User talk:Mackensen/Archive10

No
Solicitation

Mackensenarchiv

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.

Unsigned messages will be ignored. You can sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right to disruptively eliminate gigantic blobs of wiki-markup from signatures on a whim if I think they're cluttering up my talk page.

Penis Banding Article Deletion[edit]

Mackensen,

You deleted the Penis Banding Article I wrote. While some may not agree or understand the practice, it is indeed practiced. In the Body Mod and BDSM world it is not uncommon. I wrote the article specifically because there are not a lot of good clear/concise articles on this subject on the internet. I would like to have a Deletion Review done. I strongly disagree with the deletion of the article. Unfortunately, I am not a seasoned wikipedian and am not sure how to kick off the Deletion Review.

Please advise...

JoeCool722 15:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC) JoeCool722[reply]

My Thanks[edit]

I wanted to drop a brief note on your talk page (one admittedly not written to you only, but nevertheless truly meant) to thank you for your vote in my Request for Adminship, which concluded this evening. Even though it was unsuccessful, it did make clear to me some areas in which I can improve my contributions to Wikipedia, both in terms of the areas in which I can participate and the manner in which I can participate. I do plan on, at some point in the future (although, I think, not the near future), attempting the process again, and I hope you will consider participating in that voting process as well. If you wish in the future to offer any constructive criticism to me, or if I may assist you with anything, I hope you will not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again. — WCityMike (T 04:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser[edit]

Are you a checkuser? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 14:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I looked at Special:Listusers. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 15:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Elftor[edit]

I see that you've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elftor as a "no consensus" despite 6 out of 8 people involved in the discussion believing it ought to be deleted. If you believe that "there aren't enough people taking part in this discussion," would you consider re-listing it for further discussion? -- Dragonfiend 15:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly support such an act, yes, although it might be prudent to wait a day or two. Mackensen (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highgate School Muck Up Day 2006[edit]

This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. Remember to always assume good faith .

I see that you have decided to delete this article, despite huge public support for it and continued editing of the article as a response to concerns from Wikipedians. Instead of outlining why you deleted the article, you made the following unhelpful comment:

"The result of the debate was delete. A great big thank you to all the Cholmelians who made Highgate Deletion Day 2006 such a rambunctious success!"

The result of the debate was not delete, you decided to delete the article, despite an on-going discussion and numerous points made in favour of keeping the article. Could you please tell me, and fellow wikipedians, why you have decided to delete this article and ignore the comments that support the article?86.129.124.96 16:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you have to make a nasty comment[edit]

If it's your job to delete the article then fine, but why make a snide comment?

"A great big thank you to all the Cholmelians who made Highgate Deletion Day 2006 such a rambunctious success!"

Quite pathetic given we were trying to engage in an actual debate, and made every effort to meet the criteria. thegreatbriton

Hardly a nasty comment; I thought it quite in the spirit of things. You made every effort to participate in the debate, but in the end an AfD discussion turns on deletion policy, and it is on policy that I made my decision. You are welcome to bring this to deletion review. Mackensen (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In the spirit of things" (things, amongst others, equating to wikipedia) would have been to keep the page!

I just felt that by adopting the vocabulary and style that much of the article was written in, and also by christening the day that something we felt strongly about was deleted with a clebratory monkier, you were taunting and attempting to humiliate us..... Thegreatbriton

Not at all, and I'm sorry you took it that way. The concept of "Deletion Day" goes way back to the BOFH stories, probably even further than that. Mackensen (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cliquey nerd references aside, I think most users objected to the term "rambunctious success"

- Well, sorry, but from the state of the page I saw no better descriptor. All this side, I do hope you all had a good time; I've graduated from a few institutions myself, and inclusion/lack thereof on Wikipedia really shouldn't have a bearing on the event's personal importance. Mackensen (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you?[edit]

After such a successful day, such a successful article, you've successfully ruined a fantastic memory. So many people in and out of Highgate School supported the article. No debate took place, as the Cholmeleians would have won hands down. Truely I'm disgusted at the fact that every fact was true, we followed all rules and the article was extremely informative. I'm ashamed of both you and wikipedia.

