User talk:Looie496/Archive 2

Feel free to add that comment at RFPP. If you do, I'll add a comment saying that I'm not going to protect the page, but I don't object in any way if another admin feels protection is appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I did as you suggested. Thank you. ---

The'FortyFive'

03:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Attempt at explaining

Quote: "Here's the deal. We've had enormous disruption caused by combative editing on articles related to The Troubles, from both sides. The only way to keep things under control has been to follow a zero tolerance policy, rigorously enforced. Your edit was combative, regardless of whether you think so, and reverting to put it back violated the letter of the policy. We've been down this road dozens of times, and there isn't going to be any argument about the issues: either follow the restrictions, or your IP address will be blocked. Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)"

I feel your explanation was rather curt. Please explain to me how my edit was combative. I stated facts. I did not use any inflammatory language, I simply stated the truth.

One particular contributor, O'Fenian, has an obvious agenda and ensures that articles reflect his political ideologies and views on all things Irish. I myself am Irish and take issue with articles that portray Unionists as evil and omit relevant information regarding Irish events.

I have on a few occasions edited and he has immediately reversed them based on his opinions, not fact. An example of this is the Michael Stone article. I stated that mourners included known terrorists, this is fact. I stated names of individuals that have admitted to being members of the IRA. He does not believe the IRA are terrorists, this is his opinion, but surely anyone with a modicum of common sense would not object to this.

Let me again state my intention is not to cause any disruption, I simply want to add value and relevant information where it is missing.

GlorRev Cill Dara

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.147.186.140 (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Username

Hello Looie496. I notice you hardblocked Al-RaShit (talk · contribs) for creating a grossly inappropriate username. Could you watch out for names like this where a) it could easily be a real name or a fan of the band, and b) there is no evidence it was created in bad faith. If in any doubt about the user's intentions of violating Wikipedia policy, which you usually can't tell from usernames containing profanity, please softblock or don't block. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Band? What band? I'm reasonably familiar with Arabic names, and I see no way that capital S was placed there in anything other than bad faith. For what it's worth, I placed the block before seeing the comment that had been added, and wasn't deliberately overriding another opinion. But in any case, thank you for the feedback, and I'll allow your comment to guide me in the future. Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What band? That is probably my main point. (Rashit). Even if it was an incredibly bad choice of name, there is no evidence at all that it was created in bad faith. FWIW I'm not aware of any comments, but noticed a couple of bad hardblocks in your blocking log. I tend to point these out to new admins, as it's a classic new admin mistake. Thanks for the consideration. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I think there are inevitably going to be discrepancies in how different admins handle things at UAA, because of differences in background knowledge -- what one sees as certainly bad faith may look innocuous to another, as for example I have no idea why "Mingebetty" would be problematic. But in any case, I'll try to recalibrate my threshold a bit. Looie496 (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm useless with usernames, and tend to avoid UAA. But I live in the UK and can point you towards the bottom item at minge to answer the "Mingebetty" question. TFOWR 19:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol, maybe it's just a British thing. Grossly inappropriate - yes; evidently bad faith - not necessarily. So it was hardblocked only after vandalising. That's an extreme one, but the majority of these types of usernames fall in this middle ground between bad faith and innocuous, where they can't be blamed for choosing a username they may have used elsewhere for years without any complaint at all. You can see this in many endless time-consuming and editor-deterring unblock appeals. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Looie, kindly see my input here [9]  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Prahlad Jani

Thanks for your note. Replied it here. -- Nazar (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Substantial changes to NPOV

• example of major changes

• example of major changes

• example of major changes

• example of major changes

There are other editors making substantial changes to NPOV policy without consensus. I think editors are complaining about my improvements not behaviour to NPOV policy. Do you think this is appropriate admin behaviour by you Looie496 to claim I am being disruptive when other editors are causing the problems with drastic changes to NPOV policy.

What do you mean by "you need to pull back here". I think you could look a little more closely at the edits all editors have made and undestand who is doing a great job of improving NPOV and who is making unproductive edits to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You should really know better by now than to expect that sort of argument to work. If you can't persuade other editors to agree with you, you can't get your way in the dispute. Looie496 (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The diffs of major changes[10][11][12] were rejected by other editors too. Do you agree that other editors have made substantial deletions to text to NPOV policy without consensus. I don't have to persuade other editors about restoring the section. Other editors have commented on the talk page to keep the section per consensus.[13][14] QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For that [15] I was unsure if i ought to copy it in or leave it to an admin

talk

) 19:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

TFA protection

TFA's are commonly protected because of a high level of vandalism. I don't see a reason to leave it unprotected, it would just waste the vandal fighters time. In some cases TFA's are protected for a few hours. --Inka888^ContribsTalk 21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the history and saw at least two experienced admins had made reverts very recently, and were clearly keeping constant watch on the article. They were in an excellent position to decide whether protection is warranted. To my understanding protection is generally only applied to TFAs if the vandalism is so fast that it can't be controlled. Note that any given vandal-fighter always has the option of leaving that article to others to deal with. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I understand that were all volunteers and we don't have to do anything. Inka888^ContribsTalk 22:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Block 72

You didn't sign it... Peridon (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement that block templates be signed. In cases of simple vandalism or other basic misbehavior, all it does is increase the chance of the editor taking revenge by vandalizing the admin's pages. Note though that I'm a brand new admin, so if you think I'm misunderstanding policy or doing something wrong, I'm open to having it explained to me. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations or commiserations as appropriate... Peridon (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, just wanted to say congratulations on becoming an administrator Looie, :-) and survived the request for adminship process; it looks like a stressful process having to undergo all those questions and public scrutiny. It is nice to see you are taking an interest in ArbCom enforcement, an area which requires neutral as well as firm but fair admins (something that I know you are and will be). Good job.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

First, congrats on your successful RFA. :) Now for an exercise, can you look at the 90 page backlog of CSD requested pages? Thanks--Talktome^(Intelati) 01:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid that I made a very explicit promise at my RfA not to do deletions -- I'm too weak on policy in that area to take it on. So I'm afraid somebody else will have to handle that backlog -- but I'll try to take a bit of the load off in other areas. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection in a content dispute

FYI - See

WP:SILVERLOCK. In reference to the protection on the DZMB article, in cases of a content dispute, full protection should generally be used. Semi-protection should only be used if all parties are IPs or non-autoconfirmed users. Congratulations on your new mop. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib

01:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. It's really a case where IP's are disrupting an article by repeatedly inserting unsourced information -- I guess in future I'll go by the book by labeling that as "disruption" rather than a content dispute. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Looie496. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Additional_comments_by_Sven_Manguard.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cannibal (EP)

Timeline doesnt play a factor, unsourced and vandalism determin if an article should be protected or not. And FYI, the deletion is 8-0 for keep. Can you protect it? :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, someone beat you to it, thanks anyways :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Looie496. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Additional_comments_by_Sven_Manguard.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost

Hi, could you check the blurb I wrote about you? Tony (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, although perhaps you could replace "their" with "his" in the first sentence. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'd just come back to ask whether "he" was OK. You're under a huge jellyfish now ... no association intended! Tony (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hi Looie496. Sorry for the trouble but could you possibly remind

user:McGeddon as well. Thank you for your time. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis}

19:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to engage with that editor, he has been warned that further edit-warring in the article will lead to a block. Your best response is to ignore him. If he continues to post long messages on the talk page in spite of not getting responses, I will intervene at that point. The incivility itself is not at a level I feel compelled to respond to. Looie496 (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your valuable and useful advice. I accept your arguments including your evaluation of the level of incivility. Thank you for taking the time. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Kesha

Just a v quick, brief 'thanks' - I hate protection, sadly it was necessary. Ta.  Chzz  ►  20:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Please see that I have requested an explanation for your comments at AN/I. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

On the off chance that you're not aware of it, I was referring to

WP:AN#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change. Looie496 (talk

) 01:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that. The issue is that if you read my post, you should have seen that Off2riorob has reverted three times in the last day against two editors. The talk page shows that there is not agreement for his version. Editors disagreeing with him, besides me, are here, here and here. When I asked him to join the discussion he simply posted an insult on my talk page. I have not reverted once. My question is, what about this makes you think I am trying to get myself sanctioned? Mackan79 (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I think I misunderstood your description of the events. If so, I apologize for my snide remark, and will strike it. Looie496 (talk) 02:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. I will strike my question in response. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Your Message

I have not repeated any of the conduct that lead to my topic ban, I have been at great pains to avoid a repeat of that. I have attempted to discuss the matter in the talk page, I have not attempted to force content into the article, I have attempted to obtain consensus on the talk page. I do not believe my conduct was disruptive.

However, I have discovered that one editor is seriously misrepresenting his sources, which you will note was mentioned in the case. My edit proposals are also being seriously misrepresented, then that used to discredit them. The editor I attempted to issue a WQA against is continuing with the same battleground mentality that lead to the dispute in the first place. There is a presumption that because they escaped sanction their hands are clean, the sanctions also apply to them.

I have proposed content that is relevant, well written, sourced and written to conform to NPOV. Even though acknowledging that Richard is vetoing its inclusion and the arguments for doing so don't stack up.

I would request that you please take the time to actually look at the talk page. From my perspective it appears that you've simply looked at the arbcom case and in 30s decided I'd returned to my old form. This really isn't the case I have made a real effort to avoid a repeat of that. Your message is tantamount to banning me from contributing to areas of wikipedia where I do have knowledge and would like to contribute. Justin talk 19:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Das Baz

Just to say he may have an argument (maybe, there are other similar issues, this may not be as notable as he thinks) for 2012 (although he did post to the talk page and got no support), but definitely not for September 18 where he was reverted 17 times.

talk

) 05:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Malia Obama

Please undo page protection. Your action prevents a valid article from appearing. Some could say that a paid political activist who want to eliminate the article would do exactly as you. However, I don't say you are paid, only that the payment status is unknown. I do say that your action is unhelpful. Please unpage protect. I pledge that I will not re-create the article myself for 100 days.

I think you will refuse so I, hereby, give you notice of arbitration. Presidentmalia (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I hereby ask you to mediate to agree to unpage protect the Malia page and restore the article. NuclearWarefare says he reverted it to a redirect but can't do anything because of your action.

If you do not agree, mediation has failed and arbitration goes on. Presidentmalia (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Where did NuclearWarfare say that? If you want the redirect unprotected, the proper way to ask for it is to file an unprotection request at

WP:RFPP. I am not going to do it myself without evidence that there is consensus to have an article. Looie496 (talk

) 21:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I saw what NW said, and you have completely misrepresented it. Unless you can build a consensus, at a page such as Talk:Family of Barack Obama, that an article about Malia is desirable, I don't think you are going to get anywhere with this. Looie496 (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Obama, Sorry :)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Talktome^(Intelati) 21:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Dbpjmuf edit-warring on

Big Beautiful Women

Does this count?

talk

) 23:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have fully-protected the article for three days. There is plenty of fault to go around here. Looie496 (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, but I can see where you might form that opinion if you didn't take the time to research the problem. I should have explained: others have been trying to get the IP who later became Dbpjmuf to respect consensus and stop edit warring since September. The article was originally semiprotected to put a stop to that IP's edit war, at which time he registered an account and made edit requests until four days had passed. That's how I got involved, servicing some of those requests. If you were to read that talk page section, you would see a repetitive drum of "form a new consensus" from me and others. How do you expect to get someone to respect consensus and use a consensus building model if you don't prevent them from changing the article against that consensus? I assumed that is why he was brought to ANI and why you gave him a final warning yesterday - not to make empty threats but to get the editor to engage in the process.

talk

) 02:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but then a different editor changed it in an attempt at compromise, and you reverted back to the old form. If it had only been Dbpjmuf against everybody else, I would probably have blocked Dbpjmuf. Looie496 (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, a different editor agreed with him to reject consensus. I left a note on his talk page asking him to join the process instead. Regardless of whether his suggestion was useful, just stepping in and implementing it while others are trying to reach an agreement isn't helpful.

talk

) 04:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. Looie496 (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Toni Braxton

Thank you! I will return if the user continues to be trouble. Carmaker1 (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

128.104.truth

I appreciate your comments about 128.104.truth at ANI [16], and the warning on their page about stalking the edits of another user. I see your point about his edits not being actual vandalism. However, when he returned to Wikipedia and saw your warning, his next three edits were all to articles that had been edited immediately prior by Off2RioRob [17] [18] [19]. These are all minor edits, true, but they also seem to be very

pointy choices of articles. Since your comment and warning pretty much ended the previous discussion, I figured I'd come to you first, rather than start a new discussion at ANI. Thanks again for your help. Dayewalker (talk

) 02:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out to me. I have imposed a 24 hour block. Looie496 (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I hate to bother you again, but 128.truth returned from his block with three trolling comments to other administrators [20] [21] [22], then followed Chaser (who had told him to stop wikistalking) to an article [23], followed Tarc back to [24] an article he had previously followed me to [25], then followed me to another low-traffic article [26]. Any thoughts? I still feel as if he's just here to be

pointy. Again, thanks in advance for your opinions. Dayewalker (talk

) 16:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Rape

In regards to the article on "Rape", rape can also be committed by higher animals like the orangutan. There are documented cases of humans being raped by animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.193.155.159 (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My only involvement with that article was to protect it because of edit warring. I don't know anything about its contents and don't have any opinion about that. Looie496 (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia consensus to no longer be discussion driven and now based on voting?

