User talk:John Reaves/Archive7

This is a Wikipedia user page.

If you were looking for the football player named John Reaves, you want this article: John Reaves.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Reaves/Archive7.

Wikimedia Foundation

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User Lukas in white people article

See user Lukas in the white people article. The only way not to engage in an edit war with him is to give in to his POV. He will continuously impose it. You can see the history and the discussion, how he is arguing with everyone else and editing his POV all the time. Veritas et Severitas 19:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone else might be LSLM: IP, User:65.3.245.190 [1] looks similar to his other sockpuppets, [2] [3], especially given the similarity of their post history and posting times. Lukas19 19:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Congratulations, you are now an administrator! If you haven't already, now is the time to look at the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Best wishes, Warofdreams talk 21:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the promotion. John Reaves (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA

Beat the 'crat congratulations! The Rambling Man 21:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, you didn't! Warofdreams talk

Bollocks! Okay, so we avoided an edit conflict due to correct and optimised WP section adding! Anyway, congrats all the same, and good work to our 'crat! The Rambling Man 21:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you guys and everyone who chimed in at my RfA. 21:23, John Reaves (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Warofdreams beat you, Rambling Man. :) Congratulations John Reaves, and I wish you best of luck with the admin tools. If you ever need any help, please contact me on my talk page. Nishkid 64 22:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah congrats from me too - we're part of a very special group, the March 10 admins! Thanks as well for the support on my Rfa! Best of luck Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And congrats from me too, it was well-earned. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 22:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. John Reaves (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You're an admin now and I'm pleased that we've had a successful RfA. I hope that you'll live up to our expectations and accomplish your admin duty. Moreover, I wonder why don't you give thanks to people who took part in this RfA, especially to Michael S.? (I admit that my prejudice on him has been completely washed away since his support vote for you.) Causesobad → (Talk) 03:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

p/s: Do you see a huge backlog at WP:AFD since Mailer Diablo's retirement? Can you solve them? Causesobad → (Talk) 03:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Great work, mate, well deserved :) Enjoy the tools! – riana_dzasta 04:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Corey Clark

Could you please explain the reason for your recent revert of this talk page, which removed the IP's most recent comment? Thank you. --Geniac 02:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain why you took it on yourself to grant one user's request to protect Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn, without any attempt whatsoever to determine whether the protection was justified. The simplest look at the history would have given you reason to pause - all you'd have had to see was User:Shaul avrom's edit notes ("That was his name, and he is known as such in the English Speaking world so back off you Meshuge, your a vilda chaya, a shmuck, a shmendrick, a shlimiel, a shil") to realise that he is not playing according to Hoyle, or according to the WP rules.

I'm perfectly willing to discuss what the page should be called, calmly and rationally, on the talk page where such a discussion belongs. If User:Shaul avrom has a case to make, let him make it there. But until he does so, he shouldn't get his change frozen, and have it as the "status quo" while he's justifying it.

Zsero 05:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There appeared to be an edit war which needs to be addressed on the talk page rather than through constant moving and reverting. The protection wasn't an endorsement of the current title. John Reaves (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect it first, put it back the way it was, and then we can discuss it on the talk page. By immediately granting his request freezing it the way he had just put it a minute earlier, you are endorsing the current title. Otherwise why not freeze it the way it was? And why should I discuss it on the talk page, when he seems to be able to do whatever he likes and get it protected, without any need to discuss anything? I know the rule is "be bold", but this is taking things to a whole new level! Zsero 05:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, John, you definitely protected the wrong version. :-) Heimstern Läufer 05:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You may laugh, but it is the Wrong Version, or at least it's the version of the editor who instead of going to the trouble of discussing things simply made his change and then went straight to WP:RFP to get his change frozen, so he wouldn't have to discuss it, while making personal attacks on me. In almost any dispute, the version that fits that description is likely to be the Wrong Version™. Zsero 05:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Replying

As far as I'm concerned, move wars are serious, more so than most edit wars. I generally don't object to move protection to stop those. Sometimes it's the one way to stop such wars. I'm pretty new as an admin myself (since 16 Feb), and thus far no one's told me I protected the wrong version, but I've no doubt it will happen. I have definitely been told how my 3RR blocks were wrong in the past, and how I was wrong not to block a user, because said user really was comitting vandalism, not in a content dispute. Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is this sort of thing happens. Using the tools will make people unhappy. What I've figured out thus far is to read Wikipedia policy well and be ready to defend you actions, but also be ready to admit you're wrong if necessary. There, my short essay is over. Cheers! Heimstern Läufer 05:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. Most admin tasks are heavily scrutinized by both good-faith editors and whining trolls, and often someone is going to raise a ruckus about the most minute detail. I've been an admin since the middle of October 2006, and have received much criticism for most of my actions, most which were upheld. I have faced physical threats, legal threats, verbal assaults, slander, pretty much everything. Just brush it off (unless it's serious), put up your feet, and continue the work that the community has entrusted you. Ignore most of these protests, respond to trivial ones candidly, and then bring your big stick to the serious ones (and be ready to concede ground). That's my advice. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help guys. John Reaves (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