For Shame[edit]

Applying clearly hypocritical principles and foul play (notably the deletion of several relevant comments IN FAVOUR of keeping the page) a valuable page has been deleted the page against the will of the majority. Not only do you deprive many hundreds of people of an informative resource, but you then add insult to injury by leaving some snide and catty comment as you do so. On top of all that, you can't even spell 'Cholmeleians' correctly. Svajoklis 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following your handling of this page , and I found your deletion comment unprofessional, if indeed one could call your job as moderator in any way 'professional'. Although I sympathise with some of your argument for the article's deletion, I find your decision to ingore the pleas of the people involved in this event, those that have been affected by it, other students throughout the world and your fellow wikipedians without real consideration rather shocking. Here at wikipedia you have a huge responsibility to collect and consolidate fact, and seperate it from fiction. Collection of such fact in turn becomes history, so you are responsible for moderating what is becoming history, and thus shaping it. So slurring this story is something I would strongly advise you not to do.Living on the other side of the Atlantic I fail to see how you came about wielding the power to delete this article, important for a culture you clearly are incapable of understanding. It is obvious to me that this day did occur, and was enjoyed by many, adults as well as children. Classing the people who have contributed to the deletion debate as kids or children is also incorrect - as I'm sure you are aware, having done research into the matter now, muck up days are for LEAVERS so the majority will in fact be over 18 - older, I dare say, than a lot of people who contribute to wikipedia - and by English law, adults. We both know it is up to all requirements given by this site, it is reference and it is fact. I fail to see how this can now be called a 'free' encyclopedia.86.137.168.116 16:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to keep the insults to a minimum, gentlemen... Master of Puppets talk 16:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. It doesn't cost you a thing to contribute or to read it. Seems pretty free to me (as in beer, to be sure). Furthermore, all of you can still edit, except your schoolmate who vandalized my user page and is sitting out a one-hour block to cool down. Mackensen (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is an oversimplistic or perhaps even incorrect interpretation of the word "free" in the context of Wikipedia's famous motto. In Lithuanian, for example, this motto is "Laisvoji enciklopedija", which does not have any connotations of "not costing anything" (which would be "nemokamoji enciklopedija"

I confess I don't speak Lithuanian. Both common interpretations of "free", as found in the Open Source model (free as in beer and free as in speech) are in operation here. That doesn't mean we keep everything. When a vast majority of established users say something doesn't belong in the encyclopedia, then out it goes. I don't see how I ignored the opinions of my fellow Wikipedians, since they argued for deletion. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SOME argued for deletion, but more argued for keeping the page, or have you not even read the comments? 86.129.124.96 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a free encyclopedia, but only with rules and guidelines. Without those, we'd be drowning under the weight of thousands of bios on teens living somewhere in Guatemala. So if the rules say it can't be here, sorry, but that is when the "Free" part stops. Master of Puppets talk 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to being told what to do by a 14 year old.86.129.124.96 17:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aw. Mackensen (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, us 14-year-olds resent that. Also, try to keep the age-related comments down to a minimum, please, as they're considered personal attacks. Master of Puppets talk 17:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A small number of users did indeed argue for deletion, and most of them argued simply that it was a 'non-event'. As I think has been shown, an equal number of users disagree with this, and many more, no doubt, who are not versed enough in the mechanics of Wikipedia to express their opinion - or indeed future readers of the article, who as of now will no longer have the opportunity - also were not of accord.

No, no, you're not getting it. All the users argued for deletion. All the people editing from Highgate IP addresses argued for "do not delete" or, after the solecisim was pointed out, to "keep." Mackensen (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is incredibly pedantic and I think that anyone with any basic grasp of the English language, let alone a qualification from the obscure but no doubt highly prestigious "Kalamazoo College", would realise that "do not delete" equates to "keep". Your insistance upon this trivial point acts as nothing other than further proof of your snide pettiness. Furthermore, I find the Guatemala comment flippant and insulting. Since when did the private lives of teenagers make up an informative resource for hundreds, if not thousands of people?