Is this the case? Your message implies it, but I was under the impression that consensus is driven by discussion. Did you by any chance not notice the opposition's inability to formulate a cogent (or even valid) argument to defend their viewpoint in the discussion page? I've been basing my attitude towards consensus on

wp:cons, and I'm not convinced I should be blocked from the MSG page in this case. I understand that the discussion has grown quite long, and there is an understandable tendency to distrust the edits of IP addresses. I'm hopeful that the verdict of your arbitration may have been somehow influenced by this and possibly something Sciencewatcher or his company said to condemn me while pleading for administrative assistance, and that you would be willing to review the situation with impartial consideration.174.126.200.228 (talk

) 02:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that you can't participate at the page, and the fact that you are using an IP is totally irrelevant. I said that you can't continue to edit-war to insert material that every other participating editor disagrees with. Looie496 (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll follow Wikipedia's guidelines to try and bring in more eyes to the article and see if my viewpoint is shared before making edits. I'd like to point out though, that I'm going to make one revision of Sciencewatcher's. He made a section deletion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monosodium_glutamate#Health_concerns_section.27s_low_standard which poses to be unrelated to my 'wiki edit warring'. I objected to his deletion yesterday laying out the logic, but the discussion has remained stagnant.174.126.200.228 (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I gave my reasons in the edit summary. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Typesupper2

Hello Looie496. If I should take this to AE or ANI again I apologize, but you are familiar with the issue here. You warned Typesupper2 (talk · contribs) about calling living people Nazis when they are not Nazis (in fact, the person this user is calling a Nazi is a Jewish son of Holocaust survivors). The first edit they made since that warning was to reinsert the BLP violating remarks (here) with the edit summary "Stop defending Nazis". nableezy - 14:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. I have applied a 24 hour block. Looie496 (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats from blocked user

^Gespräch

20:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's been dealt with for the moment. Looie496 (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Pawnee Bill Ranch

The Pawnee Bill Ranch page is for a museum that is owned and operated by the Oklahoma Historical Society. I am asking that the page be edited because the invididual involved is using personal opinion to write the page. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the Ranch was built using slave labor. The ranch was constructed in 1910 using professional builders and it was not a Sears Home. It was designed and built by the architect James Hamilton from Chester, Pennsylvania. The building is not experiencing structural damage as is suggested and is certainly not riddled with mold. Please check out www.pawneebillranch.org for the official site on the Ranch to make your own decision if you wish. The hours of operations listed on the wiki page are completely innacurate. Historicalidentity (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why either one of you would want false information in the article. I believe both of you believe that you're trying to make the article better. If you don't at least make an effort to work this out between the two of you, don't expect any help from me or any other Wikipedia admin. Looie496 (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie: We had the same trouble with the Miller Bros 101 Ranch locals. The 101 Ranch was bull-dozed by HUD decades ago but the people out there still put on shows in the dirt. They want to pretend, they are actors who travel around Oklahoma Fairs playing parts (Annie Oakley, Buffalo Bill, et al). Can you lock the "Pawnee Bill" page while we check on the other pages related to Oklahoma History. Please and thank you. Tintle (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Then I will continue to fight for my case and present the evidence that is true even as the other user continues to change it. If I'm to be banned for it, then so be it.Historicalidentity (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie: I hate to bring you into another issue, but there is a problem with self citation on the Pawnee Bill page now. The bibliography is being continually edited to contain sources that have nothing to do with the subject and Tintle, R. "The Great Far East in the Historic Wild West" (2010) as well as Tintle, R. "Pawnee Bill Lives!" 2007 are unpublished papers done by Tintle. 152.132.9.73 is making the same changes on these pages as well: May Lillie and Mexican Joe. I did place a warning about self citation twice on the Pawnee Bill discussion page but the changes are continued to be made. Historicalidentity (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

Dear Administrator, I would like to address the allegation [27] and would like to send you a screenshot with a colleague- scholar permission to use text [28] at WP - please respond on my e-mail – so I’ve send you an image – please note - all private or confidential information was blanked. Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer - Actually a paper version distributed for participants at Historical Memory in Contemporary Ukraine An international conference September 23–26, 2009 Kyiv does not have "draft" mark - avialable online it's same as final presented. Facts given at scholar work also was presented (in expanded version) in Poland 2010 - I hope it text will help to clear different scholar texts from proof by verbosity accusations in "pushing a pro-Soviet POV with respect to Ukraine" [29]. I also can advice for reading [30]] page 59. Can you advice somebody else which can recieve a permission for text usage (free-e-mail account with no real name) to resolve the issue [31] . Thank youJo0doe (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

2012

As a matter of fact, I have now written 3 paragraphs in the 2012 Discussion Page on the subject of the 2012 Bullfighting Ban in Catalonia. The only argument that anyone has offered for removing the data is the claim that only data of global world-wide extent can be included in Wikipedia. This is an absurd claim. Has any other information in Wikipedia ben removed because it is not about a matter that affects everybody in the whole world? Please stop the malicious vandal from his or her vandalistic removals. Thanks. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added a comment to the talk page supporting your viewpoint, but that's all I'm going to do. A legitimate place for you to look for further input would be WT:WikiProject Spain. If you mention this there, don't say "come to Talk:2012 and set the idiots right", just say that the question is being discussed and further input would be helpful. Looie496 (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi

Hello Looie496, I think 1 month block is overly harsh. Chesdovi has not had a block or topic ban anywhere near that length. nableezy - 18:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi's behavior needs to do a 180 degree turn if he is to continue editing in this domain. I didn't feel that a shorter block would get that message across. Thus far he has shown no sign of understanding why what he is doing is wrong, and if he can't understand that, he can't edit on these articles. I am not going to complain if some other admin shortens the block, but my feeling is that the block was appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If that is the message you are trying to convey to Chesdovi then a topic-ban would be a better approach. I obviously have problems with Chesdovi, but he is, more often than not, a good editor. Even if there are problems with his editing in the ARBPIA topic area, I dont think many people would deny the user is very valuable when it comes to his editing on ancient synagogues or Jewish history. The block stops him from contributing to areas where he is an asset to this project. nableezy - 19:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I encourage you to make that suggestion at

WP:ANI#Chesdovi blocked; I am open to the idea. Looie496 (talk

) 19:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi

Do you care to respond to the questions posed here? [32] I think that I have raised valid points that warrant a response--

Jiujitsuguy (talk

) 21:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Jean-Martin Charcot

Dude deserves at least a good article, no? I have the highest edit count on the article, mostly because of cleaning it up; I can't write much on the fellow. But I did plop in a ton of full-text sources, so someone more familiar with Charcot and neurology can take it to the next level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Bull-fighting ban in Catalonia

Thank you for your support, Looie496. I know I am supposed to "assume good faith," but it is hard to do so when a malicious vandal keeps removing true and important information, for no good reason. I cannot help thinking that the malicious vandal just hates animals and wants the bull-torture to continue. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to take that attitude, I'm not going to be able to give you any support. Fanaticism is always unwelcome. It's clear to me that the people who are opposed to this simply don't think it is important enough to tell the whole world about. I think they're wrong, but if you are going to accuse them of being evil, I don't want anything to do with you. Looie496 (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement thread

Could you please take a look at my new comment in the arbitration enforcement thread I posted recently, and the diffs linked there? I'm not violating the sanctions against my account by posting there, because the admin who topic banned me made a specific exception for allowing me to do this. I was also told by one of the arbitrators that posting there would be acceptable while I was topic banned. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but I feel that you've abused the privilege. Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain how I've "abused the privilege?" When I was given permission for this by the admin who topic banned me, it was in the context of my wanting admin attention for the same specific behavior I’m reporting here, including some of the exact same examples/diffs.

The behavior that I was saying I thought needed admin attention, which NuclearWarfare was giving me permission to report, is what Captain Occam described in his comment here [33] (in the "Response to new comments from Maunus and Muntuwandi" section). Three of the five examples of editor behavior that are described in that comment are the same examples included in my report. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

About Vandalism

I consider vandalism the removal of content without a single explanation. At least you

Looie496 are now giving a reason, the fact that the TV transmission in question is in french. I suppose you don't disagree with the main merit of question, hunger as a weapon, and the importance of references to that by internal or external links. Thank you Marasmus (talk

) 01:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Dear Looie496, I would like to thank you for my account to be unblock and have a great day. :) クリッシーサングスタークリッシーサングスター ♥ 04:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcassionchan (talk • contribs)

Pawnee Bill Ranch page again

Looie: I hate to bring you into another issue, but there is a problem with self citation on the Pawnee Bill page now. The bibliography is being continually edited to contain sources that have nothing to do with the subject and Tintle, R. "The Great Far East in the Historic Wild West" (2010) as well as Tintle, R. "Pawnee Bill Lives!" 2007 are unpublished papers done by Tintle. 152.132.9.73 is making the same changes on these pages as well: May Lillie and Mexican Joe. I did place a warning about self citation twice on the Pawnee Bill discussion page but the changes are continued to be made. The website on the Pawnee Bill Ranch linkswww.pawneebill.org is also directing people to the original Wikipedia edit of Tintle.Historicalidentity (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits in question, and semi-protected the page for a week. Looie496 (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you take a look at the Pawnee Bill page as well for self citation? I have reason to believe that 152.132.9.73 is the user Tintle. Historicalidentity (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt it. I've semi'ed that one too. Looie496 (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your help in the matter. Historicalidentity (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie496 new editor needed for history articles because the tour guide Historical Indenity has sold you a bstory from a brochure that should not be presented to people as history. This type of flaw is the reason that students are warned not to use wikipedia as a legitimate souce. Historicalidentity had no contact information, This article is not completely unfactual leaving out the land run, lanb grad, and violation of the Pawnee trible treaties in Oklahoma, all of which are well=known facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.243.66 (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie: The ISP address 71.29.243.66 has made changes on the talk page of the Pawnee Bill Ranch page as well as the talk page of the Pawnee Bill page to take out the warnings that were placed by other users about self citation on the pages. Comments about the page's accuracy has also been placed on those sites. Please also take a special look at comments that you yourself have written where Tintle's username has been erased from your questions. It looks like the user is trying to change things to benefit themself on these pages. I have reason to believe that 71.29.243.66 is the user Tintle as well as 152.132.9.73. "Wikipedia is too malleable a source of information; its articles are inherently unreliable and mostly inaccurate. Alert: Historicalidentity (talk | contribs) is posting dialog and other information from fiction sources such as dime novels and comic books as historical events, a violation of Wiki's TOS. Tintle (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)" This has also appeared on the users page. I do not know why this user wants to continually deny that the page does not present all of the facts. The page that is up has mulitple citations from multiple reputible sources on the topic. No brochures have been used in any of the citations. The matter of a land grab should not be an issue either as it has no historical basis behind it for the specific site. The site page is simply trying to talk about a historical museum. Talk of land runs and tribal issues should be reserved for other pages. I would hope that action would be taken. Thank you for your consideration and help in the matter.Historicalidentity (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that it's very difficult to effectively block people who can hop across a wide range of IP addresses. The only approach that really works is semi-protection. I don't have any problem with semi-protecting articles, but semi-protecting talk pages for long periods of time is not desirable unless absolutely necessary. My advice is to do your best to ignore this editor's talk page activity for a while. Nobody except you is really paying attention to it anyway, I think. Sooner or later he will probably give up and then we can clean things up. There are other possible approaches, but they involve more work than I'm really eager to do. Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Might I just ask how long the protection on the pages will last? I believe that this issue will not be resolved so easily. I know that it's already protected until the 28th of this month, but is there any way that it could be protected for longer? Again, thank you and I am sorry to be such a bother. It simply bothers me when others abuse information like this.Historicalidentity (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I won't extend the protection right now, but it only takes a few seconds to re-protect it if the need is still there -- and if I have to do it again, I'll make it longer next time. Looie496 (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Another ISP address to report for Tintle, now making sarcastic comments about sources produced in original discussion. 68.97.41.111. Just keeping you updated and thank you again for your help.Historicalidentity (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Looie496. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
Message added 22:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

leadtooshort template

While completely uninvolved in the original editing dispute that was brought up at RFPP, I am so surprised by your reasoning that I would like to discuss the subject in greater detail.

You, rather aggressively, denied a request for page protection because a user was trying to use a template you consider to be "ugly". First off, using your subjective opinion of how attractive something is to direct your actions as an administrator seems a bit inappropriate, but more importantly you're arbitrarily slapping the face of all kinds of Wikipedia conventions.

Some cleanup templates are inherently ugly. They don't exist to make the article look better, they exist to notify users that there is a problem that needs correction. Bright orange road construction/hazard signs are ugly but you'd be foolish to argue they shouldn't be used for that reason. Secondly, this template has existed since 2006 and been used since then; it currently used on a variety of articles as unobscure as toaster.

As an administrator, you should be aware that the removal of maintainence templates is often considered vandalism and there are four levels of user talk warnings for the removal of these templates; the fourth level indicates "The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you may be blocked from editing without further notice" which conveys the seriousness of this behavior.

You're flying in the face of longstanding conventions and suggesting administrators should hold their personal standards of attractiveness higher than established wiki guidelines and procedures. Furthermore, removing properly-used templates because they are "ugly" undermines the entire maintainence template system and suggests we should value style over substance.

