The PRC government allowed this to happen, just as it allows the HK and Macau govts to make similar aviation arragements with the ROC. So why highlight the later, but not the former? Are there any disputes over the status of flights between the SARs and that of the ROC? And is it appriopriate for this discussion to be taking place in someone's talk page?--Huaiwei 10:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Mark. But it was Huaiwei who started responding to my message to you, and I had to give a reply to clarify. — Insta ntnood 10:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For your information Mark, negotiations between Hong Kong and the ROC is not intergovernmental [29] (the fifth paragraph starting with "所謂「台港航權談判」，是指...") [30] (2nd last paragraph) [31] [32], unlike other countries which maintain de facto relations with the ROC, though without establishing formal ties. — Insta ntnood 11:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope from the above that you may note how "discussions" take place between us, and , particularly with the last post made by instantnood above, how I substaintiate my viewpoint that instantnood is someone who does not hesitate in pointing accusationary fingers at others (something I am equally good at), yet is reluctant in accepting any form of responsibility in any dispute (something I am not averse towards). May this go down as one more piece of evidence.--Huaiwei 11:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also note Char siu, Char siew rice, Xu Huaiwen, Huaiwen Xu.--Huaiwei 08:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Clea Rose case

Mark, why did you revert Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clea Rose case to remove User:LevKamensky's "keep" vote? The AfD is not closed, he is not voting twice, and is not (to my knowledge) a sockpuppet, and presumably his vote/comment is as valid as anyone else's here. MCB 06:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The vote was placed in bad faith. LevKamensky (talk · contribs) wanted to prove a point: one of his articles was nominated for deletion, which he was unable to accept, so he went through a list of AfD candidates alphabetically and voted "Strong KEEP" on all of them. See the list of his recent contributions and WP:ANI#User:LevKamensky and the an intelligent AfD for further details. --MarkSweep✍ 06:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so I see. I crossed paths with him on the other AfD. After I posted above, I looked at his contrib list and it looked like maybe he was running a bot to vote on all the AfDs. Thanks for catching that! MCB 07:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ainslie Henderson

Why did you revert this vote? [33] Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see immediately preceding section above. --MarkSweep✍ 06:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

Thanks for reverting my talk page, i have been reverting the edits of that guy and reported him for quick administrative action. But wiki is super slow for me and i couldn't revert my own talk no matter what i did. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pages to note

I further list relevant pages which you may like to review as part of the arbcom process. More pages may be listed should they require your attention later.

Land borders--Huaiwei 09:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Issues have similarly popped up here:

Imposter

Thanks for dealing with the imposter. User:SaIsb Salsb 13:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fenian Swine

Just wondering why you keep deleting this edit SHARE YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH USER ZOE ON User:LevKamensky TALK PAGE. off my discussion page.--Play Brian Moore 19:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of a harassment campaign by a banned user. LevKamensky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has singled out User:Zoe and a few other editors for "special treatment". The latest edits were made by his sockpuppets, in circumvention of an indefinite block. Moreover, I don't think he was ever interested in any genuine discussion (for which an RfC would have been the appropriate venue), only in defaming and harassing Zoe. His sockpuppets went around spamming various talk pages, and I reverted their edits after I blocked them, figuring that you probably didn't want to see those spam messages. Of course, it's your talk page and you're more than welcome to revert or do whatever else you see fit. --MarkSweep✍ 21:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My imitators

Thanks for blocking User:NatusRima and User:NatusRima1 a few days ago. User:NatusRima2 has also defaced my userpage (see this diff). Could you please block that user as well? Thanks, NatusRoma 02:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DOH!

I went over to the pump and looked there. It seems that at least a couple of other people had the same problem. Also it seems only to happen on the computer at work and then when clicking on random links. Both my home and the other work computer do not show the same problem. So it may be a machine specific problem. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather 19:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Number

I thought The Number (talk · contribs) was perma-banned? He's been editing. Did I miss a re-evaluation by the ArbCom? — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had to ask for help myself, as it had slipped my mind that a blocked user can still edit their own talk page. This applies even to permanently blocked users. Since The Number was clearly trolling again, I've protected his talk page. --MarkSweep✍ 02:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]