I've got my degree and I'll be as pedantic as I want. I didn't make the Guatemala comment, if you'll care to actually read the discussion. *Sigh* The point is that the obvious solecisims demonstrate a lack of familiarity with the Wikipedia community, our policy, and our processes. That's why your input didn't amount to much. I'm not being snide, I'm trying to make you understand. Mackensen (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly aware of the fact that it wasn't you who made that comment, but instead your underage sidekick, whose opinion no doubt counts for a lot more than ours because he happens to be more acquainted with the exclusive obscurities of Wikipedian convention **Sigh**

Users with IP addresses out of Highgate, and even out of London, such as from the prestigious seat of learning, Cambridge University, also argued in favour of the article. How can you thus say that all the users argued for deletion?Payneo 17:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if Einstein himself came and debated for the article; and as I said in my below edit, it doesn't matter how many users are for it if their arguments aren't valid (policy validates them). And I think he meant all the established usernames argued for deletion, while all IPs and newly-founded usernames argued against. Master of Puppets talk 17:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask you, I asked Mackensen, hence why I said "How can you thus say that all the users argued for deletion?"Payneo 17:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Just because more people say "Keep it" doesn't mean that'll happen. This is mainly a precaution to legions of users flocking to support an article they like, regardless of violations of policy. Also, see WP:Notability; specifically, this section. That may help you see why the article was deleted. Cheers, Master of Puppets talk 17:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To all of the high schoolers out there: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost. Would you expect to read an article on some prank day in Encyclopedia Britannica? I sure hope not! As much fun as this day of prankery was to you guys, it's utterly non-notable on an encyclopedic scale. Sorry. --Cyde↔Weys 17:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out before (although my pertinent comment was mysteriously deleted), there are many, many articles on Wikipedia which are of absolutely no interest on an encyclopaedic scale, and I would never expect to find an article about Aleš Hanák or a Donkey punch in the Encyclopedia Britannica, yet they still have a place here - and that is one of the wonderful things about Wikipedia. What I am becoming increasingly frustrated and disillusioned about, however, is the haughty, snide and pedantic tone of some of the more established users here. Well, if like does indeed breed like, then let me pick you up on your addressing us as "high schoolers" - for, as anyone with any familiarity with the British Education System knows (and your lack thereof clearly has contributed to your prejudice against our cause), "High School" does not exist in Britain, and thus I find this form address inappropriate.

The subject has to be known outside a small group of people (remember, 'small' is relative to the encyclopedia's size), which is one of the qualifiers. So while this event may seem very important to yourself, it isn't really that earth-shaking to others (my own school has a huge event every year, "SJR Rockshow"; $500,000 into the making, at least 6,000 visitors, and that article would get deleted quickly just because it isn't that important outside the school). Cheers, User:Master of Puppets 142.161.88.98 17:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Yes this is me, I just can't seem to edit when logged in...[reply]

It seems important enough to me! A lot more important than many articles in this encyclopedia, certainly.

Read what I said more carefully; it may seem important to yourself, but (no offence meant) other people may not frankly care at all. So this is why I use the Rockshow example; I'd love to have an article on that, but to other people it is just another high school music show. And tying into that, what you think is important is likely going to be different than what others do. Master of Puppets talk 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look! And there goes another one of my comments, deleted! Censorship anyone?

Looks like it got lost in an edit conflict. That happens. I've restored it. Mackensen (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, I retract my above comment.

Look, you can argue here all you want, but I made my decision, and any other administrator, including the British ones, would have made it as well. You can take it to Deletion Review, which I've linked above, or you can continue arguing here. The latter won't do much good, I'm afraid. Mackensen (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's as may be, but don't expect to take an unfair decision without it provoking a certain amount of controversy.

Controversy? You think a raft of 18somethings from a British school is controversy? I'm afraid you overrate your importance. The decision was fair and I stand by it. My userpage has only been vandalized by your people once; there's no hate email in my inbox and you haven't threatened to have me de-sysoped. This is a tempest in a teapot. Mackensen (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEANS dammit!! Learn it, love it, live it. But for God's sake don't give them any ideas. --Cyde↔Weys 18:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a query. How does it hurt wikipedia to have an article, that even you agree, had a lot of effort and time put into it, had pics, had more viewers than many others and was something that got people actively involved in writing for wikipedia ? thegreatbriton

It hurts the encyclopedia by significantly lowering standards of inclusion. If you let stuff like that in suddenly you're going to be letting in hundreds of thousands of other articles on non-notable topics. Eventually the encyclopedia would be overrun by a crapload of non-notable articles and would cease to be an encyclopedia — it'd just become a big personal webhost, where everyone was free to use Wikipedia's high traffic to promote whatever non-notable stuff they felt like. --Cyde↔Weys 19:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is very sad that a site such as Wikipedia cannot be home to a record of an event such as this. Wikipedia is littered with other events in history and this event, although maby not of the same scale as a great many, does deserve recognition, and is of interest to those in and around the London area.

