User talk:Amalthea

Reminder

You have not yet followed-through on this commitment. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I have, but via mail -- if the intention was to retire a real-name account I thought to minimize the explicit on-wiki connections. I haven't heard back yet and I see he has made one edit since, so I'll follow up. Amalthea 16:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

NoCal SPI

Sorry, I just noticed your request. I've sent the evidence, though I am unsure if it matters at this point (except perhaps to ask for a sleeper check). Thanks, nableezy - 16:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Great contribution to wikipedia!

Congratulations. You have just erased many thousands of bits only because they were done by a person labeled "banned" by a slav-leftist group ruled by user:Joy and others. Do you ever think that may be you are being used by them? You should think before damaging wikipedia....if you really care -like me- about an impartial and honest encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.38.94 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 27 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Get yourself unbanned and we talk. Amalthea 19:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How? How can I get rid of this ban?.....not even Jimbo is able to control the nationalistic/political/ethnic groups that are 'slowly but steadily' (these are his own words) damaging wikipedia's reliability. B.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.40.82 (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You can appeal to Jimbo, but it's unlikely that he'll act on it. Other options are appealing to the community (Discussion at WP:AN) and ArbCom (see details at WP:BAN#Appeals and discussions). While not a requirement, with your history of ban evasion you will typically be asked to respect your block for a significant period of time. Amalthea 20:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. But I am afraid my case is "desperate". I was initially banned from the Italian wiki because 2 relatives from Italy came to live for a full summer in my Florida house and used my same address to write on wikipedia. Before their visit, I had collaborated with wiki for nearly 2 years without any problem. But they wrote on the same subjects with me from my house and a check up showed that we had the same IP, of course: we were all 3 temporarily blocked. I was enraged and "just indicated" that I could denounce the italian admin who did the block....and suddenly I received an "infinite ban" because of this. This was my initial "crime", and I could do nothing against it: I was not even allowed to defend myself, because continuously banned every time I tried to post something about me (I remember having offered to talk to italian admins even by phone together with my 2 relatives, so that they could realize that we were 3 different persons!). Then the nationalistic croats (ruled by user:Joy, with others like user:DIREKTOR) discovered that I had been banned in the Italian wiki and quickly banned me from all wikipedia......... Anyway, thanks again. Sincerely, Bruno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.39.49 (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that matches what I've read earlier today at this ancient checkuser and your ban discussion here, you were banned due to abuse of multiple accounts on this project. And I still see you talking to yourself, presumingly to pretend that the accounts are used by different people (1, 2, 3). That is plain inappropriate in this community project.
Still, no situation is too desperate. First step would be to believably assert that you accept community norms and any prior problems will not reoccur. Everyone can be unbanned eventually, every editor can be welcomed back if the community believes he is here to help. Until you can convince the community of that however I am tasked to enforce your ban.
Amalthea 21:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I told you my case is desperate. Nationalistic slavs like user:AlasdairGreen27 have built in group a perfect ban scenario for me, as they have done with other Italians with provocations of every kind. These fanatics (like the banned user:PaxEquilibrium you cite) in group have forced to react in a wrong way many of us Italians. Try to write something against their beloved Tito and -if you write with an anonymous IP- you'll see what they'll do to you. You'll finish talking to yourself, because they can talk in group while you're alone....and probably your anonymous IP will be banned because forced to react in a wrong way (like I did) as they want. Additionally let me pinpoint that, for example, even the commentaries (well referenced) from president Truman about 400,000 murders done by Tito to get control of Jugoslavia cannot be posted on en.wikipedia! I and others have tried unsuccessfully for years....Furthermore, they will never accept my return, I am sure about it. Anyway, I know that there are other ways to go on writing on wikipedia. Friends and relatives can help me soon or later with my erased posts, for example, or I can move and start from scratch (after some months/years without posting on wiki). Sincerely, thanks again. B.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.103.229 (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are willing to follow this community's norms then no case is desperate. ArbCom tries to be a neutral body, and bans can be appealed with them. But you must first stop your inappropriate use of multiple accounts else nobody will listen, and you must be willing to build consensus with those who have a different opinion else you'll quickly be back where you are now even if you disappear for a year. Trust me. Amalthea 08:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Kaul

