User talk:east718/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please contact me on my talk page.

Archives

Current Late 2004 and onwards March 2006 and onwards November 2006 and onwards July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June–July 2009 August–December 2009 January–June 2010 July 2010 and onwards

Erection

I notice that a vandal moved Erection to a different page title on 2008 August 13, and violated WP:PRIVACY in the title. WP:PRIVACY states: "Edits attempting to out someone should be promptly reverted, and an oversighter brought in to permanently delete them from the public record.". You restored the original page content, but the offending title still appears in the page logs. I made an oversight request and haven't received a response yet, so I don't know if you did the same, but I wanted to point out the guideline in case you weren't aware of it. --DocumentN (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The "oversight" function cannot remove entries from logs, only a developer can do that. I contacted a member of the oversight team to get it passed up the ladder, but they declined to do so because it supposedly wasn't a privacy violation. I know, I'm pretty livid about it too. east718 // talk // email // 02:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:EastWindsorCTseal.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:EastWindsorCTseal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -Nard 01:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Lewis and clark college seal.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Lewis and clark college seal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -Nard 02:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

718bot

a user has expressed a concern about the bot's functioning at AIV. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The bot's working just fine. Replacing unoptimized JPEGs and GIFs with smaller PNGs that are kind on readers with slow internet connections are what it's supposed to do. As for the leaving around of orphaned non-free images, tagging those is outside of this bot's remit, but we do have another one which will do just that in a few hours. And then we have a third one which will delete them after a week. :-) east718 // talk // email // 02:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

{{ShouldBePNG}

Hi! Your bot is now working on jpgs of some nature, will it pick up {{ShouldBePNG}} tags? Thanks, Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Images tagged with {{ShouldBePNG}} actually been under daily care of the bot for several months now. Any old images that are left will need to be found again from a lossless source or redrawn -- conversion to PNG would not help reduce the filesize. east718 // talk // email // 22:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Got a minute?

Next time you're online can you look at 24.61.213.32 (talk · contribs) for me. Do you notice any sorta single purpose for that IPs edits. I lose count of the RRs but it looks like about 5 or 6 on at least 4 different pages. Do you concur. There is a sock tag on the talk page. The IP edits mirror those of the account it is tied to. Is there some sort of time clock that can be punched for this fella? Have a nice day! The Real Libs-speak politely 01:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Crazy edit-warring like that gets you a block, thanks for the heads up Libs. east718 // talk // email // 22:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks East!. Your 24 block was nice but it looks like the 24.X editor jumped ship and went to 86.136.1.162 (talk · contribs). Repeat edits to the same article the 24.X editor was doing and still inside the 24 hour block you imposed on him. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's the same person. Both IPs are residential and unshared, and are on two different continents. I poked around and wasn't able to find proxies on either IP. Also, the lifetime of British Telecom IPs (the 86.136 user) are so short, that there's little point in blocking them. Sorry I couldn't be of much help this time. east718 // talk // email // 05:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

GIFs to PNGs

I am just curious as to why the GIF images are being replaced with PNGs. I personally don't mind, looks better, just was curious as to the reason. Take Care and Have a Great Thursday...NeutralHomer • Talk 09:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The PNGs look exactly the same, but are smaller in filesize. It's basically to make the readers' experience faster if they have a slow internet connection, or are using a slow computer, phone or PDA. east718 // talk // email // 22:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OKie Dokie. To be honest, I thought PNGs and GIFs were the same general filesize. I learned something. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk 22:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Your 3RR Post

Yeah I'd like to know why you feel it's cool to reply to people in the third person and then threaten to block them for edit warring while at the same time indicating by silence that the actions of GlassCobra are kosher with Wikipedia policy. Tmore3 (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't really threatening to block you. That would be excessively punitive given that another admin had just tried to counsel you. GlassCobra wasn't really innocent either, I approached him in private about the situation. I also wasn't trying to belittle you by referring to you in the third person - you'll notice that I spoke about Rjd0060 in that way too. I've found that keeping comments impersonal and focused on the matter at hand leads to less interpersonal conflict and faster resolution of disputes. east718 // talk // email // 05:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Bengali?