Checkusering[edit]

Just wanted to let you know, Voice of All has written a script to make answering RFCU requests easier. It adds a dropdown to the edit view of RFCU that inserts the various indication templates, along with a signature and edit summary. You can, of course, then add any comments that need to be added before saving. I've modified it a bit from the original, to make the edit summaries a bit more brief and to avoid having a popup when using the templates that require additional comment (like the "more information" and "please note" templates); if you're interested, you can find my version at User:Essjay/checkuser.js (the include is at the bottom of my monobook.js), and VOA's version at User:Voice of All/CheckUser/monobook.js. Essjay Talk • Connect 19:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Tag Removal[edit]

Dear Mackensen,

I would like to kindly request the sockpuppet tag be removed from userpage since it has been sometime. I do not engage in puppetry now. Respectfully, Insert-Belltower 14:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sweetiepetie[edit]

Hello. I have unblocked User:Sweetiepetie. I've looked at JamieAdams' talk history and the behaviour seems very out of character for Sweetiepetitie. I've never seen the latter be so provocative. I don't have the technical knowledge to explain the IP address, but I do notice that he/she has had problems with AOL proxies recently.

Anyhow, as far as I know, Sweetiepetie has done nothing to warrant being permablocked -- I've had the user's Userpage on my watchlist for a while now too, and follow the project he's mainly involved in. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Checkuser evidence is conclusive. I can't go into details, but it is statistically unlikely that this is an accident. Essjay agreed with me on this. I encourage you to reverse yourself. Mackensen (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence that this user has done anything wrong? Where is the discussion to block a perfectly good user? I appreciate that the alleged sock's history was not good, but if they are using thi sfor genuine edits, then all is well. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JPS, you have actually read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, right? Specifically Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Prohibited_uses_of_sock_puppets and Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Blocking_accounts? [ælfəks] 16:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also [1]. Mackensen (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I am quite shocked. Of course, I can't see the posts linked to on ANB, so I can't judge if it's an innocent conversation or not.

Sockpuppettry is discouraged but not a bannable offence if not misused. It has taken me this amount of digging to find out how the accounts have been misused. As far as many members of the community were concerned, a perfectly good user had suddenly become permabanned. I wonder if there is a way to make this more transparent? A detailed reason on the talk pages would have helped. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For privacy reasons we can't disclose the details of the evidence. A perfectly good user was involved in something which led to them being permbanned. You need to realize that bans apply to people, not accounts. The situation is regrettable but it can't be helped. Mackensen (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Another user has joined the EastEnders project called AnemoneProjectors. He only started contributing after the above user was banned, is suspiciously good at editing (suggesting he's edited before) and contributes to a similar set of articles (not just on EastEnders). I don't know whether he is another sockpuppet of this "JamieAdams" user, but I'd like to investigate (or someone else should)... (NB: also asked The JPS for information about the block before I found you through his list of contributions - I don't need to know why there was a block, but having come across the previous discussions etc. I thought I'd raise a flag!). Anyway, thanks - possibly nothing, but you never know... Stephenb (Talk) 17:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly second this request, but if it needs to be listed elsewhere instead, please let me know. --Joanne B 10:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just list it on WP:RFCU. That's the proper forum and there'll be greater visibility. Mackensen (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am Sweetiepetie. Please don't ban me, I don't want to stop making positive contributions to this project. User:Jahiegel said on Jimbo Wales' talk page that I could rejoin, make positive contributions, and eventually make a request to have my old and new usernames merged into a third username. I don't believe I have disrupted Wikipedia in general or in any major way. I've certainly learnt my lesson because I love using and contributing to Wikipedia and I don't want to be banned again. If I must be banned, please don't make it indefinite. I'm a good person. Please assume good faith! Thank you. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear you say these things, and I certainly do wish to assume good faith. As you understand what got you banned in the first place, I trust you won't do it again. Happy editing, Mackensen (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I'm worried people elsewhere are planning on banning me though. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll speak up if that happens. For now, I suggest going forth and editing. Mackensen (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly will. Is it recommended that I do anything to sort of... "come out" as "Sweetiepetie" (on my user page or on the EastEnders WikiProject page for example) or might that look bad? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to do anything overt. Those who want to know probably know anyway. Conversely, denial or hiding would be bad. Again, the best thing to do is to edit constructively. Mackensen (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Proxy edits - please scan with CheckUser and block[edit]