Please reconsider this inappropriate approach to editing and administrative duties. Some guy (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There are actually many editors who feel as I do that article-level tags don't belong at the top of an article unless they reflect some issue that casts doubt on the validity of the article. Also it seems to me that they are often used as a sort of power trip by users who aren't willing to do the work of improving an article but get a kick out of holding it hostage for the people who actually care about it. I think this is an area where people who actually create articles have a different point of view from others: we tend to see drive-by tagging as often just a sort of legalized vandalism. But I'll accept your point in one way: in the future when similar issues come up, I won't resolve them. I won't be the one who applies protection or blocks an editor in such cases, but I'll just leave them alone for some other admin to handle. Looie496 (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I "actually create articles" as well. I don't take it personally when someone adds a cleanup tag to an article I've created or maintain. Some articles need work, some users don't have the time, patience, or knowledge to fix everything they come across. As I mentioned before, you're looking at the situation backwards. It sounds as if you're saying your articles shouldn't have an "ugly" cleanup template because you don't want to take the time to fix the problem and you're offended someone else pointed it out. It should be that if you don't like the cleanup template and really don't want it to be there, you should fix the problem and remove the template. Nobody's holding anything "hostage". Some guy (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's very useful to point out problems in an article, but that's what talk pages are for. In fact, I wouldn't object at all to maintenance templates if they went on the talk page instead of the article. I just don't think it improves Wikipedia to put garish blobs on top of otherwise decent articles. Doing this for something like "lead too short" is especially out of line. Looie496 (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Looie496. You have new messages at LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's talk page.
Message added 14:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

67.176.220.219

• 67.176.220.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed you blocked this editor for warring on Fred Singer, which is in the climate change topic. Looking at his edits it looks like he's been around for a while on the same IP and his principal interests are climate change. Perhaps we should treat him as we would treat a registered editor, in which case it would be as well to warn him about the climate change discretionary sanctions. --TS 22:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Done and logged; thanks for the suggestion. Looie496 (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

CSI needs to be re-protected (at least *I* think so)

Almost the minute the protection expired on

CSI:Crime Scene Investigation does need protecting again? I tried appealing to the person who blocked the above IP user, but they say this is just someone who 'doesn't understand the rules' (my paraphrase) very well - but if you look at their talk page - it's fairly obvious they do not care to learn either, as it's all the same stuff in the same articles that got them blocked in the first place after much counseling and warnings. Thanks for listening to the rant. I appreciate any time you might be able to devote to this, as I understand how busy Admins are. I thought about applying, but I know my Irish temper would get my adminship revoked within the first hour or so. As I guess you can tell, I'm one of those that "doesn't suffer fools gladly"! Thanks very much! Cheers, Trista Triste Tierra (talk

) 03:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking the one offending user. With that one out of the way, it might be easier to fix some of the other stuff being put up by IP Vandals and those who want Wikipedia to be a TV fansite rather than an encyclopaedic source about many things, including TV shows. Zen hugs to you! Trista Triste Tierra (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also be prepared to semi-protect the article for an extended period if it's necessary, but let's see how it goes. Looie496 (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your hard work not even a month into your adminship, especially at WP:AN/3 I award you the admin's barnstar. Secret account 00:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dang beat me to it! I was just coming over to giver the same award for the same reason! Keep it up! The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Robeson editing conflicts

Hello, thank you for contacting me. The issue has arisen because in the previous intro edit, my facts were questioned. I was in the process of meticulously citing this material with references and then the section was not only drastically altered but the editor provided zero references and moved my previously entered cites around without thought to connectedness or relevancy. Then malik told me citations are "probably not needed" by str1977 via HIS work.

Here is the passage in question:

"U.S. Congressional records and FBI files reveal the reasoning behind his persecution centered not only on Robeson's beliefs in

major league baseball among many other causes that openly challenged white supremacy on six continents.^[2]

"

Str1977 and Malik Shabazz have implied that the persecution points that I cited for Paul Robeson's persecution by the US power structure of the 1940's to 1960's are without historical merit or simply over exaggerated. I have gone through countless FBI files to prove them both incorrect with citations while str1977 has provided no cites or references for ANY of his edits. I acnnot edit in cites and references if my work is being reverted in real time.

I'm amazed now at the high standards that I was held to when first repairing and rebuilding the Paul Robeson article and sub-articles when I did the major revisions/creations on it. These rules are not be applied to Str1977. I never could have gotten away with such uncited material in the intro or elsewhere. I had editors breathing done my neck and tagging stuff as I was writing. Which is fine but why not others?

Writing a very large controversial article cannot be a flawless job and I have always maintained that I've made mistakes. But I DO cite my work and I make modifications as I did yesterday. I thought content on wikipedia research and references were cornerstone not editors ganging up on users. When str1977 comes through he deletes research citations and replaces it with zero cites please tell me why is that acceptable? Because he is an editor? I cannot find these answers in the rules. Thanks very much for your time.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be better to keep the discussion on your talk page -- but I'll just say that, while I haven't encountered Str1977, I have watched Malik edit for a long time and I have strong faith in his good intentions and expertise. Looie496 (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy

FYI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Where's the diff

Hi, Looie496.
It worries me that previous WQA was closed after involved admin said that the case was already reported, but no diff. Things cannot be solved here on "honorable scouts word".
I've been looking through pages that link to "user:Ivan Štambuk" in namespace Wikipedia, search ANI archives, searchword="Štambuk".
My eyes "fell out" why I was searching through all those ANI's, but I haven't seen the case of Štambuk's "sod off".
Anyway, denigrating of opponents and opponents' sources (authors) continued [34] ("nationalist fluff") [35] "your own clique", [36] "this nutjob + (name of scientist)" (violation of

WP:BLP).... Kubura (talk

) 03:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

About more notifications

Hi, Looie496.
You asked me here [37] that if you have missed to notifiy anybody here

Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Log_of_warnings

, to bring his/hers name to your intention.
I wrote a message to Kwamikagami [38]. He's involved on several articles that are under the scope of WP:ARBMAC: Croatian language, Serbo-Croatian language, Croatian grammar, South Slavic languages, Differences between standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian, {{South Slavic languages sidebar)...
E.g., here [39] are inline citations needed; various topics are covered on various pages. Kwamikagami blatantly removed "citation needed" .
Kwamikagami also must be notified by you and his name also must be here

Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Log_of_warnings. The rules are equal for everyone. Bye, Kubura (talk

) 03:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If you show me even one example of incivility by kwami, I will notify him. Incivility means attributing bad motives to another editor or otherwise insulting another editor. It doesn't mean saying that an edit is wrong or doing things that another editor disagrees with. Looie496 (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please include Talk:Serbo-Croatian on your watchlist in relation to this issue. Some of the heat from the Talk:Croatian language discussion has migrated there. --Taivo (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

All involved parties should be given a warning who participated, especially involved admins who were editing the blocked article even after the ban look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croatian_language&action=historysubmit&diff=392190211&oldid=391983057 Vodomar (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify: this is about incivility, nothing else. I don't know very much about Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, or their languages. I am not going to look at content disputes, edit warring, misuse of sources, or any of that. I can't, I don't understand the topic. All I intend to do is stop the pattern of editors insulting other editors. I don't have to understand the topic in order to recognize an insult. Looie496 (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

See also this:here all of his insults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.116.102 (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

PP

Can you reconsider full protection of

chat

04:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Always reluctant to grant a protection request from an editor who has just edited the page into their own preferred state. I'd be happy to revert your edit and then protect the page if that would be okay with you. Looie496 (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with BLP issues, over having the article in my state....

chat

04:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Dont know if this is still relevant but: There are heterosexual actors who appear in gay porn ... some men are pretty flexible. Gay-for-pay. Beyond that, though, there's the intricacy that "men who have sex with men" is not always taken literally either, as it's more of an identity than an orientation. —Soap— 00:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:68.167.83.210

Hi, you blocked

talk

) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Since it's just a single edit, I've only blocked for two weeks, and left a short explanation on the IP's talk page. For your information, we never do permanent blocks on IPs, because it is always possible that they will eventually change hands. Looie496 (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

talk

) 02:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Followup on Ronz

I read it a couple of times. My response is...

Sure, like another admin will come along and say Looie you're totally wrong, I'm putting a block in. So what you're saying is that, even though it's the worse case of tendentious behavior you've ever seen, you are going to do nothing at all based on Ronz's word? The word of four other editors means zip. Thirteen days of this hell, and nothing happens. I'm so going to bring my problems to ANI in the future. Thank you for helping my attitude. I'm sorry for sounding uncivil, but I can't believe what I read. It took thirteen days before we got a rapid and vigorous response this time. Frankly I wish I hadn't been involved in this now. I guess if some of us quit out of frustration it wouldn't matter, but let's not let Ronz go. He's just untouchable. He's probably laughing his butt off over a beer now, and feeling totally vindicated. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 00:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not by any means impossible that another admin will come along and say Looie you're totally wrong, I'm putting a block in. It has happened before. You should make your comment at ANI, if you haven't already. For what it's worth, what I really wish is that this had come to my attention after three days instead of thirteen, because I would have put a stop to it right quick, before it had a chance to turn into a nightmare for everybody. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The guy has 50,000 edits and probably 80% are reverts and abuse. What more do you need? I didn't want to get hit with some disrespect rule on ANI, that's why I'm not there. I'm done with this, this is outrageous. And what block are you putting in; you said you were doing nothing! The rest of us who worked this for two weeks on three boards must be fools. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 00:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie, I have to admit I'm a bit perplexed by your follow-up myself, though not outraged like some others apparently are. What I take issue with is the idea that the response Ronz gave to you on his talk page shows that "he is very chastened and fully understands that his behavior in this affair is decisively rejected by the community." I agree with those who do not think a punitive block of Ronz should be made because remedies ought to be preventative and not punitive, but I fail to see your question and his response as evidence of a remedy that will prevent these situations in the future. Can you help me understand your rationale here. As I noted at AN/I, all I see is the very tiny first step of accepting the community's consensus that there was no BLP concern after all, but perhaps I'm missing the part where he admits to violating

not hearing what others are saying. As I mentioned at AN/I, I see three viable remedies that would be more reassuring and they are not mutually exclusive - 1) specific statements by Ronz that acknowledge the actual disruptions he has made and promises not to repeat them, 2) mentorship so that Ronz can have access to resources to help him understand when he is being disruptive if understanding that is a problem for him, and/or 3) a topic ban from Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch related articles. What do you think about these ideas? Like I said, I'm not interested in whipping the guy, but I am interested in preventing another situation like this. Thanks for your further input on this.Griswaldo (talk

) 03:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm skeptical about the value of mentorship. Your solution 3 seems possibly useful. Looie496 (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm all for solution 3 personally. From what Hans has stated it appears that most of his interactions with others on the subject of Barrett and Quackwatch have been like the present one. I'm assuming that his productivity as an editor here is not in that area so a topic ban or some form of probation in that area could only be a benefit to the project.Griswaldo (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie do you mind commenting on my proposal back at AN/I if you've thought about it. You don't have to answer my other query above but I would definately appreciate it if you did that as well (at least here), because I remain confused about how to take comfort in Ronz' actual answer. Thanks again.Griswaldo (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again

Hi Looie. Thanks again for your quick response. I like to avoid AN/I and dramahz as much as possible, and you not only stepped in to help out, but you did it so quickly that I am already out of the arena. I really, really appreciate it. Awickert (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My own experience as an editor has made me believe that the most important thing an admin can do is clear away obstacles that make it hard for good editors to contribute. Looie496 (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's what you did! Thank you. Awickert (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your intervention at ANI in the thread about Heim Theory. Kind of reminded me of that old western movie where the bad guys are coming to town and no one wants to be the sherriff: everyone knows something has to be done, but no one is willing to do it, except that you were willing. I appreciate that. Also, I saw your user page. I was wondering whether you've ever taken any interest in the OpenEEG project, or active electrodes (pasteless) for EEG, at all? This is very off-topic, of course, so don't reply if you'd prefer not to, or feel free to reply via e-mail, if you'd prefer that. Thanks again for stepping up at ANI. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

All of my EEG-related work has involved animals with implanted electrodes. The challenge of making any sense out of EEG signals recorded from outside the human skull has always seemed very daunting to me. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Classy

Regarding "truly intelligent": I've found considering the source a handy approach. You might want to lay low on this one and let a better informed and more civil admin not so prone to hurling insults step in. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It is extremely rare for me to say anything insulting, and I don't do it without careful thought. Pretty much the only time I do it is in response to condescension, because I haven't found any other response (short of blocking) that is effective. If you have any suggestion, I am open to it. In my experience there is nothing that infuriates editors as much as being condescended to, so something needs to be done when it happens. The only other option I can think of is to treat it as a personal attack and block the editor, and it seems to me that it is preferable to try something else before that. Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you went out. If I employ "careful thought" (too rich) as well, can I have license to insult? Or is it for admins who barely know the protocols of WQAs only? Since you solicited suggestions, here's one: drop the shovel to quit making the hole you are in any deeper. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, bro. Holding me responsible for you inability to remain civil is weak. And and and, as for "nothing that infuriates editors as much as being condescended to, so something needs to be done when it happens. The only other option I can think of is to treat it as a personal attack and block the editor." Since "something needs to be done", are you going to affect a block on yourself. I mean, admins are subject to higher standards are they not? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I have addressed you condescendingly. Looie496 (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What a talent you have: admittedly using "careful thought" (I just can't get over that one) to deliberately insult editors without being condescending. While were at it, I more than a little interested where your professed special habit of insulting editors has been "effective" in a manner no other response would have been. Dude you went out. I'd just step away from your mess. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you suppose you could spend one or two seconds considering that maybe I was trying to tell you something important, and that it might be to your benefit to try to understand what I was telling you? Looie496 (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

A scolding following an apology is impertinent. Don't be surprised that if I skip looking within the within the recent turd piles of admonishments for beneficial diamonds of good advice. Apology notwithstanding, I'm still going to have a hard time to not consider the source. Especially since you have not done what you shhould have done in the first place and closed the illegitimate WQA. BTW: BS24 is well documented on his talk page and on his SPI by me and other editors as a mendacious, deceitful sock whom has not substantially responded to any of the serious charges against him but has instead ignorantly viewed them to be personal attacks, and feeling besieged, has asked for admins to intervene. You're the first to take the bait. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Curious

I'm confused. I gave a link at AIV to that long report I filed. Why only block one day? It's clear that this is a long-term troublemaker. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

All the contribs from that IP address come from October 30. That means that almost certainly tomorrow the editor will have a different address. The only thing a longer block would accomplish is to possibly catch some innocent editor who later gets the same address. There's nothing to be gained from long blocks of IP editors who hop from address to address -- the only thing that might work is a rangeblock, if the editor uses a limited range of addresses. I could also perhaps semi-protect the articles that are being disrupted, if that would be useful. Looie496 (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, though a rangeblock would be more helpful. UFC 125, the target of choice is being subjected to a lot of speculation at the moment, but some IP edits are helpful. I don't think SP is the right way to go. Since a few of this individual's IPs are on the same range, I think that would be particularly useful. Thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

User who got only a light warning

Hi since you took care of this case today. Please see here: [40] and specially the last comment about "bombing" a certain country, and hateful

WP:NPA comments. Thanks --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC). Please read my comments on the noticeboard. --Khodabandeh14 (talk

) 16:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm aware of what is going on here. The last messages from Iksus2009 (at

Talk:Nezami Ganjavi) talk about going away and leaving Wikipedia alone. When a problem editor says that, the best approach is to disengage and see whether it happens. If the editor really intends to leave, attacking him is counterproductive because the only thing it can do is pull him back into the fight. If he comes back and makes any further edits to talk pages or articles along the previous lines, I plan to block him. You really don't need to do anything more here except, if you like, let me know if he edits again (although I'm watching anyway). Looie496 (talk

) 16:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How many chances does he get? Two, Three, four, five? Are three warnings not enough? Well, it is easy to be calm, but sometimes when you have family in a certain country, and another user hopes that they are bombed, it is sort of disturbing. It creates a bad atmosphere. What allows him to get away with such a comments? Wikipedia is not a forum or

WP:BATTLE. He was been warned by you, another admin, me and Nishkid64 and his account is free. His ip should be blocked as well for a period, since he edited with that as well. Wikipedia should not tolerate such users more than three times. Thanks --Khodabandeh14 (talk

) 16:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

See my comments here: [41]. I almost feel like there is a discrimination on the upper level. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder per previous dicussions: "Because this editor has very little history and the warning from Nishkid came last year, I felt it was more reasonable to give a clear and explicit warning that battleground behavior is not acceptable than to block immediately. However any repetition of this very aggressive behavior should lead to an immediate response. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC) "

After that he commented like previous time, I warned him once. Then he commented again, then nothing. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Quack!