I and some of my friends were looking at the user pages of Wikipedias few months ago, and we saw your user page. We were impressed with your profile. "Structural engineer and amateur boxer currently living in New York City". Impressive. We are also engineering students. Today, I noticed that you are a native speaker of Bengali! :) I've been to West Bengal many times and I've friends there. I'm editing from an IP so that you can figure out where I'm from. :) This is a shared IP, so please reply on your talkpage. Cheers! 202.52.241.131 (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. Yes, I was born in Bangladesh, but moved away shortly later. How's Nepal treating you guys? east718 // talk // email // 05:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For making my day by creating a .png file to replace the .jpg I had uploaded much earlier. Also, for using your powers to BLOCK another disruptive and abusive editor, cheers! ...Dave1185 (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this really means a lot. east718 // talk // email // 05:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Blue SF

Just saw you blocked him. I'd templated him for vandalising. Did you checkuser him or something? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a throwaway attack account. Why waste our time trying to enculturate the person behind it? east718 // talk // email // 09:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he's a sock to begin with, and socked a couple more times since the protection/block, and each account was blocked again, and each userpage was deleted for similar reasons. Thank you both for your help. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I had no way of knowing for sure though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

True, I just didn't know if that was really "allowed". Thanks, though! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If we're discussion what's "allowed" or not, then you're entitled to do whatever you feel is necessary to protect the encyclopedia and its integrity (and by extension, its editors). Unorthodox, inventive and unwritten solutions are most welcome, provided they actually work. east718 // talk // email // 18:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

PNG version available tagging by 718 Bot

{{PNG version available}} requests that {{subst:orfur|new version image page}} be added to non-free images when they are superseded, but 718 Bot doesn't seem to be doing so. Could the bot be configured to check for fair use status and tag images accordingly? --Paul_012 ^(talk) 12:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Those instructions must be out of date. To lessen the workload for editors, there's another bot which will take care of the {{orfur}} tag. I also don't think it's a good idea for me to do something which is covered by another bot, especially since mine will probably suffer from inaccuracies for the short-term future. east718 // talk // email // 12:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This AN/I thread might be of interst to you--Wikipedia:AN/I#an editor is reverting to bad images

User:Rtphokie went through and undid the work of 718bot after getting orphaned messages, and tagged the png's for speedy deletion. (You must get this a lot.) User:192.30.202.21 went through and reversed him and so forth. Is there a policy I can point other editors to when this comes up? Is there a way to make the edit summary more educational so editors don't go through and reverse the bot's actions? Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim

I don't think there are any policies concerning this (and there probably shouldn't be, either). Just using editorial discretion seems appopriate. I don't know why anybody would choose the old GIF or JPEG though. As for edit summaries, do you have any ideas? How's "Replacing x.jpg with superior version" sound? east718 // talk // email // 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, but I think that's what you're already doing. Oh, well. Dlohcierekim 23:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Got another minute?  :-)

Next time you're online can you look at 24.61.213.32 (talk · contribs) again. He did not seem to learn anything from your previous block on his addy. I see he has returned today and is right back at edit warring all the same pages he was before (plus a few extra ones added in) Thankees. Have a nice day! The Real Libs-speak politely 22:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

taken care of, thanks. east718 // talk // email // 22:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even hear the ricochet :-) ... yer fast! The Real Libs-speak politely 22:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Buosmgt

Why was Buosmgt blocked? If it was for making legal threats, which I heard, could you show me where they were? Tezkag72 (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, there was a community discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive453#Legal Threat. east718 // talk // email // 18:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

?

I probably made a single revert today (if any). Why did you want to "block both users"? Squash Racket (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I thought that [1] was a revert, but now see that it's just different wording. Keep in mind though that the 3RR is not an electric fence never to be crossed, it's just a gauge to determine if an edit war's taking place. You and Rezistenta look like you've been going at each other for a week or so now, with some pretty hostile conversation on the talkpage to boot (granted, you were far more polite though). When I'm in a dispute, I've found it helpful to take a quick break and ask other editors to weigh in -- something that talkpage needs right now. east718 // talk // email // 18:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you please modify your closing comment at the 3RR board? (You may remove my last comment while doing so.) Someone may use this "verdict" against me in an unjustified way. I used the talk page after his first revert. Did he answer anything? Squash Racket (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Again though, when dealing with difficult editors, I think a better approach is to get lots of opinions and try to form a consensus that said editor cannot keep fighting against. east718 // talk // email // 19:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

LoTE 3RR

The 3RR might be stale on this article but a glance at the article's history shows that LoTE is still currently edit warring there. He just hasnt crossed the 3RR fence yet. CENSEI (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think one revert in the past two days constitutes monolithic edit-warring. They are already familiar with the relevant policies though (having been blocked several times for 3RR) - so I'll think about blocking if they keep it up. east718 // talk // email // 19:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. CENSEI (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wakamusha's doing it again