Hi, I realise that you have been cleaning up after Jais Chauhan and that is what caused you to make a null edit at Kaul. Alas, I didn't spot the original unattributed copy/paste and it is my opinion, as a party to the draft article, that it should not have been inserted. I have therefore reverted it for now. I will explain to the other party to the draft. - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I have no opinion myself. Amalthea 08:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Brunodam (August 2012 socks)

Hi. Please see Vituzzu's request to you at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brunodam. I've placed a checkuser hold on the investigation, until I know what you want to do with the IP information for Brunodam's latest socks. Regards, AGK [•] 13:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, replied there. Amalthea 13:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

EugeneDiamond

Thanks for looking into the case and for resolving it quickly - much appreciated. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC).

Sorry, side note - I suspect all three usernames might also be involved with User:JacksonAnderson1234. I didn't want to edit the investigation (which has now been archived) or start a new one (without substantive evidence). I'm almost certain a checkuser test would find they are all one in the same. Would appreciate your thoughts. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Meh, I actually saw that but got the page creator and the first account in the AfD mixed up. Is cleared up now, thanks. Amalthea 07:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Simplification of Template:Ranking_movements

I guess we were both thinking similar changes to Template:Ranking_movements, and I realize you removed the unneeded {trim} templates, when I was planning to bypass all that column-count logic of multiple {str_number}. For the column colspan, I used the trick where simply colspan=21 can handle a table-wide header in any table of fewer, 3, 4 or 15, columns. That prior column-colspan logic was a convoluted mess as nested 17 levels deep, so I bypassed all that:

{{#expr:{{#ifexpr: {{str number| {{{poll1lastweek}}} }} > 0 | {{#ifexpr: {{str number| {{{poll2lastweek}}} }} > 0 | {{#ifexpr: {{str number| {{{poll3lastweek}}} }} > 0....

Similarly, for the live column-count, I bypassed the convoluted logic, and just used {max/4} as the longest of 4 rows, 1/2/4/5. However, I have written new Template:Max/5 (still testing) to get the longest of all 5 rows, in case row 3 is longer in some types of sports charts. I think the use of {max/4} reduced the logic there from 17-level nesting to just 9-level, and {max/5} will have only 8-level depth, as designed for "Category:Templates with minimal expansion depth". Somewhere between what we both changed, the limit-exceeded was fixed for those 100(?) sports articles which use that table. The final limit-exceeded group are the bio/species articles, and perhaps rewriting {Str_find} would fix them as well, as people think they formerly fit within the 40-level limit, as if reducing some few levels would be enough to fit again. Long-term, must increase MediaWiki 40, to 60 or 80. The Scribunto Lua scripts are far too complex for most template writers, not to mention make them learn "yet another" language, so templates will remain here for years to come. Sleepy, gotta run. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that templates that require 40 levels are so complex that they should be rewritten in Lua, and that all template editors who can set such complex template structures up will also be quick to learn Lua and be happy that they did. :)
Regarding the ranking template, right, I first thought I'd have to continue with getting rid of the {{str number}} transclusions, but that 360K monster really should get a complete rewrite. Since removing the trim and your further changes appear sufficient to fix the immediate expansion depth issues I kinda put that off until we can write decent helper code in Lua to get rid of all the wikicode repetition -- it still takes 15 seconds to render so it desperately needs a rewrite. :)
Amalthea 10:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good idea that {{max/5}} works differently than the other variants, i.e. ignores non-numerics instead of emitting an error. How about renaming it to something else? Amalthea 11:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The non-numeric precedent was set by Template:Max/4, where I think the likelihood is that users will have "n/a" text entries when more, but the use of expensive #iferror will limit {max/5} to 100 instances (5*100=500 expensive limit). Yet, it is also likely to be used few times in an article; however, I was thinking "maxnum/5" for a pure quick numerical maximum. I have not seen much improvement from Lua speed, and of course, the extra {#invoke:} accessor templates will irritate people. Meanwhile, we have millions of templates, such as 100,000+ infoboxes. So, I think we just need more basic template parser functions, such as {#length:string}, {#numeric: data}, and yes, {#set:val|70*5} to set parameter values mid-stream (like a "real" language), rather than calling another template to pass val=70*5. As for the expansion depth, experienced programmers are more likely to exceed the limit, due to typical if-else-if-else-if-else logic, and bottom-line, the 40-limit expansion is just way too low for modern computers, which use perhaps, 200 if-else nesting, easily, where perhaps a limit of 60 would solve most problems now. My hope for Lua is to create "smart" advisor/wizard templates which cross-check parameters and make complex decisions to help improve article text. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Allen Ross Culpepper