I fixed the template - hope you don't mind :> Good call on the block, but Mackfan345 is possibly coming around the corner! Veeeeeerrrrryyyyy slowly and steadily... ;P Doc talk 00:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Pumpie's talk page. Thank you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI - hiding comments

In this

WP:RBI. Although I largely agree with this I thought the comments on JaGa's tool should be left outside the collapse as it may help people catch more socks (it's allowed me to find an extremely suspicious looking user) and so have removed it from the collapse. Hope this is OK with you. Dpmuk (talk

) 01:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, all I was hoping for was to keep any more edits from the socks from accumulating there. Looie496 (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting Shannon Brown

Good call with Shannon Brown. That article attracts so much garbage. Zagalejo^^^ 02:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

AN thread

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at AN regarding your block of Triton Rocker. The thread is "Appeal by Triton Rocker".Thank you. -- Sandstein  12:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Can you take a look at this? There has been a very long discussion here: 7 people support the inclusion of proposal 2 while only one objects, I believe the consensus is to have the sentence in all settlement articles. Can you take a look at this and confirm if you see there is consensus for it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to look at the discussion or not? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I looked at it. Two things: (1) I don't have time to figure all that out. (2) My ability to be useful in I-P stuff depends on staying uninvolved, so I really want to stay out of things unless there is a totally clear policy mandate to take some particular action. Looie496 (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer user right

Thread moved from my Talk page. Cuddlyable3 (talk)
Hi -- I just gave you "reviewer" status to simplify things on the Ref Desk. I don't see any serious risk that you will misuse it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how this works. I thought reviewing was something one does for mainspace articles when requested. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's explained at WP:RVW. It's really not a big deal -- the most important effect is that for pages under "pending changes" control (as with the Science RefDesk at the moment), your own edits will automatically be accepted instead of requiring review by somebody else. Looie496 (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this new feature. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus protection?

Do you feel the article protection you applied at Cyprus, and your suggestion that Stephen G. Brown (talk · contribs) was as guilty of 3RR as was Austria12 (talk · contribs), might merit revisiting in light of Austria12's identification and blocking as a banned sock? Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page. Thanks for the info. Looie496 (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Gillabrand/Psagot

Can Gillabrand's recent edits to Psagot be reverted now? I tried to begin a dialogue at Talk:Psagot, but now hear from your intervention that s/he has "stepped away." Can you make the changes since the page is now protected?--Carwil (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm a pretty new admin, and I don't yet fully understand the rules for editing pages that are protected, so I'm not willing to do that without a bit of investigation first. Also to clarify, my statement that Gilabrand had stepped away was my assessment of the interaction with Nableezy that existed before I did anything -- it wasn't a result of any intervention of mine. Looie496 (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Looie496, there are still problems with Psagot article, For instance Psagot and its residents have been involved in exchanges of one- and two-way gunfire with Palestinians living in Ramallah misrepresents the source, Carwil. You could see this as edit/review request, since the article is locked. Just my thoughts how to improve the article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:24.60.116.133/User:Wtshymanski

Hey there. I came across

a/c

) 21:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the main reason is that Wtshymanski has been making every effort to discuss the issue, and has been supported by another editor, while the IP has just kept reverting. I don't actually object to an unblock if the IP editor will agree to stop trying to add the material until there is consensus for it on the talk page. Looie496 (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Question for Looie496

Looie: You're a new-er administrator who I've been observing and whose actions and comments (e.g., at ANI) I've come to respect. Was wondering if you'd be willing to give me a "first opinion" on whether or not I would succeed in requesting the Rollbacker permission at this point in time? Just looking for an outside view; don't want to be made foolish with the big red  Not done. I don't use TW, HG, GLOO, or other automated tools, so I'm not sure it's an absolute need. Your thoughts or reaction would be welcome. Thanks. Saebvn (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Rollback has one and only one use: to revert vandalism. The only thing it does is to make undoing more efficient. So the first thing a reviewer would look for is how frequently you have used "undo" to revert vandalism. Looking through the first pages of your contribs, I didn't see any uses of "undo" at all -- so I would be inclined to say that you don't need rollback at this time. (The second thing a reviewer looks for is whether you use the term "vandalism" correctly, but that can't be done if you don't use it at all.) I've only looked through the past week of your contribs -- if earlier contribs tell a different story, everything I wrote here may be wrong. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much. Saebvn (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

loonie/looie

hi looie, it was pointed out to me i "insultingly" called you "loonie496" here. i've corrected the name and wanted to apologize to you personally, this was an honest mistake, i misread your name (should of copy-pasted) when i was writing my post. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I doubt that I would even have noticed it, actually. Looie496 (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

GBC Asset Management - A division of Pembroke Management

Thank you very much for your feedback on my page...

I've made a number of edits that I hope make the page more consistent with spirit of Wiki.

Am interested to know your thoughts.

Much appreciated, Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by A341672 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Balkans sanctions warning?

Dear Looie496, would you be so kind and present difflinks with my unacceptable behavior why my name is put on

Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Log_of_warnings and message is on my talk page. Also, why Kwamikagami is also not there? Kind regards. --Roberta F. (talk

) 21:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Looie, can you explain to me what I should have done differently? I still can't possibly understand how I ended up getting blocked and Xenophrenic did not. Thanks. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The most important thing is that if you file a 3RR report in a situation where you yourself have violated 3RR, it will always backfire. As I wrote in my response, Xenophrenic was not blocked because your 3RR notice did not come until after the last revert -- an editor has to violate 3RR after being informed of the rule in order to be blocked. You yourself did not need to be warned, because the fact that you filed a 3RR report shows that you were aware of the 3RR rule. An additional factor is that you wrote some very rude messages to Xenophrenic, so rude that they would have caused a block even if you had not violated 3RR. Looie496 (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WHOA, wait a second, I missed this last sentence. What in the world did I say to Xenophrenic that was rude?? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

But first of all, that's just not what the rule says (emphasis added):

"A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a XXX template message on their user talk page."

Note: the user was demonstrably aware that edit warring is prohibited. He's been on wikipedia for over 3 years, and had acknowledged it on the talk page as well. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Second, I did warn him informally - twice, which he saw and acknowledged - on the talk page of the article, after each of which he continued to make more reverts.

Third, I still don't see how I was guilty of a 3RR violation. It seems you must be counting the revert that occured at 7:30 (as documented on my user page) as the 4th revert, but that was a completely different issue over completely different portions of the article. I know that some of these rules are necessarily a little vague, but that would seem very odd if that counts as a 4th revert, because that would seem to suggest that someone isn't allowed to make any edits to an article period for 24 hours after 3 reverts, even if it were in a completely different section of the page. Thanks again. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The 3RR rule doesn't apply only to reverts on a single topic. Any reverts count, as long as they are all to the same article.

WP:3RR is very clear on this. You can make as many edits as you want without violating the rule, as long as they are not reverts. As for the warning to Xenophrenic, I could only base a decision on the warning you showed me. Looie496 (talk

) 00:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to find the original complaint I filed, but I'm pretty sure I did note those two warnings in it. Moreover, regarding the point you made about making as many edits as one wants without violating the rule, that doesn't seem to comport with the definition provided by

WP:3RR

:

A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.

By definition, any revert that changes existing words on the page (rather than only adding new things) is reversing the actions of other editors.

Moreover, if we went with your definition, then consider this scenario:

X makes a change. Y reverts. X restores. Y reverts. X restores. Y reverts.

At this point, X would be free to do absolutely anything he wants to the rest of the wikipage and Y couldn't do anything about it according to your definition and the interpretation of the rules with which you blocked me. That can't possibly be the intent of the rule, can it? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There are many things that Y can do. Y can start a discussion on the talk page and ask X to participate. Y can go to an appropriate noticeboard or WikiProject and ask for input from other editors. Y can request that the page be protected. But Y can't do any more reverts. And it is not true that any edit that changes the text is a revert. If you fix a spelling error, or clarify the wording, or substitute a better source, those are not reverts, unless you are returning the article to a state it was in earlier. The basic problem is that you are seeing this as a fight, and trying to find a place to win. If you are dealing with another editor who wants to fight, getting into a fight won't lead anywhere -- what you need to do is get help. Looie496 (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

So you're confirming that according to your interpretation of the rules, X can do whatever the hell he wants to the rest of the article at this point and the best that Y can do is complain about it on the discussion page or try to get someone else to complain about it on the talk page while X continues to do whatever he wants to the page, or try to get the page shut down entirely? I'm not seeing this as a fight at all, I just don't see why youre interpretation of the rules - and granted, admins clearly have tremendous discretion on the 3RR/edit warring rules - favors chaos rather than the stability of an article.

Again, according to your interpretation consider this scenario:

There is a sentence in the wikipedia page for Albert Pujols that says "Pujols is 6 feet tall."

X changes it to "Pujols is 3 feet tall."

Y reverts. Y wants to discuss it on the talk page, but X won't, or at least X keeps changing things before consensus is reached on how tall Pujols is.(Untruthful personal attacks redacted.)

X changes it to "Pujols is 4 feet tall."

Y reverts

Y changes it to "Pujols is 5 feet tall."

Y reverts

X changes it to "Pujols is 247 feet tall."

At this point, the article will state that Pujols is 247 feet tall and Y can't do squat about it, other than to try to go through some lengthy process to lock down the wikipage after making a lengthy plea to some admin, who would rather be doing other things than looking at this complicated issue. After all, X hasn't reverted to a previous state, even though he's re-writing the disputed text. Do you see what I'm getting at? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me answer this way. About one month after I started editing Wikipedia articles, I decided that edit-warring was a bad strategy, and ever since then I have followed a 1RR policy. I never revert more than once except in cases of clear vandalism. If I see a need for an edit to be reverted again, I ask for help. And in spite of this, I think most people who know my work (mainly on neuroscience articles) would say that I have been a pretty successful editor -- and in more than 10,000 edits I have never been blocked. Do you see what I'm getting at? Revert-warring is the wrong strategy. When you deal with an editor who reverts and won't discuss, admins and other editors will often be willing to help you. Not always, but often. When you respond by revert-warring, you lose any chance of getting help. Looie496 (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how controversial those topics can be, or how much astroturfing goes on in Neurosurgery etc., but I'll take that as an offer than I can contact you if I'm having trouble with something. The problem is on some pages (like with controversial political activists) frequently change quickly, and if you have to wait too long, things move on without you.

You might have missed it, but I didn't notice your assertion above about my being rude to Xenophrenia until my last post or two. Where was I rude to him, or rude to him in anything close to a way that would get me blocked? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that statement was a confusion with another edit-warring case I handled at about the same time, where I also ended up blocking the reporting editor for having violated 3RR (although in that case both editors were blocked). I have not in fact seen any incivility from you. Looie496 (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Looie496. While you are on the subject of incivility, what would be your opinion of mischaracterizing another editor with comments like this one from above? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind; issue resolved. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

Hi, Looie496! Since the

Done. Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Looie496, following the recent deterioration in editing of the Israel-Palestine set of articles, I've set up a page to discuss the problem and possible solutions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. Your input would be appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on this guy's contributions, and this edit, I'm pretty sure he's the same guy I've been dealing with for the last few months, and the basis for your protection of the Owens & Minor article.

Here were his contributions under a previous sock puppet. I think you'll see a recognizable editing pattern. That user made the exact same edit to the Owens & Minor article here.

I'm posting this here, rather than the notice board, because the evidence is largely circumstantial, and it calls for someone who's dealt with the guy before and knows his M.O.

Thanks.