Wakamusha has just moved the page, again. I have reverted it, however, if (s)he does it again can you block the editor and/or move-protect the article indefinitely? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I move-protected the article in the same state that I found it. 15 or so moves in a day is pretty insane. Just work out your differences on the talkpage. east718 // talk // email // 05:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Botwork

Hi there, Maybe the bot should be able to detect images like this and realize the tags contradict each other? Or atleast not upload an image with a copyright tag and no rationale. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Images sometimes have legitimate reasons for carrying two copyright tags (for example, something that's PD in one country but not in the US, or a "free" image that has some restrictions on its use. For your latter query, a human should be given the chance to fix the source or rationale for the image. If it isn't, my other bot will get to it in a week. east718 // talk // email // 05:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Te Rata.jpg

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Te_Rata.jpg

IIRC: The original image was placed in wiki by the creator. All I did was crop the image.

The Copyright notice was: ((({{PD-release}} Photo - M Berryman, then clipped/trimmed by myself, derived from c.f. [2])))

By deleting this image, the prior image and PD-release permission was deleted as well. Was this your intention? Or did I miss something?

(I am only occasionally logged in to wikipedia, so for a quicker response please email me)

NevilleDNZ (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to remove the {{PD}} tag, which is deprecated and automatically tags the image as lacking a source. I've restored the image and added a rationale, and will try to place it back in the appropriate articles. east718 // talk // email // 03:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

ThanX for the fix. Actually I had problems selecting the right license tag (from the Image upload menu provided), IIRC there was no selection for PD image modified (cropped in this cases) and the GPLed. This should be fixed.

NevilleDNZ (talk)

1RR

East- I noticed this. Could you elaborate for me where you believe I violated my 1RR restriction? Thanks. --G2bambino (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert one, and two. It's a bit late to block you though, so just be more careful in the future. east718 // talk // email // 03:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those are two reverts; however, the 1RR restriction on myself was only in regards to Canadian monarchy articles, and PoC's edits, not to other pages or other editors. Now, though I was technically within my bounds there, having later read MangoJuice's comments to PoC on reverting and entitlement, I realise that the same applies to myself, and would have applied earlier. That second revert was a kneejerk retaliation to a move that was purposefully irritating, and, though technically allowed, was just a continuation of a dispute, rather than an effort to seek resolution. Anyway, I hope that clears things up. --G2bambino (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorta like the 24.X fella

66.222.253.33 (talk · contribs) seems to be a single purpose IP editor.... reverting to his own version on several articles. A similar modus operandi to the 24.X IP fella you blocked the other day. Do you concur that this IP is a "my way or the highway" editor? And can a nail belt be thrown across his current road? The Real Libs-speak politely 00:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't think it's the same person. The edit-warring sure merits a block though. east718 // talk // email // 03:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh I didn't think it was the same person. Just the exact same bad habits. As always... thanks for all your assistance! Have a nice day! The Real Libs-speak politely 09:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:EricV89/TeenWiki Cabal

I plan on taking this to DRV, just to let you know. The "policy" rationale given was without any explanation at all, as I pointed out in the discussion itself. Just saying it's so doesn't make it so. -- Ned Scott 05:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And from the page creator himself: Keep - It's a humourous cabal nothing more. Not meant for socialization, only discussions on how to improve Wikipedia among teen editors. --eric (mailbox) 04:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

He made the intent clear. He even edited the page to remove some of the parts that people had concerns about. The deletion supporters have nothing more than an assertion without any evidence. -- Ned Scott 05:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think that flies. Some people in favor of deleting did provide explanations: "There is absolutely no intent [of improving the encyclopedia] here. It's purely a social page."; "makes no indication of how it will improve Wikipedia". Despite EricV89's claim that it was meant for "only discussions on how to improve Wikipedia among teen editors," this idea never saw a genesis, or even a mention on the page that this was its aim (granted, some content which was objected to was removed). Just saying something doesn't make it so. east718 // talk // email // 05:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So the page was poorly designed, that's something that can easily be fixed with a simple edit. It still didn't violate WP:MYSPACE, even if it was an inactive page.

I'm sorry for not waiting for a response from you before opening the DRV. I'm just very frustrated with these situations on Wikipedia. I see it as a form of age discrimination, that simply because it involved "teens" it got labeled as a myspace-type thing. Editors have become paranoid about these kinds of things, and I've gotten tired of seeing reasonable pages deleted for fears of what might become, rather than what actually is.

