Greetings. I was cleaning out some CAT:TEMP pages and came across User talk:76.126.4.212, that you'd indefblocked. I've been told that, normally, we don't indefblock IPs as such. The reasoning is that if the user changes ISP and the blocked IP were eventually assigned to a new computer, it would in turn be indefblocked. Would you consider unblocking and reblocking them say, for 6 months or perhaps a year? Thanks for your consideration, --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, no you are mistaken. That IP was blocked indef by an other admin, I reduced the block to 31 hours and struck out the "indef blocked" message from that admin. I also left that admin a note about it. Thanks for the message none the less though. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk22:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. The old CAT:TEMP notice was still on the template you crossed off. I left a note for you by mistake 'cause you were the last warning on the page. My bad! I'll take the template off the old notice. Thanks! --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:125.255.1.104
Hi, can you re-block this user. It appears he has been unblocked, and he has vandalised again.
I suspect you are referring to my removal of the user from AIV? I didn't mean to use that particular edit summary, I reverted myself and used an other. I removed the listing because the vandal is not active. AIV is for active vandals only. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk10:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just signed up last night and I kep trying to create an article last night called Eccentric Fatlity. It had a pic and a small article written into it. It was getting late so I stopped, and when I woke up this morning to resume editing, my article was gone, so I ask you this nicely, please stop deleting my article about Eccentric Fatalty unde the same title name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natron bomb (talk • contribs)
Deleted Emmett H. Walker, Jr. article
Hi
I see you speedily deleted my article on Lieut. Gen Emmett H. Walker, Jr. as a 'Biographical article that doesn't assert the significance of its subject'. This is an obvious mistake. The article does point out prominently that he was at one time the Chief of the National Guard of the United States - which is a major military command in the US. Furthermore he was a World War II hero winning both the Silver and Bronze stars!!. I would also point out that other former chiefs of the National Guard have pages up eg. John B. Conway, Raymond F. Rees and Russell C. Davis. As such I urge you to reinstate the article. Kiwipat (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was a little hesitant when I was contemplating whether or not the article failed the SD criteria under A7, but in the end I felt it did. I'm also hesitant to un-delete the article as I still feel it fails A7. You are most welcome to take the article to DRV, I have no objections to that. I know it must be annoying when an article you created is deleted, I've gone through it myself. Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk20:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you not delete the music page for the band God Fires Man please.
The page I created complies with the criteria for bands and musicians.
They have had notable coverage in UK press.
They have toured the UK with Hundred Reasons and will go on extensive touring of Europe and USA in 2008.
They contain 2 band members whose previous bands have been signed to a major recroding label (Geffen Records), and 3 former bands who have undertaken extensive global touring over the past decade.
The producer of their forth coming album has produced major label albums by Cave In, and the mixer has mixed albums for Deftones and Audioslave in the past.
Their lead single from latest EP "Dark" is getting notable radio plays on Radio 1 and XFM in the UK.
Publishing of this page would be much appreciated as it will myself the time of redoing it.
The page describes the company in a fair way. Many companies are described in the same manner. Can you tell me what is advertising in your mind and should be removed to be compliant. Is there a special page of the dos and donts. I have tried to read all policies related to advertising and could find one that I have violated. Thanks.Buffalo Wings and Rings —Preceding comment was added at 01:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you see it that way. Please read this page. Your article is not only spam, I also fear it would fail our notability, as well as our reliable sources policies. Please note that blogs, self-published content, etc, etc, are not reliable sources.