John2510 (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually don't know anything about this. I often do a couple of dozen protection requests a day -- I look at them, make a quick eval of the evidence, take whatever action seems appropriate, and instantly forget about them. I'll look at this if I have some spare time, but that may not happen. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have closed this report with no action, but I have left some advice for the parties at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Rwflammang reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: stale, but advice). Please comment or let me know if you think there is anything else we can do here. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

... you blocked User:Jrkso and his "opponent" for accusing each other of ethnic POV. Perhaps you could defuse the "ethnic COI" situation at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hamas_and_the_Taliban_analogy, hopefully without blocks. Search for "COI" there; it's at the end of the page right now. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Too late to keep that bubble from bursting: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nableezy_.28civility.29. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You also seem to have gotten the "editor balance" in the I-P area all wrong. You certainly aren't going to win the "Best Zionist Editor" prize: [42] [43] (found these on User_talk:Zero0000). Tijfo098 (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you but since you're a little familiar with User:Tajik I just wanted you to know that he is attacking me while I discuss something with other editors. Tajik states: "Jrkso: first of all, it would be very helpful if you stopped putting your answers in the middle of the discussion, ignoring the chronology. Just write your answers at the bottom of each discussion. Readers and participants are not dumb! ... I do not blame you for not understanding the simple fact... You do not understand this because (and that is very obvious) you lack basic mathematical knowledge and understanding. In this case, I do not think that you are the best person to judge that..." Tajik removes sourced information that he doesn't like to see. [44]. He violated the 3rr rule yesterday. [45], [46], [47]. He completely disregarded your warning. As for me, I understood your warning and kept away from him but he decided to follow me and my edits, deleting my contributions.[48]--Jrkso (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Looie496.
Please, see this [49] . User Ivan Štambuk wrote that (28 Oct 2010, 21:51 CET, that's 6 hours ago).
"Yes (1) is commonly repeated BS that ... That BS is believe it or not even ....".
What is "BS"?
Does that "BS" falls under "I am giving you and everybody else involved in the Croatian disputes notice that I intend to crack down on the incivility that fills the current disputes. Any comment that attributes bad motives to an editor or otherwise insults an editor is going to draw a block" , as you wrote here[50]?
Bye, Kubura (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)NOT speaking for Looie496, but I suspect the comment must be taken in context to determine whether it was meant to be uncivil. In this case, it appears that Ivan is discussing the content of the sources in the section directly above his comment, as opposed to any editor here on Wikipedia:

The comment being refered to:

• 1. Some words from the Chakavian and Kajkavian dialects have entered standard Croatian, (cite) (cite)

First response (by kwami) with similar feelings worded differently:

• (1) is dubious (this is one of those claims which is frequently exaggerated, and which AFAIK advocates have been unable to justify on this talk page in the past)

Ivan's response (agreement with earlier response) on the content of the citations:

• Yes (1) is commonly repeated BS that has been debunked in many sources (Greenberg, Kordić etc.)

And here we go again [51]: he keeps insulting every Croatian that is against his POV. Fascistoid ,Serphobic and other terms.--78.3.94.49 (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thus, I suspect, when taken into context in such fashion, it may become clear that the external sources are being called (a) dubious, (b) exaggerated and (c) BS (that has been debunked in many (other) sources). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've asked my question to admin Looie, since he engaged in the topic. Not to user RobertMfromLI.
I repeat:Looie496, what does "BS" means? Ivan Štambuk used that phrase [52].
Looie, you've written here [53] ""I am giving you and everybody else involved in the Croatian disputes notice that I intend to crack down on the incivility that fills the current disputes. Any comment that attributes bad motives to an editor or otherwise insults an editor is going to draw a block". Does that BS belong there? This is the question for you, Looie496. Please, don't ignore my question.
Looie, you've been informed on the time about this incident. 6 hours after the incident. And I'm also still waiting to see where was Štambuk's "sod off" [54] processed on WP:ANI. I don't trust to honorable scout's word, I'd like to see the diffs.
Looie, please. Don't give in to bully. Bullies never get satisfied with one victim, they always want more, their "greed" grows with every victim. Don't give in to a bully. Only proper sanction stops them. Do you remember what I've written here to you [55]?
Please, don't tolerate the injustice done to someone. Don't tolerate the cover up of misbehaviour. Don't tolerate the segregation of users (one side's appeals are ignored and sins are fabricated or magnified beyond the limits of truth, while the other side is protected and its requests (no matter how unfounded) are executed per wish). Don't close your eyes. Injustice won't disappear by herself. It doesn't happen to someone else.
Always remember this [56]. "When they came for me, there was no-one left to speak out." Kubura (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And here we go again [57]: he keeps insulting every Croatian that is against his POV. Fascistoid ,Serphobic and other terms.

And Again the word "BS"

--78.3.94.49 (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Looie496.
Have you forgotten this? Any news? Kubura (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Looie496. As is usual with this article, the long-term edit-war has started again against long-established consensus. Please assist if you can. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see

Hi again. Here Nazar responds to other users warning him about civility by attacking me even though I have not spoken to him for weeks and for sure even when I did it was in a very civilised manner. I would appreciate your assistance in this. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel compelled to respond to that. The main thing I am concerned about regarding that article is whether the edit-warring by Nazar resumes. Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Unfortunately the place can become pretty rough with lies like this flying around but I guess it is my problem to deal with. Thank you however for your vigilance regarding edit-warring at the article. It is appreciated. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you asked to ping you the next time it happen... well here it is. See

Hi Looie496. This editor continues to add good-faith but clumsy and poorly cited content to mental health articles, and is ignoring/not noticing messages. Is there some way we could block their IP so that when they attempt to edit they're confronted with a friendly message explaining they need to improve their citing, with maybe a link to a talk page they can edit where I'll tutor them? Or can you think of some way we can channel their prodigious enthusiasm into productive work? Anthony (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That was getting tiresome. Anthony (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've suggested at

I just noticed you said at WT:MED "I'm trying to get a fix on whether this group can be brought into line." If I'm stepping on your toes here, or duplicating your efforts, please tell me. There's no point in both of us handling this. Anthony (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I posted a question

name has been added to this list [58] but I'm not sure whether they are part of it or not. Lumanog.n Cheers Earlypsychosis (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

For your kind intervention at WQA. It is appreciated. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And for the same I'd kindly request an apology, as for being a personal attack and derogatory general evaluation of my work in the project. See details

here. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk

) 11:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your page protection. But not blocking Namiba is totally unacceptable. I don't understand why no adm. can simply take a look at the evidence and block Namiba for 3RR.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If you had given a proper warning instead of making a mess of his talk page, I probably would have imposed a block. Looie496 (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I did give him a proper warning. Besides, the talk page has nothing to do with his violation of 3RR, battling, etc.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

So basically if someone messes up my talk page I have every right to violate wikipedia rules? If there is a difference, please explain. Thanks.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think harassing me is going to benefit you? Looie496 (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a comment to this. As you can probably guess, I've had it up to here with working on any and all of these articles. Good night, and good luck. Flatterworld (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Looie, The link was dead (cause I receive a "File not found" message when I click on it, is it my problem?!) and I just found & replaced another URL pointing to that paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.joudaki (talk • contribs) 17:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The link you added goes to a paper by Iacoboni and Depretto. All the information in the citation is about a paper by Rizzolati and Craighero. As I said on your talk page, the Iacoboni paper may be a perfectly good reference, but if you want to use it, you should change the authors, title, journal etc in the citation, not just the url. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The Good Doctor Fry after the expiry of the block you placed on him for edit warring on Sunset, has promptly started inserting the same material he was chain adding here. Talk page consensus seems to be that the version he is adding is not correct, and it doesn't appear that he is adding any sources that verify his claims. Could you take a look at it please? Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 19:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that The Good Doctor Fry has resumed the same behavior. See my comment on User talk:Falcon8765. But, by the way, thank you so much for stepping in three days ago! Spiel496 (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Checked on your protege lately? You're the one that let him off the hook; go check out your masterpiece. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you please clarify the problem for me? Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you can go look for yourself. Just bringing this to your attention. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did check for myself. I saw that he has been engaged in a dispute with an IP editor, but I didn't grasp what it was about. I don't intend to make a deep study of his recent contribs without some more specific info. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you an Admin or not? Look just forget it, I'm tired of trying to point out the obvious. He's the same, his promise and retirement was a show, and you bought it hook, line and sinker. Take care, and good bye. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This anon IP appeared soon after User:Jo0doe's block and has been doing similar things:[59] in similar subject areas. Could someone check that out? Faustian (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You blocked F Simon Grant for 48 hours due to incivility. He's created a sock puppet (and admitted it - he's not bright) in order to continue to taunt other editors (handle: "TaoIsTheEssenceOfMeaninglessness") on the Beat Generation talk page. Can you just ban this guy? If it was ever warranted, this would be the case. Also I notice he re-instituted disputed edits without discussion (as requested) on talk page - using his sock puppet.Tao2911 (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC).

Now he's edit warring with his sock.Tao2911 (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

now he's using anonymous IP address, and continues to insult, while begging not to be banned. I've filed a sock report (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TaoIsTheEssenceOfMeaninglessness) but since you know the case, I'd appreciate you following up when you get a chance. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Mission accomplished. IP use blocked for 30 days.Tao2911 (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I think a block for a week or so might be an exccellent idea as it would appear that this discussion is presently generating more heat than light. DrMicro (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have raised this matter elsewhere with those listed as the mainatiners of the taxobox element. This does not seem to have been a problem to date. I have not insisted that the taxobox is the ONLY solution. I have considered list the species in the main page but I have found this tends to decrease readility and increases the difficulty of maintaince of the page. I have yet to see a more sensible solution proposed. As you will notice from the feedback from the review when it was put forward for GA status I am not averse to useful suggestions. I have asked for workable solutions for other genera where this problem will arise. This is a problem that will arise again and again if the number os species within genera continues to rise with the advent of DNA sequencing and analysis and a generally applicable solution would be most welcome. DrMicro (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's all good. All I am saying is that you have to find a way to work this out without revert-warring against multiple other editors. Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. If you examine the recocd I think you will find that I have sought on this occasion and even before this episode a solution to the problem of large genera. This IMHO will be an increasing problem for wikipedia. I have suggested to the maintainers of the taxobox that a multicolum solution may be the way forward or alternatively a new XML element for larger genera. This I believe is under consideration. I have no idea what if any progress has been made on this matter.

I do not think that a species listing on the main page is the answer. I have seen this elsewhere and it decreases the readability considerably. This is the only solution put forward to date by Kevmin. I have explained my objections to this method to him but he appears to be adamant that there is no other solution.

As you will note from the record I have only reverted edits when they have deleted information from wikipedia. This I understand is in line with Wikipedia policy.

While I may be wrong here I believe that I am the only editor in this dispute that has much experience compling long lists of species for large genera. I would be grateful to hear the view of other editors who have experience of this sort of problem so that a improved solution can be found now that the concenus is that the taxobox is no longer considered fit for purpose. DrMicro (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A bit of a POV pushing problem. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Looie: I know that an editor has a right to remove a warning from their talk page. The warning that you removed was a different warning for his vandalising my page another time (by himself reinserting a previously removed warning). Dbpjmuf (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That message was to Tomayres, not to you. Also, I didn't remove any warning -- according to the edit history Tomayres removed a message shortly after I added mine, maybe that's what you were thinking of. Looie496 (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Kindly view the diffs here [60], followed rapidly by [61], and [62] with an edit war threat to "revert ti the DAB page". As predicted. And no one who wants the deletion is willing to even broach an RfC (heck, they outright refuse [63] as one of the examples ) - as I also predicted. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Petri Krohn here flouts your words at [64] where he deliberately goes back to the DAB page as soon as he could. I note you stated you would vigorously enforce WP procedures on this page, and ask you do so. Note also his personal attack at [65] as well as personal attacks by Siebert at [66], and TFD at [67]. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Looie. As you know I mainly writte in neuroscience articles, however I have in my watchlist an Spanish model and actress which I liked when I was a teenager. The thing is that there is some sort of urban legend that she has brown eyes, and 3 more years than she says. I came to have the article in my watchlist when she denied it, specifically citing wikipedia as giving wrong info on her in a tv programm. Almost every ip editor in the last months who has edited the article has done it to change to the "brown eyes" version without providing any sources. Could you partially protect the article indifenitely for vandalism? I am tired of being the only one reverting an article I do not really care much about... Thanks. --Garrondo (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have semi-protected it for 6 months, the most I feel comfortable with. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive73#Result concerning Collect. This request was archived by the bot before formal closing. I went ahead and imposed an article 1RR at Communist terrorism, and added a comment to the archive file. If the 1RR is not enough to hold down the edit warring, perhaps an indefinite full protection might be considered. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. In Talk:Sunset, I believe, you once noted the senseless waste of time when inexperienced editors try to edit science topics against editors with better understanding of matters. This situation in this article is now aggravated to a point that is mind-boggling. I intentionally stayed away from that article during the whole episode of war editing about those diagrams, which were not only visually unacceptably poor, but also insufficient and wrong in content. Once that settled, I replaced the text with a version that is sustainable by the references I introduced originally before all of this transpired. Yet, User:Spiel496 keeps reverting to a mediocre version that is wrong in major points, not supportable by references and poor in writing style. My versions are the only once supported by references, no-one else has cited any for their versions that distort the presentation, cherry pick items that fit their view, and delete parts that are correctly cited from my references. This whole behavior is unacceptable and an insult to science and scientific integrity of correctly reflecting and quoting sources. Please help to stop this behavior there. There isn't a single editor other than me, who has provided any references for their ideas. I am fed up with this stuff and will likely not edit these articles anymore. It's a waste of time. Spiel496 has a history of this kind of arguing about science, that (s)he doesn't understand, obviously not having the foundation and knowledge to get it right. Kbrose (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As the situation stands there is not much I can do to help. When a single editor gets into a dispute with multiple other editors, I can act in support of the multiple editors. But when two single editors get into a dispute about content with each other, unless one of them shows severe misbehavior such as personal attacks, there is no clear basis for administrative action. In short, if you can get other editors who have contributed to the article to agree that Spiel496 is misbehaving, I may be able to do something, otherwise probably not. Looie496 (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do understand your reply; frankly, it's much what I expected actually. It would likely be my own reply as well, given the model of Wikipedia. This kind of situation again illustrates a fundamental flaw of WP when it comes to topics such as this. In select cases where I am knowledgeable, I would examine sources and make a judgment, but that requires a different model of WP oversight to be successful in general. As it stands, WP will likely never become an acceptable source of reliable information. Thanks for attention to the article though. Kbrose (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I think I need your help to resolve a dispute. You provided your third opinion here about five weeks ago. According to the opinion and to the discussion I made some changes explaining them at the talk page. A newly registered User:Xebulon reverted my changes six times: [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]. I also asked him to explain his opinion a week ago but he ignores the discussion. As I see no Xebulon's intention to edit constructively I ask you to provide your opinion once more and to explain your position to Xebulon. Thanks in advance. --Quantum666 (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me a second chance on being a Wikipedia editor. I will not abuse the privlage that you gave me to be able to edit and to work on Wikipedia. I know that as the person who unblocked me that if I mess around then it will reflect badly on you as well as me so thank you for your trust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beenrunman (talk • contribs) 19:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You hve recently blocked

I have a question about sock puppetry. I see that User:Wanbli-g53 was found to be a sock puppet of User:The Good Doctor Fry. I was dismayed to see this all unfold. After Fry's apology I stood up for him, only to see his stubborn behavior return, backed up by the new suspicious account Wanbli-g53. However, my gut impression was that Wanbli-g53 was not Fry himself, but a friend or colleague he rounded up to strengthen his arguments -- a "meat puppet" rather than a sock puppet. My question is this: can the CheckUser tool tell the difference? I assume both editors had the same IP address, but are there other clues that they were actually the same PC -- same cookies or some similarity in HTML headers? In the case of Fry-Wanbli, perhaps the distinction is irrelevant, but there must be situations where multiple legitimate editors behind the same NAT router are taking the same side of argument. I'm curious how it gets sorted out.