From what I saw, it was nothing more than a contact list of editors who got along or had similar interests. That's not prohibited by WP:MYSPACE, so why isn't Eric allowed to have it? -- Ned Scott 20:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really mind, it was reasonable to think I went offline after these edits. The page can still be fixed now; all that has to be done is for EricV89 to recreate it (and the "contact list" is right there for the reusing). I'm afraid I really don't share your concerns. east718 // talk // email // 02:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:EricV89/TeenWiki Cabal. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat's block

Hi East718,

I was wondering if you would consider reducing the length of Boodlesthecat's block. It's clear to me that he didn't fully understand the restrictions he was editing under, and he was also subject to some extraordinarily disruptive editing. As examples:

• Piotrus sticking "fact" tags on material that is cited at the end of the paragraph:[3] Later he starts removing such material entirely.[4] On the Talk: page he claims that every single sentence needs a citation, that you cannot cite several sentences to one citation.
• Piotrus adding "page number" request tags to citations that actually linked directly to the pages in question in Google books:[5][6][7]

There's lots more of this, but I won't bore you with it. In addition, on October 5 Piotrus recruited Polish editors not under sanctions to edit-war for him, and User:Radeksz and User:Vecrumba dutifully showed up to revert. It was reverting these two that got Boodlesthecat in trouble. Piotrus does this kind of thing quite regularly, and is extremely skilled at it; he managed, through disruption and recruitment to goad Boodles into violating his restrictions. Given the circumstances, I think the "remedy" here is unbalanced. Your thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. I'm finding it a bit hard to believe that somebody's who's been blocked six times previously for revert-warring still doesn't understand what constitutes a revert. I'm open to the possibility that this can actually be the case, but then we're moving from a problem of possible disingenuity to one of competence. Either way, I feel that a block of some duration is still merited (although I always remain open to reducing it to a couple of days or lifting it entirely upon an assurance of more care to be taken while editing in the future). Lastly, if Boodlesthecat is being ganged upon, there is no reason to fight disruption with disruption. There is the option of reporting to ANI or a friendly administrator, perhaps starting an RFC on content, or if the pattern is sustained, conduct. Edit warring in response is the worst way to go about it. Perhaps you can give Boodlesthecat some advice on this - I think that they'd be more receptive of it coming from you, rather than the scrivener of criticism of their editing behavior on AN.
I agree with you that Piotrus hasn't been a saint through this. This is certainly a problem, and the notion that one must be able to verify sources themselves that's presented here is just bizarre. If Piotrus weren't an administrator, I'd consider warning them in some measure, but whatever resulted of it wouldn't stick for reasons which I don't like; reasons which are beyond my control. If the volume of the allegations you're making is so much and they all hold water as well as the three you've presented to me, hopefully ArbCom can put an end to this soon. east718 // talk // email // 05:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a block is warranted, though I might have blocked others in the dispute for their incredibly tendentious editing. However, a 10 day block is huge. Long time editor User:Ned Scott has stated that his understanding of 1RR was the same as Boodles; I agree with you that their understanding is incorrect, but it's not completely out of the realm of possibility that Boodles misunderstood his restriction. Given all the extenuating circumstances, are you sure you couldn't reduce it to something more typical? Say 24, or even 48 hours? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the 1RR restriction was limited to just Piotrus. I don't really think a ten-day block is merited anymore, especially with such an opaque restriction, so I'll offer Boodles an olive branch and drop it down to time served. east718 // talk // email // 02:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

His unblock was declined by two other admins, but... let's see: his third edit since unblock: rv, fourth: accusation of Jew baiting, fifth: rv, sixth: accusation of stalking... right, he has learned his lesson and is a changed person now, no doubt. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And I have broken exactly what rule with those edits? Do you recall reading that the terms of my unblock are that I make only edits that please you? In fact, the unblock was, in part, based on your canvassing against me. Now you continue to canvass against me. Who hasnt learned his lesson? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 05:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