Today, BillyBong (talk · contribs) made two backslash-inserting edits [2] [3], a clear indication of an open proxy. This case has been listed at WP:RCU, but it doesn't seem to be getting the right attention from clerks there (one says there are no other users to compare to; the other says the account has already been indefinitely blocked). As a result, I'm forwarding this request directly to you because I know you have successfully handled three similar requests in the past (once in April, twice in May). If another CU person runs the check and blocks the IP, great; if not, please make this the fourth time you've scanned and blocked an open proxy behind a registered user's edit(s). 207.156.196.242 14:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the heads-up. Mackensen (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Procedural Question[edit]

Hello, pardon me for intruding on your talk page but I have a question that's, well, that it's difficult to find someone to ask. :) It's in regards to this diff: [4] I've been under the impression in the past that "Users who disagree" sections like this are discouraged, and typically removed. Of course, the first time I've noticed this on a page on my watchlist, it's to an opinion I, myself, posted.

I've sought you out because you're an established editor, admin, arbitrator, etc...and not directly involved, and someone who hasn't signed on my section. I nearly looked for someone who hadn't posted to the RFC at all, but it's a pretty big RFC at this point. Anyhoo, I won't touch this comment myself. I don't mind it, and would be happy to discuss it on the talk page, but procedurally, I feel this user would have been better off signing onto the opinion above or below mine (since both are, fairly, diametrically opposed).

Well, I've brought this to a neutral parties attention, so I'll stop abusing you with my horrible misuse of commas now (it's a problem I have, really). If you don't see a need to revert it, please let me know. Thanks for your time. --InkSplotch 02:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this here. These kinds of disendorsements are discouraged, to be sure; they don't add anything. The whole point of an RfC is to figure out where people stand; if you don't agree with a view the best course is to state your own, rather than registering disagreement. Tony's RfC is about concluded at this point–unless the use of disendorsements becomes endemic I'd just let it be. Singularly unhelpful, to be sure, but hardly worth taking action at this point. Best, Mackensen (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, it makes a good deal of sense. --InkSplotch 13:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time[edit]

Dear Mackensen/Archive10,
Thank you very much for your contributions to my recent RfA. I am pleased to announce that it passed with a tally of 72/11/1, and I am now an administrator. Although you did not choose to support the request, I can assure you that I have taken your advice to heart and will be a better administrator for it. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the tools, but please let me know if there are any admin jobs I can do to help you, now or in the future. —Cuivi é nen 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes[edit]

See User:Sunholm/Userbox Proposal, and let me know what you think. --Sunholm(talk) 13:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks![edit]

Thanks for voting!
Hello Mackensen/Archive10, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care.

--Pilot|guy 23:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting title changes[edit]

Why are you reverting my title changes for the Cinque port wardens? I am a professional genealogist and historian and can assure you that these people were not simply known as "Lord Buckingham" or whatever. They are always called "HENRY Lord Buckingham". Wjhonson 23:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's how we refer to them within the context of the encyclopedia. Mackensen (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you speaking for the entire encyclopaedia community then? I'm a member, have been for years. I have thousands of edits here. I have never referred to a person merely by their title. I just looked up Bartholomew Burghersh in the Patent Rolls and King Edward III calls him "Bartholomew Burghersh, constable of Dover and Warden of the Cinque Ports". I was under the impression wikipedia wanted to be accurate, not stodgy and petulent. The accurate way of referring to a person is by their name, or a combination, not merely by their title. Wjhonson 16:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring, in general, to the community of editors who keep an eye on peerage-related articles and who wrote the relevant guidelines. A peer's title is part of his name, so I'm afraid I don't understand the objection. Mackensen (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the title is part of the name. The objection is that the Title here is being used *in place of* the correct name, not in addition to it. Calling someone "the Lord Bughersh" is simply not accurate. The person is called "Bartholomew, Lord Burghersh" or "Bartholomew Burghersh". To add to the confusion you get ridiculous things like "preceded by Lord Winthrop.... succeeded by Lord Winthrop". A person viewing this would be confused, not realizing that the two "Lord Winthrops" which grandfather and grandson to each other, not the same person! Giving the proper name like "David Lord Winthrop" for example clarifies the article and brings it into accurate point with the actual primary sources which use this naming convention. "The Lord Winthrop" is more of a Victorian, stuffy, thing which has no business being used on pages of Medieval personages. In my opinion. But I will start posting Patent Rolls extracts to the TALK pages to prove my point. Wjhonson 17:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esata (2 nomination)[edit]