Thanks for (again) helping out at Sunset. Spiel496 (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The methods used by the CheckUser tool are not made public, even to admins, in order to make it harder for people to learn how to defeat. In fact, I don't actually know any more about this than you do. Based on experience, though, when a CheckUser says that two accounts are verified to be the same, I am prepared to believe it. Looie496 (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Looie496. You have new messages at Talk:Asperger syndrome.
Message added 19:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would you like to explain how it happens that you can make a decision on a situation when you have prior involvement with another part of that situation? ie, do you seriously believe yourself to be

Assuming that you believe yourself to be uninvolved, and that you merely misunderstood the situation...

You passed right over the fact that he attacked my character in Materialscientist's canvassing. The difference between:

Materialscientist said

here, as as author does not understand basic WP policies of notability and WP:RS, and I am not in the mood for 3RR. In short, Amnov has already been criticized in 2008 for his "discoveries" of new elements, and here comes another one. Materialscientist (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Emphasis mine, bold is a personal attack, underline is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I had been trying to put forward.

...and this:

You are invited to join the discussion at Template:...

From Template:Please_see

...is enormous, would you not agree?

Furthermore, you accuse me of gaming the system, to what gain? The discussion is continuing without any further input from Materialscientist whatsoever. What would I gain from acting spuriously against someone who is apparently uninvolved? This is a simple matter of an admin doing the wrong thing.

Is this not admins circling the wagons? Explain. -Danjel (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Just re-read your response. It seems you were focussing on 3RR. I bolded this "* note that WP:Canvas is the issue, not necessarily the reverts on this page." It's also about admin conduct generally.

I've fixed up some of the above under the assumption that you didn't realise what this situation was about.

Just FYI, the discussion at Talk:Roentgenium#New_discovery_of_natural_Rg_by_Marinov has resolved positively, without any involvement from Materialscientist. This is not about gaming the system. This is about the way that admins should act within the wikipedia community. -Danjel (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

G'day Looie. You appear to have missed the above message. Could I please direct your attention to it. -Danjel (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't miss it, just didn't have anything to say. Commenting on a Wikiquette alert does not make me involved. Do you need any actin from me at this point? Looie496 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

From

WP:INVOLVED

: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors) and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." (emphasis mine).

You and I were in a disagreement, because you did not read what I had said (ie, that the issue in respect to Kwamikagami was in regards to his conduct as an admin NOT in regards to the article). I think your involvement there was suspect, in that you were an admin helping to circle the wagons. Furthermore, it was clear that your prior involvement coloured your handling of my report on Materialscientist. Therefore you're involved.

This is what I said above: "It seems you were focussing on 3RR. I bolded this "* note that WP:Canvas is the issue, not necessarily the reverts on this page." It's also about admin conduct generally." (emphasis added)

I've provided a lengthy explanation here and in my report as to why his actions were a breach of WP:CANVAS, and you don't seem to have responded anywhere. I've also responded to your ridiculous suggestion that I was gaming the system.

A response to the above would be greatly appreciated. -Danjel (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have read what you wrote, and I am not going to do anything about it. That's my response. Looie496 (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. -Danjel (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I notice you have protected Newington College but if you read what has been happening on this site you will see that you have protected paragraphs that have dead links. The contentious material should have references that are "live" or at least "citation needed" after them. If not the material should be removed. At the moment both reference 19 and 20 go to "page not found". If you want the material to be there please verify that it is correct before protecting it and the writer. Castlemate (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected. People with accounts that aren't completely new can edit it without any obstacles (you, for example). Looie496 (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that but there is no point getting involved in an edit war - one is already going on - it needs someone removed from the issue to make sense of it and make a judgement call. I hope you can have a look at it and make a judgement. Thanks Castlemate (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to ask for a redirect. We have wikipage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Institute_of_Technology. The institutes name should always appear in Italian, a bit like British Airways for instance. The redirect should got to this wikipage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istituto_Italiano_di_Tecnologia Thanks Webmaster_iit (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC).

Template:Brain neuron map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. Mhiji (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Looie! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

While it has been some time I feel I have addressed all your concerns at GAN. I was hoping you could continue your great review soon enough. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw the tremendous effort that you have put into reviewing that article for GA. I am concerned because I don't think it is a good article. It's a difficult thing. Not good enough for medical uses, too wordy for laymen use. TeacherA (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Looie496. You originally blocked Terra Novus (talk · contribs) back on 29 October 2010 for one week due to disruptive editing.[74] He appears to have improved since that time, however, I've noticed a return to his earlier problematic editing in the last week.[75] I'm not sure where to go from here, but it would be nice to have some more eyes on this. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, he has also been challenging his topic ban.[76] It looks like he is trying to push the limits to see how far he can go. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Looie496. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

Jiujitsuguy (talk

) 19:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed that you said editing on the Titanic Thompson page will lead to a ban. I was going to make some changes to the page (and I do have citations for the information), but now I don't know if I should put them up. I was working with another admin on this page, and they said that since I know a lot about Titanic, I could change the information if I have 3rd party sources. Is it ok? Thanks so much for all your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booklover85 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on this edit it appears that you are Drahcirr41 in disguise. Is that correct? If it is, then you need to discuss what you want to do on the talk page and get other editors to agree with it before you make any changes. You also should avoid using multiple accounts, as it may lead people to believe that you are trying to hide the fact that edits are being made by the same person. Looie496 (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yikes! No. Not Drahcirr41 at all. I actually wanted to correct his edits. I agree with what is written on the page now, but thought I could provide further citation. Where shall I post the edits for someone to inspect and check my sources. If the page stays the way it is now, I'm fine with that, as it is more accurate than when Drahcirr41 was editing it. So, if it can't be done, that's fine. Also, I wouldn't waste my time with multiple accounts. Thanks so much for your help!:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booklover85 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. If you aren't Drahcirr41 and there is nothing fishy going on, you should feel free to edit the article as you think is appropriate -- but if anything gives rise to controversy, please start a section on the talk page to discuss it instead of fighting about it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all of your help! I won't reverse the edits if they are changed. I'll just post my cited sources to try to correct misinformation. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booklover85 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I finished putting up my cited edits on the page. Thanks again for all your help.Booklover85 (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I was mistaken when I thought that changing the template colors would be more appropriate for that situation. I acted in

What are the "3r rules"? And why is the article blocked for 3 days? the "warring" had stopped before you decided to blocked it. Intoronto1125 (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read

WP:3RR. If you and the other editor can discuss the problem and come to an agreement on how to proceed without edit-warring, I will be happy to lift the page protection. If you've already discussed it and I missed it, please give me a pointer to the discussion. Looie496 (talk

) 02:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the rule. However, way before this block the editing war had stopped so i dont see the need for it to be blocked. Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have unprotected the article. Let me note though that if the combat resumes without discussion, one or both of you will have to be blocked from editing. Looie496 (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Aleenf1 has done the editing again against how the other multi sporting events look on wikipedia. Is it possible to revert his edits?Intoronto1125 (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted 3 of his edits, but I did put all of his info back except the information that was not consistent with other multi sporting event articles on wikipedia. For ex. Aleenf1 removes the pictograms from the sports on the article, and every major multi sporting event (Commonwealth Games, Winter and Summer Olympics) have them. Also he removes the countries that participate from the article, when in every multi sporting event article on wikipedia does list it. Intoronto1125 (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I stop editing until things sorting. That is no point i have to feed a "troll". Obviously without reviewing and discussion, somebody just simply hit "undo" button. Sorry, until. --Aleenf1 15:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

huh? I dont understand what you are saying. Troll? Intoronto1125 (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. I believe it was very useful, not to mention all the ce yor performeded while carrying it out. I'll try to improve it a bit more and probably take it to FAC soon enough. --Garrondo (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please reblock ActuallyRationalThinker (talk · contribs) or resign your adminship. Corvus cornix_talk 05:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think that unblocking in the face of a clear consensus to keep the editor blocked is part of your remit. Your action was clearly unjustified, and I would like to suggest that it would be best to undo it, instead of forcing another admin to do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you were right. Reyk _YO! 09:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Looie, I posted a comment on AN/I suggesting you consider imposing a topic ban. Given that ART is an SPA, it seems like a reasonable compromise. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Bravo for having the balls to do that. If there is to be a Jewish theme, then let it be "thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil". You didn't follow the multitude. You did good. Award yourself a pat on the back. Egg Centric (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There's currently an AN3 report based on an article which you protected (and unprotected) because of a content dispute. User:Intoronto1125, the user who promised not to edit war, is still warring on the article. The report can be found here. Minimac (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Looie496, you appear to be deliberately avoiding the discussion on AN/I about your actions. The consensus there is that you have abused your tools. You really need to undo your action, and allow a proper consensus to develop; I think this is the only way we can avoid having the issue turn into one of abuse of admin tools, rather than the issue of whether or not to unblock this editor. Please re-block, and then return to the discussion. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't intend to reblock unless new facts appear, but if somebody else reblocks, I don't intend to take any further action. I guess that's all I have to say at the moment. Looie496 (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that will be good enough; people are quite upset about what they see as a blatant abuse of admin tools, and have brought up recall. I think it would look better for you if you re-blocked until the discussion concludes. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't cave in to these threats if I were you, Looie. ActuallyRationalThinker has not misbehaved since you unblocked them, nor has anyone reblocked them, so the idea that this block was not preventing any harm to Wikipedia is correct so far. And I observe that the people screaming most loudly for your head are primarily people who were involved in the original dispute with ART and who were then very unforgiving on ART's talk page; uninvolved, neutral editors have overwhelmingly not been calling for your recall. For these reasons I think it's highly unlikely that any attempted recall will stick. Reyk _YO! 09:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, hindsight is 20/20, but that's not the point here. People are more concerned with the "unblock against consensus and run for cover" tactic that Looie seems to have employed here, not so much ART's behavior after the unblock. Besides that, calling all the editors that have not involved themselves with this issue an "overwhelming majority not calling for a recall" is just silly. I can just as easily state they have not argued against recall.--Atlan (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has observed the entire incident ever since it came up on AN/I, but has not commented at all (anywhere) up to now, I will state that not only am I not calling for a recall, but I am arguing against recall. Unblocking against concensus isn't something I support, in fact it's a very dumb idea, but the grounds for keeping the editor blocked were hazy to say the least, and (as has been pointed out elsewhere) there has been very little discussion of this before jumping to the assumption that recall is necessary over just one mistake. --

talk

) 20:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have initiated recall of your sysop flag according to your recall instructions here. Dusti^*poke* 20:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I signed, because you didn't even attempt to influence consensus first, you just said something to the effect of "with all due respect, I don't respect your opinions" and unblocked a minute later. I would urge you to choose the reconfirmation RFA instead of just resigning, should it come to that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

And Kingpin has correctly removed it, because I insisted on receiving an edit warring block within the past 6 months.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

@Sarek I will just say however, I consider you to be an "administrator in good standing" (most of the time! ;D) using my own definition of the meaning of those words, but for the purpose of the recall I'm trying to remain impartial, and obviously you don't pass the criteria for that page. I suppose you only have yourself to blame for that ;), but personally I think it's great that you accepted (and continue to accept) your block in the way you did back then. @Looie FYI, I'll be logging out to grab some sleep now. I'll be back with the living in about 6 hours, but don't know how active I'll be on Wikipedia tomorrow, hopefully enough to continue keeping everything in order. All the best in the meantime - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We've now reached 5 administrators in good standing agreeing with the filer. Now there's some small possibility that those admins will reconsider, so we can either keep it open for the full 48 hours, or (with your consent) I will perform an

early closure. Unless you specifically request that I close early, I will default to the 48 hours. - Kingpin¹³ (talk

) 00:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

As one of the administrators in good standing, I'd like to request that this remains open 48 hours. AniMate 00:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Noted, and I (as mentioned) will leave it for 48 hours (I'll create and "overflow" section in a section). But technically Looie has full control over the recall, and if he want's it shut down early, then that will happen. However, I do need to go soon, so unless anything changes in 15 minutes or so I'll be out for a bit. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have just submitted my resignation, which I think should end this matter. Looie496 (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a shame. Really. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have retired from Wikipedia because of the disgusting way this has all gone down. I've been weary of the petty, bureaucratic, unforgiving and hypocritical Wikipedia community for a while now and this is the last straw. You've attempted to bring some sanity to a situation where an editor was being kicked while he was down, and been pilloried for it. I think that is disgusting so I'm washing my hands of this place. Reyk _YO! 01:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If we don't have voices of reasoned opinions around here when two sides disagree, we all lose. Both you and Looie need to continue standing up for what you think is right and fight this. Or at least neither of you "quit" WP. Doc talk 02:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Of my observations of your actions at ANI you