East, first - thank you for having to courage to deal with the disruptive user. Second, since you commented about my behavior (please note, per Radek and Peters comments here, that Jayjg - himself heavily invovled in the article - framed my actions with little good faith), I'd like to hear why 1) this is bad and why 2) enforcing WP:V/WP:CITE is bad, too. For 1), my message was on a relevant, public wikiproject forum, notifying of a destabilization of an article and citing the controversial phrase in question that lead to it, it invited comments, not any kind of POV pushing or revert warring (please read it with AGF in mind). For 2), for controversial statements, inline citations should be provided for every sentence, since a reader may not know whether a controversial statement in the middle of a paragraph with single ref at the end comes from that ref or from some unreferenced edit (I myself did not know that, and had to read the original academic article to verify it - and my citation request tags, asking editor(s) who added this content for clarification if it comes from that source were simply reverted, when they could have easily and in a civil way added the inline citations I requested). Bearing this in mind, can you clarify what is problematic in my actions? Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

you shouldn't be making limited postings like that. The sarcasm of the message was inappropriate, the audience partisan, and the scope limited. Did you post messages asking for more eyes on the article elsewhere? For 2), I don't really buy that every editor has to be able to verify the exact content of references - if this were the case, all private scholarly repositories, books, etc. would be fair game for removal from articles en masse. Your main complaint seems to be that your university has no access to the article, ergo you cannot verify the content, ergo the article is somehow unreferenced...? Please correct if I'm missing something, because otherwise I'm afraid I don't see the sense in your concerns there. east718 // talk // email // 02:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, please. You are involved in that article, you're supporting Boody's in mainspace and talk, and when I and others've asked you to intervene and stop his incivility and edit warring you blame others for "discussing Boody". Please, try to mentor Boody, not encourage him. Mentoring him may yet turn him into a good editor, encouraging him in his disruptive behavior won't. As for block length, well, Boody's block edit history speaks for itself - up to and including the fact that he has challenged every block as unfair, and went straight back to edit warring and incivility as soon as it expired. Talk to him, and if he shows on his talk page some remorse and regret, sure, we can consider shortening his block. Doing it now would only encourage him and give him a sign that he has done nothing (or little) wrong. PS. I find your very bad faithed accusations here against me very much unfitting an administrator: my request for citations for perfectly in line with WP:CITE/WP:V; I've asked for RfC on several forums, as advocated by our policies, and saying that I baited Boody into this... I'd highly recommend you read my essay on radicalization and think long and hard whether you should really be supporting Boody and spreading bad faithed slander about me. I have never complained about anything you've done - even through I find your unwavering support of incivil and edit warring Boody unbecoming of an administrator - and I'd really hate to see our relationship break down because of Boody. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm, for the record I reverted the controversial material ONCE when I first noticed it several days ago and after Boodles reverted me, including "discuss it in talk first" in his/her edit summary, I have not reverted him, or Jayjg, or anyone else on that article. Instead, as s/he suggested, I have been discussing it on talk (to be precise, lest I get accused of bad faith here, again, there were some other edits in other portions of the article but my sense of it was that we worked it out). And yes, I did notice the article through the board Jayjg mentions above but so what? I occasionally look at it for articles that I think may be interesting. Prior to this I think I've co-edited or talked to Piotrus or had any kind of interaction with him, like, twice, both of those being back in something like 2005 or 2006 when I first joined Wikipedia. To imply - wait, no - TO STATE, that I engaged in any kind of edit warring on this article with Boodles or anyone else is false and dishonest. To accuse me of doing so because ... I don't know, I was supposedly following orders of the Grand Leader Piotrus or something is insulting. Additionally, while I've been following the discussion on the relevant article I haven't had time to spend on whatever side shows may be going on that are related to it and I wasn't even aware that Boodles was blocked (hence I have no opinion on the righteousness of her/his block or its length). Obviously Jayjg, whose edits and work I've seen around before and who I previously had a good impression of, owes me an apology. But since I'm here - since someone started talking about me - I may as well throw my two cents in and state that Jayj is obviously being dishonest here, whether he realizes it or not. Take that as a piece of "character witness testimony". Oh. And yes, again for the sake of full disclosure, I found this little piece of defamation through a message Piotrus left me a few minutes ago and I want to apologize ahead of time to user East718 if this isn't the proper space to correct this crap.radek (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Do carry on, my talkpage sucks anyway and if venting here leads to more calm over at the articles, it's all for the better. east718 // talk // email // 03:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly how many places are editors going to go to smear my reputation? It's quite simple. Yes, Piotrus already mentioned the article some time back. And yes, I then did investigate the article, not because I am Piotrus' recruit but because it's been an area of study of mine for years.