Simply being a restaurant, or a chain of restaurants does not make something notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Is it culturally significant? Can you provide third party sources that you could cite? Has it had vast media coverage? Remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a collection of whatever you want or think should be in it. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk02:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, my talk page is now coming under the same Kenneth Hari attacks (presumably by the same person or group of people) from more than one IP address. Would it be possible to block them all, please? Many thanks. Xn404:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I've seen them, they have already been blocked by Luna Santin. Your page isn't permanently protected, it's just temporary until the vandals get bored of waiting, it won't cause harm. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk04:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I couldn't see that the most recent two had been blocked, as the message to say so hasn't been added to their pages. regards, Xn405:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism Warnings
Greetings! Well done with all your efforts reverting vandalism. I have noticed a few of times recently (e.g. [1] and [2]) that you have issued relatively mild warnings to an anonymous user when they have already received a final warning. This may be deliberate or it may have just slipped through your net. I believe that to be in with a chance of stopping the rampant vandalism on the project we need to do what we say we will do, i.e. a final warning is a final warning! Please let me know your thoughts on this. Best wishes, msgj (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find the warnings appropriate, especially in the second example the final warning was made more than 5 weeks ago to a possible shared IP and an AIV report would have been declined for that reason. Unfortunately too many bad reports to AIV are made, because some users think also final warnings made more than 3 months ago count as 'recent'. And if a user doesn't sign the warning, it is more circumstantially and time-consuming to check the history than to place e. g. a level 2 warning. And most important to consider: we don't warn users to get them blocked, only to get them to stop the vandalism. --Oxymoron8320:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Oxy thanks! To be true though, there have been instances where a second level warning was issued after an immediate 4th level warning was placed. I've done so much reverting and warning that I'm not too bothered to dig up diffs, but when I do notice things in that instance, I do level a block. I may miss it sometimes though. Thanks for the messages both of you! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk20:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article deletion help - nCircle
Hello KnowledgeOfSelf - you deleted the page I created this morning for my company, [nCircle] (CSD-A7). I included three media sources that referenced nCircle, as well as another wiki article [Information Technology Association of America] that mentioned nCircle. So I think I am confused about what I can do to prove signficance. I am not trying to spam, I genuinely want to know how I can improve my article such that it meets Wikipedia standards. Thanks for any help you can provide.
Jharrelln (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is helpful. I thought that the third party sources were the magazines and TV programs interviewing our employees, not the quotes themselves. I guess I still don't see how my article is different that many other company articles such as this one. Thank you for your clarification. Jharrelln (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jill mormon -- that wasn't an article about a person, but about an expression. the article was created again, quite reasonably, as your reason made no sense, and another admin sent it to PROD, as would have been appropriate for you also.
Alphanim was deleted by you as spam, but was re-inserted and is now at AfD, where it is heading towards a snow keep as an appropriate article about a notable animation company.
Emmett H. Walker, Jr. , was Chief of the National Guard Bureau, which is not just an assertion of notability but probably true WP:N notability. I was recreated, and another admin removed a speedy which was then placed on it.
and
"Palam marg" was about a road and said where it was and what was there. That's enough context to defeat a speedy on that basis. The standard for no contest is "No context. Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. " Prod again would have been the way to do, as even the guy who placed the tag on it realised.
"Roy Paget" make assertions of notability "leading authority on Brain Based Learning " Now, I'm not sure in the least he is, but again, that should be a prod or an afd. You deleted it once as CSD A7 and once as patent nonsense, and neither of them are not applicable.
"Ncircle" deleted as db-corp, had 3 refs in major publications where its principal was quoted in a significant way about the field of the company's business, and that too is an indication of notability.
Robert F Higgens" was deleted as A7 despite the assertion of being a director of possibly major investment firms and possibly important government positions. They may not be important enough for WP:N, but they;re enough to pass speedy.
I am not going to ask for undeletion of the articles I have mentioned, because I don't think they're good enough to be worth the trouble. But these examples are from only the last 2 days-- 3 where the article is being generally supported altogether, and 4 where the article probably cant be supported, but the speedy deletion reason was clearly invalid. I've tried to select only those which I think clear; there's an equal number which might be equivocal. Perhaps you are speedy deleting a little too fast if you arent reading the aticles carefully. Perhaps you also need to review WP:CSD. Several other administrators have commented similarly at Deletion Review and on your talk page. DGG (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jill mormon-"Jill Mormon - a woman who was once an active member of the Mormon church, but who is active no longer." But it's not about a person? I may have missed something there. And it's not nonsense? I know you can't always rely on Google, but that shows nothing of a Jill mormon as a term.
Alphanim-Was previously speedy deleted by other admins. Maybe the *current* version is not spam, maybe it is. The user who created also had the same content on his userpage. Smells like spam to me. But no harm no foul there. Besides, did you even investigate half of the "questionable" deletions I made? you are telling me that is not spam? Maybe you should review this page.
