User talk:Curps/archive23

Ebnocuj

Thanks. :) Ambi 07:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Your recent activities

Some time last night you block my main account of mine for vandal. The situation is I develop new program to combat original software that generates accounts. Here is the data from yesterday's database log of Love Virus:

QcrJTR7D3Z5spe
CpkSe8vGQfI2DsR
W7UHJwj3e8IpZto
TeUqy168THzg
Z94ht63Hf8z7
MR81Pn5bIh
X1Ns20P4ltA
~
~$
~$#
~$#$
£~
£~%
£~%&
<

As you may have gathered, the software generates usernames and uses them to edit any page(s). I know this because I developed the software, and it has been distributed to as many as 20 people. I have tried in cooperation with Linuxbeak to generate a software for him to maybe run to autmatically detect/block accounts. Currently I see you use manual javascript utility. I hope for no more intereereference from you as last night your block interupt the software development.

Yours MARMOT

If you are really working with Linuxbeak on creating a block bot, you can confirm this by having him post on this talk page. --Ixfd64 17:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh, and thanks

I almost forgot: Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. That was some pretty nasty stuff the vandal did! --Ixfd64 17:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Reeves page

Thank you for partially protecting George. His page is liable to get vandalized again soon, by one of that anon's sockpuppets which include User:Dijxtra2, User:Vesa and User:Projects. You can tell they are all the same guy due to the poorly-written English. Wahkeenah 19:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All three of those accounts have already been indef blocked. -Splash^talk 19:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos. So how did one of his entries end up under your signature? Or was that an error? Wahkeenah 19:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw him hit the article, asked for the last diff, and rolled it back when it appeared. In the meantime, you had beaten me to it and so I inadvertently rolled you back instead; I didn't get a "rollback failed message". -Splash^talk 19:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected it was something like that. If users could somehow steal other users' identities, that would be a peck o' trouble. :) Wahkeenah 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Carlow Crab

This page has been recreated on its discussion page by a vandal account which has since been blocked by another admin. I was unsure how to go about deleting the discussion page and as the article has been previously deleted i thought an admin should be informed that it has returned yet again. Discordance 05:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels

Way to revert a good faith page move before I even have time to explain it on the talk page. Nicely done. Oh, and way to fix the resultant double redirects, too, as per WP:MOVE. Oh, wait, you didn't. That was classy. ... ... Matt Yeager 07:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a less-than-friendly tone to take with someone, isn't it? Curps has a number of counter-vandalism scripts enabled to protect the Wikipedia, and it is most likely that you triggered a false positive by one of those scripts. Here, have a glass of champagne and relax a little. :D Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the edit summary you gave, your page move from Brussels to Brussels, Belgium was based on a false premise, namely that "Brussels" was an exception to some supposed universal rule that requires qualifying the name of every city with a state or country name [1]. If you had checked Paris or London or Amsterdam first, you would have seen this was not the case. I pointed this out in the edit summary when I moved Brussels back. -- Curps 14:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note

MARMOT here just to let you know that this is a test account so no need to block + there may be a few (5 or 10) usernames registered while I test the new software. This account can be blocked after the test is done.

unblocked

Thankyou for unblocking me, but could you please explain these reversions here [2]. These alerts were perfectly legitamite to the intent of the wikipedia project page. Also you have reverted a talk page comment here [3] which is completely unjustifiable as we never revert talk page comments unless they are blatant spam.--God of War 19:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I have now rolled back those reverts. I did those simultaneously with the block, which was in error. -- Curps 20:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi!

I believe this user left a message for you on his talk page. Cheers, —Ruud 22:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you unblock my IP as well (83.83.29.82)? And enable your e-mail? Cheers, —Ruud 22:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I forgot the autoblock... it's done now. -- Curps 22:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

funky problem you seem to have fixed once

Hi, on this poor person's userpage: Drini someone's been vandalizing and I noticed you fixed it a few days ago. Now, for some reason I see a vandalized page when I look at the article, but when I click "edit" the vandalism isn't there!??! I cleared my cache, reloaded... am I insane? Andicat 22:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chadbryant vandal

Another from the Chadbryant user page/talk page has been spotted and not blocked.