1. I did not "revert", I in fact left Boodlesthecat's reference to Gerrits intact. What I did was to NPOV the context in which it appeared in the lead together with the mention of another author who would be better known in that context. Mine was a completely new, completely unsolicited edit. Read the extensive edit comment.
2. I've dealt with accusations of being Piotrus' lackey here. Any of this new crop of Boodlesthecat defenders (none of whom I've dealt with before, such as Jayjg) are obviously unaware I value my reptutation. Since I did not "revert", left the reference to the disputed work intact (!), and indicated no problem in the body of the article, exactly how is that a "revert" and "edit warring"?
3. Finally, I'll spare you Boodlesthecat's repeated attempts to grossly mischaracterize and hatefully and (I believe intentionally, based on his sheer persistence) misconstrue my statements into clearly offensive anti-Semitic rants having nothing to do with what I actually said.

I'm quite tired of editors attempting to control article content by attacking other editors on the talk pages of admins. Whenever I've felt the need to descend to that level (contact an admin, etc.), I at least do the courtesy of notifying the editor I've implicated/with whose conduct I have an issue. What I see here is little more than back-stabbing under the guise of a plaintive complaint. Boodlesthecat indicated where we could discuss my edit further (the RfC section of the talk page), it's his problem that he ALSO lept at the speed of light to an accusation of bad faith on my part and just couldn't help himself to do a knee-jerk revert. Have I missed something regarding my appearance at the top of this thread? —PētersV (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Of interest: [8]. It's just an idle speculation, but perhaps certain unblock, allowing a certain user to return to flaming, is related to this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out right afterwards, that post was pure horsecrap. Neither you nor that poster has presented any evidence to back up the fabricated claim that anyone on that page at any time accused him or anyone of anything based on being Polish. You should have recruited someone who doesn't simply make things up, Piotrus, and then disappear when confronted with their lies. But if you are making a point about driving people away, let's remiminisce about your very first contact with me was when you flagrantly abused your admin authority by threatening to block me for removing your supporter Greg's vicious antisemitic rant (note that removal of this creepy BLP violation by your ally Greg was ultimately upheld despite your bullying threats of a block. There is a months-long unbroken thread from that very first abusive contact to your sneaky canvassing for edit warriors against me just the other day, and literally hundreds of malicious, underhanded, abusive tactics in the interim. You really should chill with this transparently irrational hostility, Piotrus, what with all the attention on you at the moment. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

718 Bot

Hey. Probably not a common issue, but in this edit the bot messed up an unrelated image link while replacing a similarly named .jpg logo with a .png. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty rare bug which I knew about. I could modify the bot to replace only the first instance of an image, but that would likely cause more problems (missing images, possibly replacing the wrong image). I suppose we'll just have to live with one error out of thousands. east718 // talk // email // 02:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Noroton

Hi, I wonder if you would be good enough to revisit the length of Noroton's block, please? I agree that a block is merited but 1 week seems too long. I am also bothered that he has been blocked from editing his own talk page which would restrict him from appealing the block. I have had a look at the AN/I thread but that doesn't seem to provide a consensus for a long block. My suggestion would be to remove the restriction on talk page editing, it can go straight back if he abuses it, and reducing the block to, say, 36 hours. TerriersFan (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) The block was well within administrative discretion; Noroton really flew off the handle today (note that consensus isn't really required for an initial action by a sysop, just to modify or undo it). As for the talkpage thing, that must have been either my error or another bug with this new "feature", I've fixed that up. east718 // talk // email // 03:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I acknowledge that there has been an outbreak of unwarranted unpleasantness which is why I agree that a block is called for. Noroton's previous blocks are over a year ago and can be disregarded. Consequently, for what can be termed an initial block in recent times, then a day or two seems more appropriate. If this doesn't have the necessary effect then by all means impose a lengthy block and I won't intervene. If you still don't agree perhaps you would be good enough to seek a third opinion? TerriersFan (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the wisdom of blocking for short amounts of time just because unseemly outbreaks occur irregularly. Blocks should be as long as they need to be to help. My read of the situation is that Noroton's been slowly boiling over and finally broke - a day off is unlikely to be anything more than a short-term psychological blow rather than an actual solution to what caused this outburst. The issue is already on ANI, so I'm sure that more opinions and a review of this block will be coming in soon. east718 // talk // email // 03:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Grsz11 has two blocks in 2008 both for edit warring on election related topics (the qoutes are "Edit warring: 3RR violation on Barack Obama" "‎ (Edit warring: @Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy)"), he was blocked for 12 hours. Noroton has zero blocks in 2008 and he was blocked for one week. Could you explain what is the reason for - in light of the block logs - this unequal treatment of these two editors? Hobartimus (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The block length was foolish and accomplished nothing that a warning wouldn't have. The issue is already on ANI, so I'm sure that more opinions and a review of this block will be coming in soon. Well, that was obviously false. I've already considered my own mistakes. You should review your own. Having said that, I'm sorry my own actions inconvenienced you (that's not sarcasm), and thank you for at least doing something to address problems. -- Noroton (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, looks like you've been blocked again. Look, you're a really good editor, but I don't know what caused you to fly off the handle recently. Just cool off a bit and I'm sure you'll be fine. There's no need to let a one-time thing like this blow up. east718 // talk // email // 21:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