1550-1600 in fashion

Thanks for adding cats to this; unfortunately there was still a lot of missing info from a series of partial blankings including the previous set of cats. I've asked for this page to be semi-protected, but if I'm overeacting just let me know. - PKM 07:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

question for you back at my talk page

and congrats, by the way. — coel acan — 10:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple warnings

Thanks for the tipoff, John. I reverted all my reversions and will leave those issues for resolution by the people who know more than I do. One other editor called the edits vandalism, and added a comment "this guy won't quit." I decided to "be bold" since none of the additions had any backup citations (reason enough to delete) and all of them had to do with calling famous riters "queer," "gay" or "bixesual". Might be true ... what do I know? But the whole thing looked like a college prank.

The reason for multiple warnings is that they get the user's attention a lot better (I think). It lets the anonymous user know that ALL of his edits are open for scrutiny. I've found that middle schoolers and high schoolers quit vandalizing as soon as they realize that they can be traced. I've found adding SharedIP tags much more effective than warnings. I was watching about a hundred anonymous IPs that I had tagged, and NOT ONE of them continued vandalizing. Straight warnings, level 1, 4 or whatever, don't produce such quick results.

You're right, though, that I should have posted the warnings before alerting admin. I was just alarmed that so many edits were happening right under my feet - I wanted to put a stop to it before too many more pages were affected. Cheers. Back to vandalism patrol... :) --Cbdorsett 10:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Herding Cats

Thank you for your assistance in putting down the open revolt starting to brew amongst my gentle userboxen. I swear, they're not usually like this. However, I noticed you also removed my status as a "rouge" [sic] admin. Is it really strictly necessary to be an Admin in order to be part of the Cabal? I assure you, I am equally, if not more, nefarious. Jouster (whisper) 16:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats on your adminship. And thanks on joining the ScoutingWikiProject. I added you to the list of project members who are admins. Rlevse 21:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Reaves, I didn't know about your adminship until I read it in the Signpost this morning. Congratulations! See you around at the WPHP… --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 13:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User 69.64.219.3

I reported this IP as a vandal, and you sent me a response (Thanks, btw) saying that this user had not received a final warning. On their talk page, it seems that he/she received two of these, one from AntiVandalBot in September of last year (!) and another (maybe) from CattleGirl.

If I'm not reading these correctly, how does one give a final warning? Am I allowed to do this?

Thanks for your time. Robaato 01:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR report

I reported A Man In Black (talk · contribs) for 3RR, and you blocked him for 72 hours. However, it has come to my attention that the fourth revert was not a revert - that is, the first three were, but the last one was removal of another line, which was uncontested. I am requesting that you reevaulate the block, either to shorten it or lift it altogether, as I should have checked the diffs more thoroughly before filing a 3RR report. Hbdragon88 06:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Regarding a report of vandal 65.197.241.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), your summary said "No final." Do you mean no final warning on his page? Because I count 6 final warnings on his page. Thanks. Kntrabssi 01:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up for me! Kntrabssi 01:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: RFPP

The image is on commons, so it needs to be uploaded here in order to protect it. – Steel 14:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi, I would like to apologise for any vandalism that comes from this Ip address, I wasnt aware of any vandalism from this Ip address until I noticed the 48 hour block on yesterday. Then I saw what somone had done to the RoundAbout page. This Ip address belongs to a company in n.ireland (NTNI) and is used by 2000+ people. I made myself a user id on wiki in attempt to differentiate myself from the vandals. Thanks for the good work on Wiki, and I apologise in advance of any further Vandalism, as I cannot control my co-workers. Sorry Jonny

Closing AfDs

Just thought you might want to know: {{at}} goes above the section header. If you don't do it that way, it messes up Mathbot. Not saying you're really bad, just some advice from one n00b admin to another. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

University of Waterloo

Hello, I have some edits I would like to do on this article. There are alot of missing wikilinks. Perhaps you could ask the warring editors to stop editing the article until their content dispute is resolved? It does not seem to be a really controversial subject, and I should think the editors would comply (or you could always block them). Thanks, Jerry 00:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Block me, fool