Hootie_And_The_NoFish (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Could you block him? All these vandals give me headaches. — Moe ε 00:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am no "vandal," as this person puts it, and I see no justification for his accusations. I reverted the entry to rec.sport.pro-wrestling as a result of ITS vandalism -- Moe Epsilon did not read the talk page and as a result jumped the gun, made a decision too swiftly, or was not aware of the fact that the information placed on the entry was not supposed to be in the entry -- as stated by several Wikipedia administrators. I also find it insulting and aggravating that he removed my comments from the talk page of rec.sport.pro-wrestling -- none of which were vandalism in the slightest. I have left remarks on his talk page regarding this issue; he will most likely delete them since he believes me to be a "vandal." As for his headaches, perhaps he should consider logging off the Internet for awhile and taking a nice nap. It seems like he needs it... --Hootie And The NoFish 17:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history from just today (including your vandalism of Moe Epsilon's user pages) indicates otherwise - and your attacks on articles I've edited or contributed to simply exposes you as another in a long line of sockpuppets being operated by Alexander Cain. - Chadbryant 18:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I don't have the right to defend myself when someone like you or Moe Epsilon calls me a "vandal?" I was NOT a "vandal" in reverting the damage that you caused to the rec.sport.pro-wrestling entry. I think you are fully aware of this, and are only out to cause trouble (especially in the remarks that you made on my user talk page). You are far from being one to talk about who is or is not allegedly causing trouble, and your baseless accusations and paranoia only serve to increase your lack of credibility in calling someone a sockpuppet. If you are going to orgasm that much over it, then petition for Wikipedia administratorship, and find yourself with the tools to properly check if this is so. Otherwise, please stop with these baseless, libelous, and inane accusations. Oh, and stay out of the rec.sport.pro-wrestling entry, unless you have something positive to add. So far, that's not happened. --Hootie And The NoFish 20:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I made the comments here was because I report the vandals to my user page, and more recently Chadbryants, to Curps because he tends to make the correct descisions concerning vandals. If you are not one of the said vandals to Chadbryants user page, Im sorry. But your contributions say otherwise. As I write, I also saw you were blocked by Curps. All I can say is Curps made another good decision. Thanks Curps. — Moe ε 20:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man i m having probs with my user page. Can you check it out and post advise on my user page cos its so messy. Batzarro 10:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

194.187.32.1 block

User:Smurrayinchester has requested that 194.187.32.1 be temporarily unblocked so that he/she can finish uploading something. It seemed like a reasonable request, and I didn't think that it was a big deal, so i fulfilled the request, forgetting to ask you if it was OK. please excuse my oversight, as i haven't been an admin for all that long.--Alhutch 14:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

194.187.32.1 <Neston High School, incase ya don't know ;P -mogster :)

Alex Bakharev RfA vote

Hello Curps! Could you help me understand your position, why do you think that announcing Alex's RfA vote in progress is the wrong thing to do? It is only a reminder and not in the least a push, nor a specific solicitation for support. There are quite a few users who participate rather actively both in the Russian and the English sectors, so just to let them know of what's an important event... why do you see it as something improper? Perhaps you'd find it possible to reconsider?

But, if it truly is wrong, I am to take the blame -- I am the user ru:User:Bepa, who just recently re-posted the reminder on the village pump in the Russian wiki. I know I could've easily made a mistake -- I am not so experienced a user so may be I am just not aware of an important policy regarding such matters. Thank you for your time in advance. Regards - Introvert ^?^@ 23:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there's a strict rule about it, but the RfA had some nationalism controversy involving a Romanian user, and it could have been interpreted that the intent was to get fellow Russians to vote for him, who might not otherwise be involved in or participate in the English wikipedia. The issue was that he himself posted this announcement to the Russian wikipedia (I don't think it was necessarily a mistake for you or others to reply to the discussion page there). In any case, I waited until about an hour before the end of the voting before posting to the RfA because I didn't necessarily want the issue to affect the outcome of the vote, but I wanted to raise it nevertheless. -- Curps 19:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I see how busy you are and I really appreciate the time you've taken to explain. Good riddance! - the problem user you mentioned hopefully is by now stopped from disrupting others' RfAdms. Just wishing the best of luck for Alex should he decide to try it again, and I sure hope he does - he's earned a great deal of respect with the fellow editors. Kind regards - Introvert ^?^@ 11:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the big idea?!

You have me blocked. Why? -- Jason Palpatine 05:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't blocked you, nor has anyone else [4]. You are posting here after all. Perhaps an autoblock on some other user... what message are you getting? -- Curps 05:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- let's try this again. I got cut off while I was typing. I was briefly blocked on 2 articles -- and I think you know which ones. But that doesn't matter now.

Yesterday, the tag "{{Orphaned fairuse not replaced}} to fair use media not linked inline in an article" was applied by you to Image:PigsisPigs0.jpg , an image I had uploded. I originally uploaded the image as a point for discussion.