718 Bot and image history

I noticed that, when uploading Image:Lyria logo.png, 718 Bot included the page history of Image:Lyria logo.gif on the new page but left out its upload history (which, in particular, happened to include my upload of a cleaned-up version over the original). While I don't particularly mind being left out of the history in this case (it was just a trivial modification, after all), I can see how this could create an issue for images with multiple substantial authors, some of whom are only attributed in the upload log. Is there any way you could modify your bot to also copy the old upload history when converting the image to PNG? Thanks, —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty strange. I thought uploads over an existing file show up in the history (i.e. "uploaded a new version of 'Image:Foo.jpg'", such as here). Maybe this wasn't the case for legacy images and this feature wasn't applied retroactively? Either way, I'll include the file history too from now on. east718 // talk // email // 06:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be a fairly recent feature. If you're extracting both histories, you could always have the bot compare them and see if there are any entries in the upload history without matching entries in the edit history. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Little shiny thing

		The Excellent Userpage Award
		Nice userpage there, thought I'd give you this in recognition for all the hard work you [must] have put into it :). Blooded Edge (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! east718 // talk // email // 21:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Staying fit

I notice you're an amateur boxer, but you're also a Wikipedian. Given the addictive nature of this site, how do you balance the two? This would seem to me to be in conflict. Aren't you supposed to be training all the time instead of answering my silly questions? (Wallamoose (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC))

Well, my contributions (or lack of them) would indicate that this site isn't really addictive. east718 // talk // email // 21:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Laurentia Tan

Hello, East718. You have new messages at Talk:Laurentia Tan.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sam Korn

If you're on now - could you take a look at User talk: Sam Korn page - I think it needs move protection or similar. Tvoz/talk 07:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind - Luna got it. Tvoz/talk 07:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U

There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x] 15:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think declining an unblock request of yours really qualifies me, but I may drop by. east718 // talk // email // 21:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of photos

I see that you removed photos from both the Kent State Stark and the Betsy Boze page. These had the authentication of the author and have been vetted by lots of other authors/administrator/ editors. What is the problem with that photo? I don't want to get into a put it up/ take it down battle. Can you please restore it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purocafe (talk • contribs) 14:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The images were both copyright violations (they were property of the university). I've deleted all of the uploader's other images and won't be restoring these ones. east718 // talk // email // 21:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Note

Good day East, long time since I've talked to you now. Anyway, I was wondering if you could catch me up on IRC. Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  12:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Suite101logo.gif

Hi. I tried to get an answer from the person who tagged File:Suite101logo.gif, and on its talk page, to no avail. I'm developing the article as a subpage because it's not ready and would surely be deleted because it fails to cite much yet; in addition I can't link to the page on their site that an admin whitelisted for me. It's just not ready for prime time. So by having the article in my user space the logo gets deleted; if I had moved it the article and the logo would have been deleted. Do you have a better suggestion?--otherlleft (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have added {{subst:orfud}}, but I didn't find that out until just now. Could you undelete it? The criterion at Wikipedia:CSD#I5 states that exceptions will be made for upcoming articles.--otherlleft (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding, but do you want to use the image solely for an article you're working in on userspace? Unfortunately, we can't really do that (non-free images are permitted only on articles). I've come across this problem before too - you can see it on user:east718/PE for example. I usually replace the non-free images with placeholder free ones until I'm ready to move the article into mainspace. Let me know when you're planning on finishing the article and I'll undelete the image a couple days before then. east718 // talk // email // 21:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

HAI

HAPPY INTERNATIONAL CAPSLOCK DAY!

CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} HAS GIVEN YOU A CAPSLOCK KEY. CAPSLOCK KEYS SPREAD EPIC LULZ, SO I HOPE YOU LOL'D!

SPEAD THE GOOD WORD BY ADDING {{subst:User:CWii/CAPSLOCKDAY}} TO EDITOR'S TALKPAGE, KTHNXBAI.