Can't you see the amount of crap that's coming from this IP? Why don't you block it already? 192.43.227.18 01:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

^ This is so funny. Real96 01:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Check this out too [4]. John Reaves (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Well, why didn't you block the IP? Real96 02:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's really nothing too serious, plus, there are some legitimate contributions coming from the IP. John Reaves (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Request to reconsider non-block of 203.87.54.154

Hey, before you completely dismiss the IP 203.87.54.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) consider the following evidence which would indicate that a block may be neccessary:

The user was blocked on March 12th with an expiry time of 48 hours.
The user returned within minutes of the block expiry and resumed the same pattern of vandalism as they had exibited prior to their March 12th block.
It is common and normal procedure, when dealing with IPs that show clear malice through their actions, to block contrary to policy (either they haven't edited within a very short time since last warning, or they didn't get a level 4 warning since the last block). This IP shows a pattern of vandalism (see contribs list for this IP) today that indicates that this is the same person who committed the vandalism that recieved the block on March 12th, and thus is in fact the same person that recieved the level 4 warning that LED to the March 12th block, and thus deserves another, longer block.

I understand the number of AIV requests that admins get, and I also understand and agree with the normal procedures for dealing with vandals to prevent excessive blocking of IPs, which has unintended collateral damage. I just feel that this particular example falls outside of the norm and needs special, individualized attention. Thank you for your attention to this, and while I am requesting that this matter be looked into further, I want you to know that I respect whatever decision you reach now that you have been presented with all of the evidence. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please block me

I hate wikipedia, it's full of hardheaded idiots that eff up articles without bothering to read them or even consider you POV I'm done please block my IP from editing indefinably (only let it have the ability to create user accounts I want the school to be able to participate).--209.137.175.59 05:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please block me or I'll be forced to go on a rampage. Wiki-people are so unreasonable that I want to scream, it makes me want to go on a rampage. --209.137.175.59 05:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

But once again please allow creation of accounts because I don't want to hurt the rest of my schoolmates. --209.137.175.59 05:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

???

What is this? Yes, this IP adress had in talk one warning only, but 1) this IP adress vandalised systematicaly an long-term and 2] as user:Hadilen is this person indef. blocked for this vandalism. Cinik 12:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

He was warning recently - as Hadilen was warning 2 times and indef. blocked! Cinik 13:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent RFD Closings

If you have commented on a deletion debate, you really should not close that debate. You have done that a couple of times at WP:RFD. I recognize that in each case, it was unanimous, but some folks may still find that a conflict of interest. As such, I would recommend that you refrain from doing it again. Don't mistake this as complaining. I don't think the decisions you made were wrong, I just don't want to see you get grief for it down the road. Let me know if you have questions. -- JLaTondre 13:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

They will eventually get closed. It doesn't hurt if they stay open for an extra couple of days. Another admin will come along and close them. And, actually, you are closing some debates a bit earlier. The standard is a week (7 days). Your recent closure have been in the 5 day range. -- JLaTondre 13:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for your Expertise

Dear John:

Greetings to a fellow Ryves! I've been reading some of your work with interest, and am curious as to your opinion about how best to proceed. I am with Battlefield High School in Prince William County, Virginia. When I came to this institution as the Instructional Technologist this year, we had a modest Wikipedia page, and as I gathered demographic and facility information for a report, I gradually added it to the page, as well as recent photos of the campus and information about the upcoming school year. As part of our institution's Research Professional Learning Community and as a teacher of the research process, the importance of transparency and accuracy is quite high on my list, as it were.

Recently, the BHS Wikipedia article has been ravaged by vandalism, most of it from outside of the school.

Thankfully, the IP address from our school has been blocked by Wiki for anonymous editing thanks to the scads of vandalism that once came from it, but we're seeing private users vandalize the page more and more. While I am 1.) staunchly opposed to our institution blocking Wikipedia carte blanche, as I think that smacks dangerously of censorship, and 2.) of the keen understanding that the entire point of Wikipedia is the freedom of the individual to contribute to group knowledge, I am also aware of the significant damage - not just to the school, but to individuals - that can come from some of the profane, hateful, and derogatory vandalism that has appeared on the page. I try to be very proactive in undoing the vandalism when I discover it, and both the bots and other users have helped in this regard.

If you have a chance to glance over the history, is requesting semi-protected status the "best" way to deal with this, at this point? I have already done so, but am curious if there are other courses of action that you feel are warranted, aside from being proactive about using the warning templates on user talk pages whenever blatant vandalism is discovered.