The following pages linked to this file:

• User talk:Robeykr

• User talk:Tommstein

• User talk:OwenX/Archive 4

In addition, I tried to insert links to it in the following articles:

• Obesity

• Pigs is Pigs (1937)

These were not inclusion links. I felt that actually including the image in them would be redundant, but I still felt that the image, as a link, was still appropriate. The first time I linked the articles to it, someone (you?) removed them.

After you posted your 7 day warning, I again inserted the links and it just happened again, the links were removed as fast as I included them. You called it vandalism.

Note the closing word in the paragraph -- "explode." The image was a few frames folowing the image that IS includeed in the article under "Popular Culture." Some people felt that the term was invalid. One person who removed the term said that he'd never seen that happen -- I, on the other hand have; three times. The matter was under discussion, so I uploaded the image to illustrate the point -- it was linked to three talk pages, including mine. Since the other related image was in the OBESITY and PIGS IS PIGS (1937) articles, I felt that actually including the second picture would be redundant. I linked it instead as a footnote to the article/paragraph. However, the links were rmoved -- more than once. -- Jason Palpatine 08:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now the file is now GONE! The flage said it would be deleted AFTER 7 days, it was done after only 1! What's the deal?

Look here [5].

-- Jason Palpatine 08:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by you being briefly blocked "on two articles". A block would mean you couldn't edit any article except your own talk page, not just two specific articles. The block log shows you haven't been blocked by anyone, including myself. The only block you could have had was if you had coincidentally shared the IP address of someone else who had been blocked earlier (a so-called "autoblock"), but from your description that doesn't seem to be the case.

Actually it wasn't me that applied the "orphaned" tag to the image, that was someone else (from checking, I can see it was User:Roomba). Unfortunately I misinterpreted the wording of that "orphaned" tag... I can see now it said "seven days from January 12 02:00", but I misinterpreted it to mean that the seven-day deadline ended on January 12 02:00 and that therefore the deadline had just recently ended. Sorry, that was my mistake. The image was indeed deleted prematurely, it shouldn't have been.

I think I misinterpreted your edits to Obesity and Pigs Is Pigs (1937 film). Unfortunately, the Obesity article has been a target of frequent vandalism over an extended period of time, so I jumped to conclusions. Nevertheless, using a text link to link to an image is rather unusual on Wikipedia, and when it's done it's almost always shown as an explicit image link (eg Image:PigsisPigs0.jpg) and not disguised (eg explode). The latter really isn't good style... it violates the principle of least astonishment. I suspect you created those links simply as an attempt to "de-orphan" the image. If the image is to be used, it should be included somewhere as an image, or at very least as an explicit text link, not as a disguised text link hidden behind the innocuous word "explode".

I doubt the image belongs on Obesity, there's really no direct relevance. If it's from the 1937 film, it might belong on that page. -- Curps 09:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you said " The image was indeed deleted prematurely," so now this is a moot discussion. -- Jason Palpatine 18:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Side note

Recently, I uploaded yet another image for the Talk:Madagascar (film) page. It is Image:Mort021.JPG. Currently, only the Talk:Madagascar (film) page is the only place the image appears. Is it going to be declared an orphan and deleted too? -- Jason Palpatine 18:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mort the Lemur -- note short, rounded ears and a white stripe on his nose.

File:Microcebus lehilahytsara -large.jpg

The real thing for comparison -- note short, rounded ears and a white stripe on its nose

The rules for orphan images have been tightened up recently due to copyright concerns, so offhand I'm not certain where to find the policy page that answers your question (I rarely work on orphan images, as you can tell by my goof in misinterpreting the deadline date). I think it's an orphan if it's not used in any article, but only "fair use" (copyrighted) orphans get deleted... for instance, if it was a picture taken by you that you put on your userpage, or a public-domain NASA photo, it wouldn't be affected. I tried looking at Wikipedia:Image use policy to find where the policy is stated but didn't really find it. Perhaps you could ask User:Roomba (who placed the orphan notice on your image), he'd probably be able to tell you on which page the policy is written down. -- Curps 19:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WhenI questioned him earlier, he refered me to you. -- Jason Palpatine 20:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baldy revert

I reverted back to the more informative version. I feel that the additional information about the family that owns the mountain is a good piece of the resort's history. I will do my own research to try to support the author's claims when I can, but for the time being I see no reason to assume the claims are untrue. I admit it would be nice if they had cited their source(s). Shaggorama 10:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were correct to do so. That same anon IP committed vandalism later, and while investigating its contributions I was a little too hasty in reverting the above edit (which is very likely a different user on the same IP). -- Curps 19:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained revert