Why?

You did not have to remove my whole userpage to protect my informaton. You could've just told me to remove the information, or done it yourself. Now, if you would be so kind to bring it back up so I can remove the information...--Archeopteryx (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It would still be available to the public in the page history then, which would be unacceptable. I've emailed you a copy - east718 // talk // email // 23:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Favour

You couldn't do me a favour and take a look at User talk:70.251.125.201 and the unblock request could you? I've created it per an email from the IP. Pedro :  Chat  11:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Request to restore deleted entry

Hi, Just realized you deleted my company's entry a while back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slalom_Consulting

Sorry we didn't monitor the proposed deletion. Would you be so kind to restore it, and point out how the entry may be improved to fit better in Wikipedia's guidelines? Thanks. Archippus (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you really shouldn't be writing about your own employer or company, aside from fixing obvious errors or vandalism. See our business' FAQ for more information. Despite this, I've restored the article; there's no guarantee that somebody won't try to get it deleted again. east718 // talk // email // 15:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Defend against an organized attack. Maniadis (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's no big thing. Thanks for the barnstar. east718 // talk // email // 15:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandal image

Hello, could you please speedy delete this image? It is orphaned, used primarily for vandalism, and seems to be offending. Thanks! SchfiftyThree ^(talk!) 19:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Gone. east718 // talk // email // 19:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

2001 article

Hello, I notcied you were an admin and I need a little help. I was viewing the 2001 (album) article and I noticed alot of content has been removed from previous revisions, I tried to undo the vandalism but it wouldn't let me, could you help in anyway ? - Yadda Ya (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I got it all (as well as some vandalism that snuck by another admin). Thanks for reporting this. east718 // talk // email // 00:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) thanks for your help. - Yadda Ya (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bluegoblin7

What's going on? You seem to have deleted their userpage, and User:Synergy tagged them as blocked. However, the account is not blocked, and there is no visible evidence. If another CU has come back positive, please have the CU or a CU clerk perform the block and confirm everything. Thanks! Jehochman ^Talk 00:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Spacebirdy blocked them across all WMF projects for crosswiki vandalism and sockpupeteering: sul:Bluegoblin7 east718 // talk // email // 00:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I already confirmed that there was trouble with the account and blocked them here too. Seems that you were right in the first place. Jehochman ^Talk 02:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Audio Cleanup..

Thanks for offering to cleanup http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SpokenArticle_en_PeriodicTable(2008-04-30).ogg

BTW I did try to follow the guidelines for Spoken Wikipedia

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Strange block duration

See my comment here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC) PS. Hope you get better soon.

It's in POSIX time. When you set blocks, the times have to be set in UTC - and I'm too lazy to both consider daylight savings and convert from my timezone, so I run it through a conversion script that gives me the correct block end time. You can check when it ends in a human-readable form by clicking the "status" link next to that line in the block log. east718 // talk // email // 00:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking script?

FYI. Interesting to see if you can get the autoblocks too! —Wknight94 (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your heroism

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		for continuing to face down Grawp

Anyone whose page is so much a target as yours clearly has enraged the orchestrated vandalism from which he was spawned. Nice job, and thank you.--otherlleft (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. east718 // talk // email // 06:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It Takes a Nation...

Hey east, in case you can't find a ref for The Source's original review for your subpage, the magazine published new reviews for some 5 mic albums in last month's edition. I can scan a copy if you want. Spellcast (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd really love if you could scan that and send it to me. In fact, feel free to work on that subpage at your discretion - despite being in my userspace, it isn't owned - and I'd love to get it out sometime. I definitely think that having another head working with me on this will both improve the final quality and get it ready for article-space by say, December? east718 // talk // email // 06:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added the ref with the scan on the talk page. Although there's no deadline, I'll see what I can do until December. Spellcast (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, at the rate I've been going, I'll be happy with another section done by December 2009. :P Do you have access to all the sources? Shoot me an email if you don't and I'll send you what I've got. east718 // talk // email // 20:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I can only access the cited book pages which are available online as a preview. If you're offering to email ones which aren't, then go ahead. Spellcast (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Check your email. east718 // talk // email // 00:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Belated thank you

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		To East718, in grateful appreciation of your gesture to help out one of our best content contributors. Thank you for the taking the time and going out of your way to help make someone feel appreciated. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Sandy, this genuinely means a lot coming from you. east718 // talk // email // 06:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)