Roy Paget-I made that basis on the fact that the user who created it, was vandalizing it. I thought surely that the creator wouldn't deface his/her own article if they were serious. Besides that it was blatantly copied from here. To further explain, I initially deleted it as nonsense due to the author actively vandalizing the page. If you really insist, I'll undelete and then re-delete it again as G12.
Ncircle-Used self references from "employee quotes". See the discussion in a thread above. The user also states on his own userpage that the account is only here to promote that article. Hmm these come to mind, COI, SPA.
Robert F Higgens-An article by that name has never existed, Robert F Higgens. And I'm not seeing it in my logs through the last 250 deletions. Even so "possibly" "the director of major investment firms and possibly important government positions" Again "Possibly"? So yeah.
Ah ha I found it, you meant "Robert F. Higgins". Anyhow, again I'm not the only admin to delete that very same article, and again, "possibly"....
I haven't seen where anyone has commented on my talk page other than the authors of said articles, and now you, (unless you are counting an other admin stating that one of my speedy deletions was overturned?). I did happen by the DRV and I will put forth no argument that some of my speedy deletions may be in haste, and even wrong. I make mistakes I admit it. My apologies if my 5 so called bad deletions out weigh my 1000+ other ones. I'll tell you what, I'll keep clear of this page, and someone else can keep it clean. As an aside, I always make an attempt to explain my actions, and rational to concerned editors and always encourage them to take it to DRV or to seek a second opinion. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk22:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! User:Serio1 clearly needed blocking, but I question whether an infinite block isn't a bit harsh!? This user needs to be taught what is appropriate behaviour on Wikipedia, but perhaps a short block might achieve that. Regards, 18:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my signature seems to have stopped working!?!? It's msgj.
No objection here if an other admin wants to reduce, or even lift the block. But creating a page like that, and then continually removing the AfD notice warranted it. Perhaps I've become overly harsh as the years have gone by, I dunno. But again if an other admin wants to reverse, I won't object. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk18:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did use 4 tildes, so I don't understand what happened. But it seems to be working again now. About Serio1, I'm not going to refer it to another to admin, so I guess it will remain unless he contests it. You're probably right that it was deserved - I just didn't agree that it was a vandalism-only acccount. Best wishes, MSGJ (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That can be blamed on the script I use, it will identify registered accounts who have been given a last warning as a vandal only account, in most cases this is correct. The odd case that it isn't I either correct it myself, or it's close enough to reality it's not a big deal. As to your sig, that's really weird, it could be some kinda glitch I suppose. And no there isn't a difference in terms of the block length, although, indefinite would suggest that the block is for an indeterminate amount of time. Infinite would suggest forever, however, on Wikipedia, they are easily interchangeable with regards to blocking. Cheers, KnowledgeOfSelf | talk18:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thief?!?
Who are you calling a thief? You're the who keeps stealing reverts and blocks out from under me! The last two blocks I tried to issue, I kept getting messages that you had already blocked them. =P Pizza cheese and Lego, indeed... With you, Oxymoron83 and a certain clown around, there's nothing left for the rest of us to do. The last time I hit reload on the Recent Changes, I swear that half of the edits were the three of you! I'm just waiting for DerHexer to show up and then forget it, game is over for the vandals. I think I'm going to sign off knowing that everything is going to be fine for awhile. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Rollback failed, KnowledgeOfSelf beat you to it." =P Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page and helping with the humor guy. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Oddities theme song is infact called "Oddities." The song you're thinking of "The Greatest Show" is different. That was actually made first as a normal song, then WWE asked ICP to remake it into the now Oddities theme. Both songs have the same beat, but different lyrics. Juggalobrink (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I dunno either way, nor do I have an interest. My revert was due to a blacklisted user seemingly changing random information. Thanks for correcting it though. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk21:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IP address change
Ah. It sounded like one of the more pointless questions I've had from networking students, and my mantra, which I used as the first chapter title in each of my books, is "What problem are you trying to solve?" The backup answer is "it depends", and he more or less got both. It did seem clueless. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User 24.118.153.134
I think this user, who you blocked for 2 months for vandalism, is editing around the block as 24.131.169.133. For example, this recent edit by 24.131.169.133 [3] is largely the same as these edits by 24.118.153.134 [4][5][6]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward321 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusation of vandalism is incorrect.