Interesting closing message. You made it appear as if you thought I should not have started the 2nd AfD at all. I'd be curious to get your thoughts on that. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was my view, yes. The new version of the article contained no additional information which would have called the standing of the original VfD into question (in fact it was a good deal shorter). On those grounds I would've kept it deleted and possibly recommended inserting a blurb in a conlong article somewheres. It's not meant as a criticism (well, maybe a constructuve one). Mackensen (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of edits[edit]

How do you conclusively verify that you have in fact reached a specific milestone, say 8,000 edits? I would like to know your method so I can update and correct the "milestones" on my userpage. Thanks --Jay(Reply) 02:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, there's not much of a method to it–I just start with my first 500 and keep clicking "Newer 500." Of course, as articles get deleted/undeleted this number varies, but not by too much...--Mackensen (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Coleman[edit]

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox PM[edit]

Template:Infobox PM has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Hera1187 12:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horay for checkuser[edit]

Glad to see the large checkuser backlog being slowly cleaned. Don't forget to defer heavily cluttered requests to us clerks. Kevin_b_er 07:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. In case no one's ever said so, you guys do a great job keeping that page under control. Keep up the good work! Mackensen (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131 13:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And for your efforts. Thatcher131 13:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser not on the RFCU page[edit]

If you ever run a checkuser somewhere else (like AN/I) and would like us to make a record of it on the checkuser page and archives, just drop a note at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Requests. Thatcher131 13:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Mackensen (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Tag?[edit]

You said CheckUser is inconclusive but editing styles are suggestive here. Shall I put a suspected puppet tag on his user page to alert admins? Anwar 15:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem with that. Mackensen (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser[edit]

Thank you for running the checkuser on Cheeseypooofs and Cuthbert11. If you don't mind clarifying, does the positive result extend to the Pac Bell IPs as well? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm loath to out IP addresses, one way or the other, absent a serious policy violation. Mackensen (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly wondered because there are only three endorsers of a current RFC against User:Morwen, and two of 'em are these guys. If they're also the anon IP (as seems likely to me), we could give this a procedural close, since it's past the time limit. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if it's not too much trouble, could you indef-block one or the other of 'em? I don't think it much matters which one, since they're both fairly new accounts, and both are currently temp-blocked for other violations. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anons can endorse an RfC, and it would be right to close it forthwith. Mackensen (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To whom should I bring this? Should I just leave a not on AN/I, or is there a particular person in charge of closing RFCs? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any administrator can close it, so just drop a note on ANI and some obliging rouge admin will kill it. Mackensen (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Roberts[edit]

I've also requested deletion for the "10th Earl of Jersey" image at Commons, where he has accounts as Tvaddict and Johnpallen. Choess 18:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Mackensen (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sinister Six[edit]

Hi Mackensen, since you closed the AFD for this article, I'd thought I'd like to let you know that User:Quickman, who created the original article that was deleted after the AFD, has since reposted the article word-for-word three times. Twice before I reverted it back the redirect you originally created, the second time I done so i wrote a strongly worded plea to stop on his user page. He has reposted again, and I'm starting to feel a bit powerless since I don't think it's proper to me to be the revert patrol. Can you let me know what would be the proper thing to do in this case and what help you could provide? Thanks, hateless 07:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've nuked the article again, replaced it with a redirect, and protected the page. That ought to be an end to it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Mackensen (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israelbeach[edit]

Could you please post on the usercheck page your reasons for denying my usercheck request? Thanks Hpaami 05:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logos of the Walt Disney Company[edit]

Dear Mack, I want to bring to your attention that, minutes after you closed its AfD debate and consequently deleted it, Logos of the Walt Disney Company has been recreated, with its original creator stating on its Talk Page that "The page is back". Perhaps it would be better to protect it after re-deletion; I leave that up to you. Big hugs, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Ellis[edit]

Could you please give me a reason for not labelling Arthur Ellis a sock puppet of Ceraurus. Here is a quote from an Adminisrator.