Thanks for any advice, and many thanks for your antivandalism contributions to the community over the last many months!

Best regards, K.D. Reeves a.k.a. Bhs itrt 13:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Army Ranks & Insignia of the RF

Thanks for imposing this semi-protected status on the page. There has been a long revert war going on over which exact Russian ranks correspond to US ranks, caused by rank titles not agreeing with the number of shoulder stars between the two armies. I have tried to insert authoritative U.S. DOD commentary supporting the view that: Rus General Colonel = US Lieutenant General Rus General Lieutenant = US Major General Rus General Major = US Brigadier etc but it has been repeatedly removed. Is a request for arbitration the way to fix this? Kind regards Buckshot06 18:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Barty Crouch Sr, Barty Crouch Jr

Hi, would you be able to move Barty Crouch Sr and Barty Crouch Jr to Barty Crouch Senior and Barty Crouch Junior? According to WP:NAME, "Prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations - Convention: Avoid the use of abbreviations, including acronyms, in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation and is widely known and used in that form. NATO, NASA, laser, radar, and scuba are good examples of acronyms that are commonly thought of as words. On the other hand, abbreviations like assn and U.S. should not be used, although U.S. is acceptable for use in disambiguation." Which means that 'Sr' and 'Jr' aren't acceptable ('Barty' seems to be more common than 'Bartemius', however, so that I presume would remain unaltered). Thanks. Michael Sanders 21:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks there. Michael Sanders 20:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

     I am sorry for vandalizing that stupid family guy page, but I truly detest that evil show and want it eliminated. I won't do it again, but please consider taking it offline so more lives won't be ruined by this crud.

-Copernicus II

Barty Crouch

Could you sort out Barty Crouch Senior again, please? Someone's messed it up. Michael Sanders 14:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Drunk Duck Page

Thank you for locking the drunkduck page. Hopefully the hackers responsible will get bored and forget about it by the time the lock is lifted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inkmonkeywoodis (talk • contribs) 02:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Request an account

The ones you removed as being too similar to existing users are there because they can actually be created, but only by admins. Normally if the conflicting user hasn't done any major work and there's not a big worry about confusion amongst the names, we'll create them. As such, I've added them back. Ral315 » 08:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't, not until Special:Version gets incremented (and that may take a while- they're working on schema changes, and haven't updated in a while). Ral315 » 22:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AIV

I've reported dozens of users. Which one are you talking about? -- TedFrank 13:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Gladiators/rewrite

Thank you for helping to save my effort from being deleted before anyone else sees it.

About a year ago, the policy was that subpages were allowed in the main namespace only for drafting article rewrites. I used this while refactoring List of words having different meanings in British and American English; this also made it straightforward to have a talk page dedicated to discussing the rewriting effort.

Do you have any idea when this policy changed? -- Smjg 14:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I am sorry for what has happened on the Chicago Bears page.I do not like to cast blame but it was my brothers falut for what has happened as you can see this also my falut as well for leaveing the page up...

             Thank you , Zoowackery

done my edit on goth subculture

I'm done my edit of the religion section on goth subculture. You can put back protection on the page. Harryboyles commented 1 hour prior to you that the page was semi-protected. I'm not sure which state it was in or not. But someone 172.162.144.250 deleted it a week ago so it should probably be at least semi-protected.

Thanks! D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheDarknessVisible (talk • contribs) 21:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Oops! ... I had completely forgotten about that template (even though I've used it before). I guess it really is not advisable to edit this late. I'll take it as a sign that I should sign out for the day. Cheers, Black Falcon 06:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

???

Don't understand what you mean. The guy has already got a final warning... --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 08:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Can you semi-protect the article Tila Tequila please? Seems to be targeted a lot today, and the RFPP guys aren't paying it any attention...~~ Already semi-pro... --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 09:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Can you please block User:70.162.89.128 now? Apparently ignored the warning i gave him, on your advice, and PAed me.~~ No worries! Already blocked... --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 09:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

why blocking server IP?

I don't know why I am blocked here, I did nothing but cleanup some articles a few months back and now I have some time to help again I am blocked, what are you doing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.10.172.159 (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Hey John!

Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Trampton 15:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

The UPN Vandal

172.132.195.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This is a known sockpuppet of User:The UPN Vandal, as demonstrated by this diff. It follows the same vandalism pattern at this diff, which references the same subject. This vandal in particular is known for vandalizing Over the Hedge (film) by claiming that there is a sequel being released, alongside a highly distinctive writing pattern. --Sigma 7 02:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)