Hi - You deleted the Allen Ross Culpepper page. I am not arguing that, but I'm wondering if you can share some background. Obviously, I didn't start the page, but I spent a good bit of time getting it to look like a typical military person page, vesting some interest, and watching it. Enough so I would think to pass the G5 threshold, put perhaps not. Was I snookered in by assuming good faith? Was it all a hoax, and did I perpetuate the image of Wikimedia at the whim of editors, adding to fantasy? Thanks JMOprof (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Problem here is that the page was created by an editor who has severe problems following our copyright policy and plagiarism guideline (see eg. WP:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727, the second-largest case page we have, and I'll soon add about 1800 anon edits there). The editor is a prolific content creator, but discussions with him about the problems went nowhere, he didn't really seem willing to face or understand the problem, so he never got unblocked. Instead, he started editing anonymously and creating throwaway accounts (see SPI).
Since his pages are still having the same problems and we simply can't keep up with cleaning his pages we see no choice but getting stricter now and delete the page creations unless they have been checked for copyright problems and cleaned. Ignoring it would put the project in jeopardy, and one hope is that the editor will initiate a discussion again at some point and can be made to understand the issue.
In the case at hand, I have restored Allen Ross Culpepper for you and severely stubbed it. You are very welcome to restore material from the history if you first check it thoroughly for copyright/paraphrasing issues or, of course, if you rewrite the content from scratch using only the information from the history.
Cheers, Amalthea 08:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Severely stubbed for sure. ☺ I'll get around to it. Certainly Culpepper's citation is well sourced. Thank you for taking this time and illuminating some of Wikipedia's problems. JMOprof (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser Request

Could you run a checkuser on Special:Contributions/98.204.146.142 and Special:Contributions/Lilunclefester, please? The IP was blocked during the 2am hour EST and the named account was created and began vandalizing (including one page the IP account has vandalized numerous times) almost immediately. The IP is blocked for 72 hours, the named account is blocked indef. Would like to know if there are any sleepers and if there is a possiblity of a rangeblock. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

IP andd account don't seem to have any overlap, and edits were 16 hours apart. What makes you think they are connected? Amalthea 09:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Both vandalized WDLD, a page the IP has vandalized numerous times. The IP was blocked at 2am, the named account pops up at 4am. To be honest, I think they are one-in-the-same and are just some bored kid. The IP traces back to Walkersville, Maryland and school has started in that area, so that adds to my "bored kid" theory. We normally see an increase in vandalism when school goes back in session. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. To be honest I don't see the connection. IP has always focused on radio articles, and hasn't vandalized at all (edits weren't helpful, but I don't see deliberate intent to compromise Wikipedia).
The named account has, I'd say, used Special:Random to vandalize with the image insertions, and happened on the the WDLD article. The connection to the IP you listed is very vague (he also touched others that were vandalized very recently), the edits were 16 hours apart (when the block was instated doesn't really factor in), in my opinion it's merely a plausible coincidence. With blatant "bored kid" vandalism, WP:RBI generally works well enough, but I'll consider whether I can do more.
Amalthea 10:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

To follow up, was a school kid, but not related to the IP above. Our old process of soft-blocking school IPs isn't particularly effective anymore now that everyone has a smart phone to create accounts with ... Amalthea 10:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, I just wanted to play it safe when I see the edit to WDLD and check. Thanks for the CU, much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

revision delete

Could you delete my edit from Growlanser: Heritage of War which accidentally includes an email address the edit summary (I pasted and hit save page before realizing I didn't have what I thought I had in the clipboard.) RJFJR (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't do that any better than you I'm afraid, but I've forwarded it to the appropriate channels…. Cheers, Amalthea 16:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Done now. In the future it may be best to rev-delete it yourself with an innocent summary and request WP:OVERSIGHT via mail, not on-wiki where such a request may call unwanted attention to it. :) Amalthea 18:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2) Your review is required and will be greatly appreciated :)