Hi Curps. Merging information on someone's blog into the article about that person is hardly a bad thing. Please explain your unexplained reversion on The Volokh Conspiracy. Proto t c 11:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To expand - The Volokh Conspiracy is one sentence, a list of contributors, and an external link. This information could easily sit in the Eugene Volokh article. Perhaps you could learn more about how Wikipedia works when it comes to merges by reading Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. Proto t c 11:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read The Volokh Conspiracy article. Despite the fact that it's named after him, Eugene Volokh is only one of many contributors to the blog. It's not "his blog". Merging it makes no more sense than merging Seinfeld into Jerry Seinfeld. Both the blog and the legal scholar are notable in their own right and are entirely separate topic, and a merge is inappropriate. -- Curps 11:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Curps. I appreciate your point, but as an article on its own, I am not convinced that this is notable enough to remain. I thought the merge would negate the chance of the information being removed through an AfD. On its own, it's a list of names, and an external link. Please try and remember to always use edit summaries to explain your reasoning when you revert edits made in good faith. Proto t c 11:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google search for "Volokh Conspiracy" shows 3.7 million hits. It's on the blogroll of a number of very high-traffic blogs, not least Instapundit. The article could use a little more detail, but notability is not the issue. -- Curps 11:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I thought it should be merged - it's not really an article in itself, and I'm not sure how it could be expanded. Proto t c 12:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest it looked like a pretty nice merge to me. They can always break it off when it becomes an actual article of its own. More context is good too. Really though curps rollback was totally inappropriate for that situation. WP:AGF please. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 12:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments at WP:AN. He did the merge as part of the "war on blogs" agenda, aware in advance that there was opposition to this merger, and without any prior discussion. -- Curps 13:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very well-known political blog. As Curps has pointed out it has many other authors, not just Volokh himself. This article should be kept. Rhobite 14:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you add a divert?

Alrite mate; Thanks for sorting my mess out - I was trying to move Nicholas Wolfe to User:Nicholas Wolfe, after my 'mis-move' but how do you add a divert, so that when somebody types in Nicholas Wolfe, my user page comes up, as it did before? Please get back to me asap, Nick

Another question - sorry mate!

Curps,

Just wondering why that is the case. Everything there is factual, much like a biography is of any other person on here - I was the United Kingdom's representative at the Global Young Leaders Conference and I continue to be a representative for the UK at international level; it's all fact.

In fact, I'm flying out to UN HQ in Feb to represent this country once again.

Could you please add a divert? Because, even though I am a user, I am also an 'article' if you like. I'm not telling everybody fictional and emotive stuff; it is pure fact as you can see.

Please get back to me asap mate,

Nick

65.161.194.170

Sigh. You'd think they would learn with a one-month block, but no. I'm trying to understand the ARIN whois output for the IP, but it's not very informative. Want to help? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. No problem. I'll let the 24-hour block stand, but if he acts up again, I'm blocking for another two months. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for that. ;) · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 23:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks so much for all that rv vandalism to Game Theory Pete.Hurd 04:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on my user page

Thanks for the heads up on my user page. He was probably a bit pissed that I nominated his sandbox entry for deletion, he'll no doubt calm down in a bit. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 23:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issac Sopoaga

I note that you have contributed to this article, so I hope you can clarify this. Is this article meant to be at Isaac Sopoaga as per NFL.com? Bobo . 04:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected it, as both the 49ers and NFL sites seem to indicate "Isaac" and we already have an article there. -- Curps 06:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page vandalism

Thanks for reverting it! Cyberevil 05:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mine too, a while back that I didn't notice until now. VegaDark 06:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... 'me too'. You should put in a sub-section for 'thank you messages' or something. :] --CBD _☎ ^✉ 14:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spum autoblocked

Dear Curps: A indef block you placed on User:Scd is causing legitimate user User:Spum to be permanently autoblocked (IP address 213.40.67.66). I'd be most grateful if you could please help. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not replying, somehow this slipped by me... from looking at the logs I take it you've handled it already? -- Curps 00:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Thanks for the rollback of my newly aquired Mr. Treason-esque admirer. If you're in need of a laugh, email me and I'll forward you the emails I've gotten from him. Again, thanks! Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 05:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Microcebus lehilahytsara -large.jpg

Image:Microcebus lehilahytsara -large.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]