I assume you meant "Arthur Ellis", not Ceraurus. Ceraurus himself hasn't left a comment here under his own name for quite some time. One way or the other, no admin is going to lift the block until Ceraurus makes his own case in his own voice. Bucketsofg✐ 22:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

He is now on vacation right now, so he can not mediate. I don't care if Arthur Ellis trolls wiki, I just wish he would stop denying who he is.

If you need more evidence, then I am willing to supply. [User_talk:Pete Peters|(talk)]] 23:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

THANKS MATE!!!!!!!![edit]

thanks for unblocking me mate. As a token of my gratitude i give you Che!!!!!!!!!

Names of cities...[edit]

Hi, I'm quite surprised to see you close as delete the three "Names of cities..." articles despite clear majorities to the contrary. Your argumentation that "Keep voters have failed to assert how this is encyclopedic material"" seems to fly in the face of detailed argumentation provided by, for instance User:Pasquale, Adam78 and others. Pasquale's arguments, in particular, had found support by many voters. Moreover, I must say that your comment at least one keep voter admitted that he doesn't know what encyclopedic content is (directed at the comment by User:Eivind, if this is unencyclopedic, I don't know what an encyclopedia is) looks like a mockery. Could you reconsider? - I'm willing to take it to deletion review too, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So first you ask for a discussion, then as the majority opposes deletion you go ahead anyway and simply destroy all the work that went into it after wasting some more of our time on the mock trial? This is a fine example how deletionism rages trough wikipedia as a modern form of iconoclasm, far worse in effect then the easily reverted lame jokers we all call vandals - but the Vandals were the wrong choice to name vandalsm after in the fifth century, humanity never learns. Fastifex 10:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not meant as mockery, but rather an evaluation of the discussion. I was singularly unimpressed to see a vote like that. Saying that if "this isn't encyclopedic, I don't know what is" without actually explaining why it is encyclopedic (no one bothered to do so) is very unhelpful. In a situation like this where the encyclopedic nature of an article has been seriously challenged it isn't enough to simply say "yes it is." You have to justify. I won't reverse myself; I suggest you consider deletion review. Mackensen (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly your right to find the arguments unconvincing, but to say that there were no arguments is plainly wrong. That towards the end, when votes were becoming "keep" stackups, not all voters bothered to repeat the arguments that were exchanged beforehand is really nothing uncommon on AfD. And as for your comment on Eivind, you should consider changing your wording at least. As it stands, it comes across as, at best, gratuitous sarcasm, at worst, a lie. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed the stacking votes; the problem is that no one ever justified keeping the article. I mean, many gave reasons, but not the sort of reasons that are actually convincing, rest in policy, could withstand scrutiny, etc. Again, feel free to take this to deletion review, but I made my judgement call and I stand by it. If Eivind doesn't want to have a little fun poked at him then he should take greater care formulating his arguments in future deletion discussions. Best, Mackensen (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this seems vandalism pure and simple. I am stunned that the Wikipedia allows this sort of conduct. Who is this Mackensen, anyway, who seems to have arrogated dictatorial powers over the Wikipedia? Where is the oversight? I demand a review, not only of the deletions, but of Mackensen's conduct as well. Pasquale 18:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An admin I contacted has sent it to review, he being unwilling to unilaterally overturn Mackensen -- another sore spot in the old-boy-network that has become the admins here. Carlossuarez46 19:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note[edit]

I do understand that on some level, but the comment was hurtful. It serves as a convenient way for me to express to others that something went haywire in that early discussion, and that -- somehow -- attacks on my person, my intellect, and my judgment came first, before dispassionate critical analysis of the choices made. Those comments from yourself and Ms. Martin were unbecoming, and unwarranted (at least insofar as they were made as blank statements, without the support of logical argument.) Before someone says that I lack the capacity to operate as an admin (that's a paraphrasal), I expect somber discussion -- not "drama," as one commenter put it.