Hi Amalthea ! I have started my second editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, spamming this message to (I project) 100 editors would be my first negative point on that review. Amalthea 19:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

But Amalthea, I am just asking for review from different editors for an Editor review. Please do not misunderstand me but i would like to have a review of many experienced people that I trust here on Wikipedia including you. I will be happy to clear if there is any doubt or misunderstanding. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but so would every editor asking for a review I'm sure. I don't consider it good practice to indiscriminately canvass editors for tasks or discussions like this en masse -- at least I think it's indiscriminately, I only remember us talking once before. In my opinion, it would have been preferable if you'd only asked two or three users directly plus adding a banner to your user talk page. I would not have minded being one of those few, but seeing that you started giving the same message to other admins in alphabetical order it feels like I was spammed.
Amalthea 20:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Amalthea. Actually i am not giving the message out to every other Admin out there. These are all the people i have had previously talked before and all the users from Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination and some other users who i have previously seen them regularly on Wikipedia. The watchlist showed users to be in alphabetical order whom i had watchlisted so that's why it appeared like that to you. And with all due respect Amalthea, this is not Canvassing, I am just asking for review from many users i know and not asking for votes for an RfA. Also see my previous post on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Things to Keep in Mind before running for RfA where i was told by User:Worm That Turned about Wikipedia:Editor review and Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination. I have previously already had one editor review Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser but it was not until 1 month later when i asked a few users to come over and review me and happily most of them did. I am sorry if i have done anything wrong, I just wanted an actual review of many users i trust and know. And it will also be helpful for me to have reviews of many editors which can help me to become better and improve Wikipedia more which can be only be done by leaving a polite note on their talk page, and it's everyone's wish whether to review or not. There have been many bots and users who leave notices for different things, bu that is not considered inappropriate, so please do not think the other way round for me. I hope i have cleared all the misunderstandings. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You're not getting my point. A myriad issues and tasks on Wikipedia would profit from broader participation. Every editor with an editor review would find it helpful to have reviews from many editors. What would that place be like if every editor actively advertised their important concerns to user talk pages?
You mention bots, as it happens someone used a bot earlier today to send a message to 961 user talk pages. The editors did not opt-in, the sender thought the recipients would benefit from the message, but see the blow-back from angry editors feeling spammed here WP:Bot owners' noticeboard#Did someone seriously approve a bot to spam people? (and on a few other pages, too)
It annoys editors if they feel they are being spammed, no matter what you want to call it -- I'm certain the user in the linked discussion felt they were doing something positive, and I am sure you felt that too. Nonetheless, in my opinion you clearly took the wrong approach to get your message out.
Amalthea 20:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I never even thought of spamming Amalthea, I can't even think about doing it for a project where i love to work. If i hadn't given the notice to some people then i don't think so i would be getting many reviews that i wanted. It's your wish if you want to review me or not and i am not forcing anyone to do it, it was just a kind request. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your counter-arguments seem to be based on technicalities and labels. I'll try one last time to rephrase: you sent an unsolicited message to 50+ users. I can think of very few cases where I'd find such a mass-mailing appropriate. Hoping to get input in an editor review is absolutely not one of those cases.
Like I indicated in my first reply here, I considered that bad judgement. That you dismiss my opinion as a misunderstanding and, as far as I can tell, aren't even considering that editors may reasonably frown upon mass messaging for causes such as this would now be my second criticism. Amalthea 07:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I will keep in mind the points you have mentioned Amalthea and will be more careful and alert regarding these types of issues in the future. I hope you believe everything I did was in good faith as I always do. Deep Apologies if i have bothered you or anyone else in any way, I never intended to do or even thought of doing that. Thank you for your time and comments. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, and no apologies necessary -- I know you only wanted input. And I hope I haven't scared you off with the above, my main concern was to make clear what I consider good and bad practices here. You are always welcome here if I can help you with anything. Cheers, Amalthea 17:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Theman244

Hi, I'm sure this (Thejatboy) [1] is a new sock account of Theman244. You already confirmed Thejatt and Desijatt1 as being him so what do you think?--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)