• I agree entirely. Reyk _YO! 22:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• I also agree. I can't see why a single event must lead to desysopping. There is no pattern of misbehaviour here to warrant such drastic action. Far from that. What I see in this case is just Looie's version of
  WP:IAR. No real grounds for a desysop. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis}
  23:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Adding my support per my comments at ANI.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Piling on, me too. But, my strong advice is that you give some serious thought to how you frame your presentation at RfA (assuming you choose to stand), and provide some serious explanations that acknowledge what the five admins said. Frankly, as much as I count you as a Wiki-friend, I need to say that the onus is on you to demonstrate that you understand—and accept—the difference between IAR and a super-vote, and someone who doesn't accept that there's a difference shouldn't be an administrator in my opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• I support it too. It's too bad that it's mostly only non-admins that support Looie's keeping of the bit: but there's no "closing of ranks" among non-admins. And every admin was once exactly like us: just regular shmucks without a clue. It appears you wouldn't get
  "fragged" for what you did by your subordinates, and I hope that's worth something. Hope it goes okay for you... Doc talk
  03:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• I have yet to decide where I stand, but I have signed as the sixth of the 5 admins (in case any should change their mind), because I feel the community should have a chance to discuss this. I hope you decide to go to RfA rather than resign outright. As I said on the recall page, your unblock (and subsequent lack of involvement in the discussion) was unwise, to put it mildly. Remember one thing, though: one bad action does not, by itself, make a bad administrator (because if it did, I would long since have been hanged, drawn and quartered). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with your excellent statement. It can be said fairly comfortably that there wasn't real consensus for what amounted to a de facto community ban. By my rough count (permalink of discussion), 13 people weighed in; among those, 5 opposed the indefinite block (1 was a new user Egg Centric - and I am including Looie496 in this count). Further, there are established guidelines for community bans which were not followed. The user got into a contentious debate with a couple admins which involves a culturally-sensitive topic, and was in response subject to what looks like newbie-biting and likely unfair accusations of racism. Even after the user apologized at length, nobody wanted to do what was necessary. ANI is not a place where sanity always prevails, and it was good that you stepped in. With this attitude, it's not surprising that The Economist is calling Wikipedia "ossified and bureaucratic" and noting that "number of regular contributors to Wikipedia’s English edition peaked in March 2007 and has since declined by a third; the number of new contributors per month has fallen by half". I wish that all these people working on your recall could find something, anything, better to do with their time. II | (t - c) 04:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• I concur with all the above, but in particular, The Resident Anthropologist's comment and Tryptofish's advice. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Good on you for standing up for what was right. Egg Centric (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• You will certainly have my full support. You made a bold call that needed making to put an end to a situation where an editor was being dragged over the coals, and the tenuous possibility of an unblock used to extract a totally unjustified amount of grovelling from him. I sincerely hope you will take the option to go to RfA, and not allow this nonsense to put you off being an admin.--Korruski^Talk 11:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Hi Looie. For supporting you, all I'll look forward to is an acceptance from you that you will allow community consensus to get higher preference than your personal view in the future, when it is quite clear that the community consensus is not going specifically against any policy. Please do realize that while it's commendable that you have agreed on the recall option, it is never appropriate to allow one single personal viewpoint to gain more importance than the community consensus - unless a policy is being blatantly overlooked by the community. As others have said and would comment, the community might have in the end actually taken the same decision that you took. Regards and best wishes. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 14:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure they would, you know. No one seemed to be paying attention until I happened across it, and that was only due to luck. Although had I known all this drama would ensue for what seems to have been no practical good, and a great deal of bad (although some people should be ashamed of themselves) don't think I'd have done it. Egg Centric (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, irrespective of that, I wouldn't wish Looie to have had to undergo the recall procedure. Just a timely, simple statement accepting his mistake should have been enough. But as he'd opted for it...well... Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

While it's refreshing to see admins attempt, even if misguided, to "police their own", I can't help but notice the continuing double standard. When eight admins opined that another admin had misused tools against me, nothing was done about it. I guess Looie496 just crossed the wrong group of admins. And as far as I can tell, there was no "mistake" to acknowledge; that is, not a clear breach of policy as occurred with me, rather some gray territory over which many others disagree, so this is a sad state of affairs to have initiated a recall over. Take home message: abuse of and malign a "regular editor" with charges of vandalism that no admin supports and every admin weighing in agrees is a clear policy violation of a clearly stated policy, never retract or apologize, and get away with it, but come up against the wrong group of admins on a marginal call, expect to pay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, Looie volunteered for this - he agreed in advance that if five admins asked him to, he'd ask for reconfirmation. Its nothing to do with who he has pissed off, or who is against him. He doesn't have to do it - if he decided to ignore it, he would probably not be desysopped for it - he's doing it because he feels it's the right thing to do. If you really are still carrying that torch, open an RfAR and ask for the admin involved to be desysopped. That option was available then and is still available now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Carrying what torch? Either you're misreading or I wasn't clear. That situation didn't warrant a desysopping, and this one even less so. Hence, that admins are willing to sign on to this and not that is a double standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

I do apologise wholeheartedly in that case, I had completely misread. I have struck my comments above. I think Looie's openness to recall shows that his intentions are honest, and while I do find it annoying (and I'm on record as saying this) when an admin takes an action in the middle of a block/unblock discussion, if this is the only 'offense', then in my personal opinion, it's an overreaction, and indicates that recall is a broken process (which I'm also on record as saying).Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, no apology needed, we're on the same page, and my writing is rarely clear enough :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support reconfirmation. What an appalling and hypocritical pile-on. You have been, in my mostly silent time on the wiki, a very fair admin. Gingervlad (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Blarg. -
  talk
  ) 22:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Response

I am very grateful for all this support, but I can't see any serious likelihood that a reconfirmation would get 80% support, or even 70%, and I'm really not interested in creating all that drama unless there is a reasonable chance of success. Quite honestly, in my rather short tenure as an admin I have found that the level of anarchy makes it almost impossible for me to function effectively in the areas that interest me the most, so I doubt that my resignation of the bit will be a major loss to Wikipedia. Best regards to all of you, Looie496 (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well. You did the honorable thing, even if it was for the wrong reason, and that's the kind of candidate I support at RFA. This will, unfortunately, make it less likely that new RFA candidates will open themselves to recall, allow more bad candidates through RFA, and give those (bad) admins reason to apply their view of proper use of tools with little thought or discretion. I can't disagree with your reasoning, re the level of anarchy. There's a lot to be done here, and having the tools is no longer much of a honor; I hope you continue to enjoy editing, knowing you stand above the crowd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're making a mistake, as there is admin support for you keeping the tools, especially since this is over one incident and not a "pattern" of any sort. Meanwhile an editor with 90 edits (not one since his unblocking, of course) remains rightfully free unless he messes up. This is crap. Doc talk 02:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I am quite disgusted by how this happened. I was hoping that this incident would evolve into a fruitful discussion about the appropriateness of an indef block for a relatively new user and what should an admin do when he sees pitchforks and gasoline among the masses. I did agree with some of the points brought up by your accusers, but I think both sides handled this poorly. I think you show a lot of class by resigning to avoid more drama. Sadly, the message this event sends will likely result in fewer administrators being open to recall. Regardless, all the best. Dave (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm disappointed myself, and am quite glad that I removed my name from users wishing for you to be recalled. This is indeed honorable of you and I must also concur about the anarchy here making admin work ineffective. However, looking here and at the recall petition talk page, there appears to be near universal agreement that you shouldn't be recalled, outside of those certifying the request. Should you reapply for adminship, I think you'll likely get the tools back should you want them. Good luck, and while I still disagree with the unblock you performed, I think other steps should have been taken to deal with it, and apologize for not pursuing them. AniMate 03:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm very sorry that you are not running for reconfirmation. The fact that you honored your recall pledge even in the face of an extremely premature recall request speaks volumes to your integrity. 28bytes (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I too am sorry that it came to this. While I do not agree with your decision, I do not think that it was worth a desysopping over. It was the respectable thing to do to honor your promise, and like 28bytes says, it speaks volumes. I hope you run sometime in the future, as I would gladly support. I do believe that this incident shows just how broken the AOR process is, and how just 5 out of 1500 admins need to agree with desysopping for it to pass (i.e, anarchy). But that ends my (short) rant about how horrible the AOR process is. (

@221

 ·  04:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Sad to find out that you've now resigned your administrator privileges. I'm not entirely sure that the unblock was poor, but it was an action made against consensus (which was not to unblock). IMO, as no administrator is perfect (and nor is any user), starting a recall process just because of one unblock, is a clear overreaction. I appreciated your (short) time as an administrator, and I hope you'll consider going through another RFA after a while. HeyMid (contribs) 20:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, Looie's one unblock came on the heels of a dozen or so over the past year, with different admins and different blocked editors. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Looie, I just want to give you my best wishes, and leave it at that! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the first second (ok, there was one another one, years ago, with a happier ending) time I've witnessed a recall process handled with grace and without a fuss by the admin in recall. So of course it has to be an admin for whom I saw absolutely no reason to have to hand in the tools. Sarek is probably right about you being made an example. Thank you for the administrative help you provided at the reference desk. I hope we continue seeing you there as a contributor. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if it seems callous to point out, but your userpage still suggests that you are an admin. Best regards, Stephen 05:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

[77] (Sigh) I didn't follow your every move but wherever I saw you acting as an admin, except for your resignation, I approved. You were a good admin. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to recreate the page that`s fine- I didn`t delete it...

I've replaced that thread in an anoymised form. Is this ok? Link: [78]?

Egg Centric (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I think this was trolling, but I expect that will become apparent as the thread progresses. Looie496 (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Aw god this isn't that ipod kid is it? Egg Centric (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for moving it :) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain your reasoning and evidence for the block of User:John Calvin Moore? -- Avi (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've lost memory of the details, but the gist of the story, as I remember it, is that there is a banned editor with a fixation on the Charles Whitman article, and there was what appeared to me at the time to be evidence that made it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that JCM was that editor. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive665#Charles Whitman problem editor again for the thread I was responding to. Looie496 (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Just to let you know that I took the liberty of interpreting what you intended to say here (WP:RD/C). Same problem ("Talk" instead of "User_talk") in this edit summary. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 10:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Gah, thanks. Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Looie496, thanks for answering a question of mine on the science desk, where I said that I did not understand why going faster than the speed of light means going back in time. You included a diagram and your answer was very concise and made sense Myles325a (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Looie496. What do you think of my suggestion that we look at the rest of the review, and then return to the lede. --Philcha (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Looie496, you seem to busy at present. Please note that I'll be on holiday Fri 18 Mar to Mon 28 Mar 2011 inclusive. --Philcha (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The proposed split appears to be appropriate. However, this is a specialised topic so the work should be done by somebody who understand the topic. I am also notifying User:Captain-n00dle who proposed the split, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience and Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates. I am removing the split tag, as the request has now been responded to, and it is up to those closest to the topic to carry out the split. SilkTork *^YES! 21:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Merit was not only mine. Your marvellous GA review was of great help. Just for curiosity: I hope Parkinson's disease appears in Main page in a month (April 11: world's PD day). Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I presume you know how to go about nominating it? Looie496 (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I will nominate it along the week: since it is 8 points there should be no problem with it getting to the main page.--Garrondo (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- I guess we self-righteous tossers will just have to get along without him somehow. Looie496 (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've withdrawn the complaint as the user applogised to me. KnowIG (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Looie496 Thank you for your comments! There is not a single sign of "advertisement" in the paragraph I have added. You may need to redefine "advertisement" and "information". To me, advertisement means "to campaign for correctness of an idea". That is far from what is reported in the paragraph I have added. The paragraph is talking about a hypothesis that can be tested, accepted or rejected, but not removed without proper reasons. You may of course conduct a series of experiments in your lab, reject one or more points of the hypothesis, report them in a paper of your own, and then add (not remove) some text after my paragraph saying that the hypothesis has been questioned, rejected or accepted by your results. Otherwise, removing an informative statement about a new functional hypothesis seems more like "censorship", which is way far from Wikipedia mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iman Kamali Sarvestani (talk • contribs) 17:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(

WP:COI and direct cut-and-paste issues. Your additions are virtually all copied word-for-word from your own "source"[79], which I assume is not following a consensus of reliable sources. I saw a similar problem recently at Testicular cancer[80] and Quarter (United States coin)[81], where a study was attempted to be introduced that linked the cancer to carrying around quarters in your pockets. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk

19:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

4_ If you read the paper and notice that some main stream ideas are left out in our article, or are not mentioned, I will of course be more than happy to add. My impression is that in our paper we have well cited all previous work appropriately. Citing oneself is not prohibited once the paper well covers all other relevant ideas. Please read the paper first. I hope you will enjoy it. Iman Kamali Sarvestani (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me make another try here. I think you misunderstand the goal of a Wikipedia article. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, similar to what you might expect to find in the Encyclopedia Britannica. The material should be the same sort that would go into an undergraduate neuroscience textbook. Would you expect your paper to be covered in a basic undergraduate textbook or a major encyclopedia? Maybe at some point in the future, but not yet, I think. The same thing applies to Wikipedia. Looie496 (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Looie496, Thank you for your comment! The Wikipedia article on the basal ganglia is embarrasingly poor. It does not even include text book information. It does not say anything for example about hyperdirect pathway. It does not say anything about dimensionality reduction, it does not say anything about "hold your horses" hypothesis and many more. Ironically, it contains so many details such as existance of the basal ganglia in lamprey which is definitely not a text book fact. In fact, as we have also reported in our paper, the existance of full basal ganglia connectivity in lamprey has just been recently (2011) verified. When we were publishing our article, we contacted our friends who proved it, they have not et even published it. In fact, six references in the current version of the Wikipedia article on basal ganglia are 2010 papers, one is 2009, three are 2008. You can barely find anything before 2000 in it. Therefore, I am afraid I can not accept your logic. Your logic seems correct, but that logic is not implemented in the basal ganglia article. I am sure it is not implemented elsewhere in Wikipedia either. You may check the article on "Basal Ganglia System in Primates" where you can find tens of "non-text book" level points. I would love of course to contribute to a more comprehensive article, once we have an actually implemented rule. Before that, I guess removing the paragraphs I add is unfair, and certainly not professional. Our paper is indeed a novel hypothesis discussing a "big picture" of the basal ganglia. The paper is about what basal ganglia is on a macro level. In other words, it is certainly a text book level paper. Read it and you will find a sweet story that is understandable for people in hippocampus or migrain research as well. It is readable and understandable for anyone who knows basic neuroscience. It is not a detailed analysis of the synapses between two nuclei in a specific thread of rats. It is a generic story of the basal ganglia that best fits text books. On the other hand, it has fully covered almost any other big picture demonstrated by others since 1970s. The fact that the wikipedia article on basal ganglia is so poor to have missed for example Mink's ideas or Graybiel's matrisome concept that are 70s and 80s ideas does not justify removing our novel idea. Iman Kamali Sarvestani (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You are exactly right! The article is embarrassingly poor. And the primate basal ganglia article is truly awful. If you would like to make the BG article better by putting in some of the textbook information that is missing, that would be wonderful. A discussion of action-selection theories based on recent reviews would not be out of place, and I would not object (much) to a citation of your own paper in the context of a full comparative discussion. But we need to avoid using Wikipedia simply as a pointer to our own papers. I have my own theory of how the hippocampus (my own research topic) works, which I think everybody ought to know, but I have not described it in the hippocampus article, even though I wrote most of that article. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Looie, Thank you for your comments! I will be more than glad to contribute to writing an article on current state of art in how decisions are made in the BG. That takes some days. I will be back to you with a draft. Cheers Iman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iman Kamali Sarvestani (talk • contribs) 00:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I do not think they get less points by interacting with others, and nevertheless most of my edits have been as examples of what has to be done. Have you notice the talk page I have created for making general comments to the students? --Garrondo (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's very good, I should have said so. I did not really mean to be critical of your excellent efforts, it's just that I found that one of the hardest things for people who have not been teachers (and I really don't know whether you have or not) is to suppress the natural human urge to be helpful. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OOOPsss: I am really sorry: at that specific moment I was in a bad mood and I felt really tired but I knew that your comment was well intended. However may answer may have been too short and give the appearance that I had been pissed off... No offense was taken, truly. Regarding articles: I am trying to make comments to all of them, but if you could make comments to those (and maybe others also on basic neuroscience) would be great, since they are the most difficult for me to comment. Thanks for everything.--Garrondo (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that nomination of any of the articles right now for GAN would be greatly premature.--Garrondo (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I wonder whether it would be best to make that clear on the page of general advice you wrote, or to discuss the issue with NeuroJoe? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Either way probably a good idea.--Garrondo (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to re-add any content, I am not sure on what is truly relevant and what is simply synthesis and miscellanea. Anyway article is one of the least active of the class project. --Garrondo (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Looie496. I had an excellent holiday - so now need I another to recover. Shall we resume with the GA review. --Philcha (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! I'll get on it shortly. Looie496 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Looie496. We seem to have such different priorities that I'm asking at

Good, I was about to suggest that. I'll do so. Looie496 (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Looie496! I am one of the students working on NeuroJoe's Wikipedia neuroscience assignment for the semester. My group is working on the

I see that on 2 October 2010, you blocked Abcassionchan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disruption. However, that user returned today as Crushedtiggy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

I don't know the full story on the original account, other than seeing the sockpuppetry issues on the talk page. On the one hand, it's been six months. On the other hand, it has not been a year yet. The user has not violated any other guideline, so the only reason to block right now would be creating a new account before the old block expired. How do you want to proceed? —C.Fred (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

She said similar things before and broke her promise. But if I were handling this, I would not block at this point, but would keep an eye on the contribs, and reimpose the block if she shows signs of screwing around. I think we're dealing with somebody pretty young here, and kids can mature a lot in 6 months, so you never know. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

True. And if you'd blocked her indefinitely, six months would be enough time to let her have a clean go at it. I'll take her statement of "here's who I was" as a good faith effort to say she's not trying to game the system, but at the same time, I'll watch to see what she's up to—but only block if she messes up. —C.Fred (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Given your knowledge about some of the involved topic areas, wouldn't you like to look at the article and contribute to it? I am sure neuroscientific knowledge and understandings of intelligence could be better represented in the article. Happy editing. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you know when the class project on

Well,

Psyc3330 w11 (talk · contribs) has not edited since a large burst on April 4, so I suspect it is already over. You could put a question on their talk page, I guess. Regards, Looie496 (talk

) 23:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to help the students with their review so that it is successful, but obviously, I don't want to do their homework for them. I'm trying to confine myself to minor fixes and changes (such as correcting the date and adding sources). If needed, I can help with major changes. I'll try and get their attention on their talk page. I would hope you would leave this review open long enough for them to make a major effort. Thanks, and keep me in the loop. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm definitely not in a hurry. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI... I contacted the nominator.[82] Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm one of the students working on the neurolaw page. We really valued your comments and have done a lot to the article to improve it since. Because you are the first reviewer, it would be greatly appreciated if you could reevaluate its status when you get a chance. Thanks! Boothra (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you think it would be possible for you to check out our group's article on athetosis and reconsider it for a good article nomination. Our semester is almost up and if it has earned a good article status, it would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, BrianJLike (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi -- I'm completely open to the idea that the article's lead needs clarification, but it seems to me that the text you added does the opposite. The lead should be understandable to somebody who has not yet read the article, but you have introduced without definition terms like "sodium-potassium pump", "resting membrane potential", and "membrane permeability", which a reader unfamiliar with the topic will find completely incomprehensible; however the wording of the sentences carries an implicit message that the reader is expected to understand them. Can we work on this? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC) I Understand your point, but a lot of articles that are like this..cant we just add internal links on the hard words. So can people read about the things they do not understand. The reason I added this part is because there is a HUGE MISCONCEPTION that the ion channels are responsible for the creation of the resting membrane potential..btw..this therm is the same as membrane potential in this case. I think the article was keeping the the misconception alive, but if you feel it is necessary. You can remove the name of the specific pump (na/k); and also change also remove "resting" from "resting membrane potential". However, i thing the whole article is about the resting membrane potential.Tahmmo (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC) I will take a 2nd look now to see if I can simplify.

You seem to have deleted 3 questions, attributing them the Light Current, when they are not. Please be careful to only delete posts if you have evidence that they are actually from a troll, not just based on a common (and huge) IP range. See the Ref Desk talk page for the discussion. StuRat (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the deleted questions were correctly identified as coming from Light current. See ref desk talk page. Red Act (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to ping you about Talk:Neurolaw/GA1. It looks like you'd meant to get back to it, but just haven't had the time to finish up. If you need help, drop me a note. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Just pestering you about this. It's been three weeks since anyone has edited the GA page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this comment was unwarranted and unwanted on the Reference Desk, and that you should delete it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Gah. The question is roughly analogous to asking, "I'm trying to make shoes out of ice, but my feet keep getting cold. What can I do to solve this problem?" Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. Cuddlyable3 didn't indicate anywhere he was doing this for a lark. Maybe has a reason for doing this. Anyway, even if his question was frivolous and trivial, which is not proven, we don't usually shout down RD querents for asking questions that are frivolous or trivial. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the background to my question at RD/C. In my work with computer graphics the term "canvass" means a "logical screen" on which a digitally generated image is painted pixel by pixel. I have contributed to Wikipedia images and animations that began as vector descriptions which I converted to the

Computation of CRC. Cuddlyable3 (talk

) 18:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, sorry for the harsh response. Still, trying to use GIF format directly doesn't make sense -- you just end up having to fight all the weirdness of the GIF format (even uncompressed) for a really minimal benefit. I can't really think of a single example where using a file format for internal representation is a good idea, with the possible exception of raw PNM, which is hardly a file format at all, just a direct readout of a pixel array. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I forgive. For a particular animation I want 125 accurate colours but I work with only a 16-colour VGA screen. The indexed palette of GIF lets me edit the 24-bit Truecolor shades in the animation. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this is cspj123. I noticed you haven't responded to my request for a citation... is this because you haven't been on wikipedia recently? Anyway, I hope that you will respond eventually. I think that there is no evidence beyond environmental commonality, and if there is then it should be cited there. Thanks cspj123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.31.131 (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a first-year PhD student working on a system to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles on scientific topics by providing easier access to relevant scientific publications. I was hoping to speak with some editors who work on scientific articles in order to solicit requirements for my system in order to better satisfy the needs of the Wikipedia community. I noticed that you have been a caretaker for a number of pages on topics concerning neuroscience, and I would really appreciate your input. If you are interested, please let me know on my talk page (talk). Thanks! —Preceding undated comment added 23:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for your comments on

Huh? Would you please explain to me how my edit was in violation of policy? I genuinely, honestly, have no idea. Looie496 (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for giving ratings for the article on William McDougall. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Looie, Could I get your input on the

The talk page of Caffeine has a lot of people posting anecdotes about supposed sedative or relaxant effects of caffeine, particularly in people with ADHD. I couldn't find any solid studies to support this claim on Google Scholar, but it can't be a coincidence. I really want to get to the bottom of this mystery so I can include something about it in the article. I have a few working theories; it's a known fact that Adderal and Ritalin are stimulants (nearly chemically identical to crystal meth) that are used to treat ADHD by means of increasing concentration. It could be that after the caffeine wears off they are left with a brain that is much more sensitive to adenosine, which would certainly make a hyperactive kid sleepier. Maybe children metabolize and get rid of caffeine faster, while at the same time adapting to it by creating new adenosine receptors faster? Caffeine definitely enables me to concentrate on my homework better, but I have a hard time seeing how this could be confused with sleepiness. I will continue searching. What are your thoughts on this?

--SuperEditor (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems plausible, but I don't know any literature relating to this either -- and of course without literature it's impossible to put anything in the article. Caffeine clearly has a very different pharmacological action from the psychostimulants that are commonly used in ADHD. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, ADHD meds are reuptake inhibitors of dopamine and norepinephrine. Maybe there's actually something adenosine-related going on in the brains of kids with ADHD already that causes them to react differently to caffeine. It should be noted that sleeplessness is not a primary symptom of ADHD.

--SuperEditor (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, hey, do a Google Scholar search for "adenosine adhd" and "adenosine adhd sleep". I think I've got it. A widely accepted theory of the nature of ADHD is that sufferers exist in a perpetual state of abnormally low arousal, so they are driven to seek intellectual and emotional stimuli more strongly than people without the disorder. Adenosine is know to suppress arousal, so when adenosine is inhibited by caffeine, a subject's arousal levels return to normal and they are less driven to seek stimuli from the surrounding environment.

http://The_ADHD_and_Sleep_Conundrum__A_Review.11.aspx http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17981738

http://journals.lww.com/behaviouralpharm/Abstract/2009/03000/Adenosine_receptor_antagonists_improve_short_term.2.aspx

and others.

--SuperEditor (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for your comments on neuroplasticity. Over time hopefully some of the pop science stuff can be addressed (not eliminated without comment, because it is a central feature of a lot of the pop science views on neuroscience.) I'd also like to see better use of sources and references to multiple studies.

I'm also not sure how strong the statement is that non-neuroplasticity was the main consensus view throughout the 20th century. I'm no science historian, but this does imply that the large number of papers touching neuroplasticity made no impact. Perhaps that's exactly what happened?

I'm vitally interested in these topics, in practical applications of the empirical evidence as well as doing what I can to contribute here. Drop me a line sometime in email, I'm easy to find.

Dan Shearer (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

What an interesting object -- I wanted to create an article about it today but I saw you beat me to it! This is exactly the kind of interesting science that makes a great front-page feature at

You might be interested to know that the topic is currently being considered at

WP:ITN. Regards, Looie496 (talk

) 17:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If it gets ITN, I think it will be ineligible for DYK, sad to say. As a DYK enthusiast, I'm disappointed but wish you good luck with ITN. Sharktopus ^talk 17:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the link to Hofstadter's satirical piece. I'd never seen that before, and am very glad to have read it now. LadyofShalott 04:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

hi! I definately agree that the music that Scotty sings isn't all Christian although he is a Christian. Thank you so much =) Now I get it because I'm really new to this whole wikipedia thing :) So are you saying not to say that Scotty is a christian american singer... and just instead and american singer because then people will think that he only sings Christian songs? okay thanks! I'll do what u say! sorry cause I didn't really understand thats what it means when you say Christian american country singer. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22046024769264ev (talk • contribs) 18:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Philosophy of mind

I am letting you know that I am just about to undo the edits you have made. In my opinion the purpose of those edits was to advertise a book rather than to support the material in the article. Note that Philosophy of mind is a Featured Article, the highest level of article quality in Wikipedia, and we put substantial effort into reviewing and maintaining the sources for articles at that level. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Looie496 Im a little new at this so perhaps you can help, it was my thought that the info posted was important to Nagels thoughts on how to proceed in furthering the epistemology of the issue of qualia in a physical manner

I put the book reference becasue all the notes I see on Wiki suggest strongly that things should be well referenced. Please help if you can to show or teach me how to rewrite it so that it is listed properly best Copernics01 Copernicus01 (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copernicus01 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Copernicus01 (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)