Your accusation of vandalism is incorrect. My posting history on this subject precedes the current wave of hysteria and misinformation regarding MRSA. I will continue to edit and correct for accuracy and clarity, as I am qualified to do so. You seem to have raised concern from a lot of contributors that you have levied "vandalism" charges against. You may wish to more carefully consider your activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust921 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made no such accusation against you. (Reverted edits by 207.62.203.31 (talk) to last version by Faust921) (undo) I reverted to your revision. You may want to know what you are talking about before leveling accusations that I am making accusations. :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk15:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you blocked User:Serio1. It is obvious that User:Serio2 is a sockpuppet, and I have submitted him as such. He is using user space to recreate the Serio article. Since you were familiar with the first problems (and having to BLOCK creation of the page Serio, I wanted you to be aware and help the process along if you find the time. Pharmboy (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh! Thanks! Well, I saw in your humor page that the "KnowledgeOfSelf" article has been created a couple of times. "Acalamari" has been created three times, twice by one of the people who created the article on you. You might also like this. :) Acalamari00:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be called an insensitive pig with the humor of 15 year old, while being subjected to the silent treatment. :P I on the other hand think it's brilliant, and I'm sure there are a few editors who share our sophomoric humor! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk18:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Curious interface
Well, KnowledgeOfSelf, the ability to communicate with you is limited, there is no obvious way to respond to you.
Nevertheless, I simply removed pejorative sections from the page on Michael Parenti. I suggest reverting my edits without carefully reading what I removed is disfunctional. I undid your undo.
Hi, I'm just your basic vandal fighter, I saw a block of text being removed, that had a couple of references attached. If the material is derogatory, you may want to leave a note on the articles talk page, because I honestly don't have an opinion on the article itself.
And I once again removed your email, you don't want that just laying around, we don't want to feed the spambots now! As to communication with me, like I said, this page is always open, and I will almost always reply to queries left here. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk06:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James Reeves
Just wanted to check why you removed the section I added under 'James Reeves' about the British Champion Kayaker? There are plenty of references to sports men and women on Wiki (and so there should be). I was simply adding another, admittedly that person is myself but does that make it any less worthy? I am not someone writing random things about myself, there are 2 million canoeist and kayakers in the UK (and many million more worldwide) that would be interested in such information.
Hi please read Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You are also inadvertently turning the page into a disambiguation page. Which would be ok if it was done correctly. You additions are unsourced and unencyclopedic in content, and per our COI, and autobiography policies your additions are wrong. If you are notable someone will be bound to create an article themselves. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk17:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be 'done properly'? How can a biography be encyclopaedic? There were some independent sources included and I would be happy to add some more. I don't think there is a COI, I am not trying to promote anything, just give some information on something that is hard to find elsewhere. I was under the impression Wikipedia for an encyclopaedia for all, not just for poplar topics. How is someone else creating a page on a person better than that person doing it (assuming it is not trying to exploit wikipedia), surely accurate and complete knowledge is better than second hand information?
James Reeves (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2007 (GMT)
Please, read this page on more information on disambiguation. Wikipedia has many layers of policies and guidelines that are in place so that we can ensure that we are as neutral and unbiased as possible. Yes our goal is to spread free knowledge as far and wide as possible. But we must ensure that it is content that can not be questioned in anyway, be it because of a COI, unreliable references, unencyclopedic content, et al. Again if you are notable someone will come along and create it. Creating an article about yourself, or adding content about yourself is highly discouraged and will most likely be reverted by anyone who notices it. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk12:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There. GlassCobra may have blocked before I did, but at least I finally found the SharedIP template. :) I'm sure you'll give me plenty of other chances to get it right. (Should have just asked you in the first place. :D) --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help with the vandalism. The guy in question today has been posting that same thing for days now. I told him to not add any bands without an actual source. So he added it the other day and said "Message on Myspace" which is hardly a source, so I removed it AGAIN. Now apparently he has a problem with me and is going to flame and threaten me about it. DX927 (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