Even if my decision (over a two-word redirect) were wholly wrong, the manner in which I was addressed was shameful, and I do take that seriously. I expected better of you -- I really admired your remarks at ArbCom election-time, and your conduct has honestly hurt me personally. Regards, Xoloz 15:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that my comments were hurtful; in particular, I regret that they weren't directed towards you but towards others arguing (in theory) on your behalf. I should have considered my responses in that regard. Furthermore, much of what I said expressed a general frustration over the way administration of the encyclopedia has changed (or rather, the way in which general expectations of how it should be administered have changed). I will admit that, at some level, I got caught up in the passions of the discussion. That happens. It doesn't excuse the language I used, although I still stand behind the ideas I was trying to express, if not the phrasing. Mackensen (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I remain happy to discuss any ideas dispassionately. I have no doubt that my actions are often mistaken, and I gladly support dispassionate review of any choice I make, with a view to Wikipedia's improvement. I appreciate also your expressions of regret, and I will endeavor to forget those things which I interpreted as hurtful, while remaining keenly aware of the points raised in several rational discussions (with Cyde, and SCZenz) regarding the nature and enforcement of policy. That said, I also continue to believe in the appropriateness of heeding consensus in most circumstances at deliberative forums -- I suspect we might have a deep philosophical disagreement there. In any event, that discussion is for another day; I look forward to its resolution through calm and cooperative logical analysis. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would look forward to such a discussion, although I suspect that our disagreement is not so serious as it might seem. In any event, that is indeed a matter for another day. Best wishes to you as well, Mackensen (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Deletion[edit]

Your deletions of Names of European cities in different languages and the African and Asian counterparts were contrary to consensus. Carlossuarez46 18:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlossuarez46 contacted me, presumably misunderstanding the {{user recovery}} which I have on my userpage. I told him I would not summarily reverse the deletion, but that I have put it on Deletion Review which is the proper venue for this debate. You may wish to comment there. David | Talk 19:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope that you will change your mind on these articles, what I have posted to Dbiv's and other admin's talk pages is:

Please review a deletion made contrary to consensus[edit]

Please review the deletion of Names of European cities in different languages, and the related articles Names of Asian cities in different languages and Names of African cities in different languages. These were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Asian cities in different languages, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of African cities in different languages.

The vote was: Keep: Future Perfect at Sunrise Interlingua Trialsanderrors Atillios Carlossuarez46 (me) Kierant Adam78 Khoikhoi Goldom Pasquale Eivind F Øyangen Fastifex Aguerriero Slowmover Lambiam Irpen Olessi Travelbird Nightstallion Agathoclea Folks at 137 Lethe Qviri Riadlem Peteris Cedrins Reimelt Nick C

Delete: Motor Theoldanarchist Mangojuice Dawson Isotope23 WicketheWok Centrx Angus McLellan Masterhatch Tychocat

That is: 27-10 to keep. While I know that it’s not a strict vote-counting exercise, the usual rule of thumb is not to delete unless there is a strong consensus expressed to do so – i.e., give the benefit of the doubt toward keeping. Here, process was thwarted.

The administrator closing the AfD acted contrary to the consensus expressed at the AfD by making his/her own judgment that the content was not encyclopedic. The whole issue of alternate placenames is very much encyclopedic and has been the subject on ongoing debate among Wikipedians, for example at: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and the various disputes about whether to use “Danzig” or “Gdansk” for that city near the Baltic, etc.. Also, similar articles remain extant in several other Interwiki’s (since the article is deleted, the interwiki links are gone too, otherwise I could cite which), so they appear encyclopedic to people who speak other languages. Please restore the articles. Carlossuarez46 19:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like you've been notified yet, but the AFDs above have been submitted to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_June_28#Names_of_cities_in_different_languages. - Motor (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion[edit]

I did not undelete the city names article just to spite you or something. I saw it referred to from an article (in a valid context), and having previously viewed the article, I was curious as to why it was red-linked.

I checked the page, and was rather shocked to see a page of 2000+ edits deleted. Nevertheless, I assumed there was a deletion debate I had missed, so I checked out the deleted history (for some reason the talk page was left without a deleted notice pointing to the debate).

Having seen that the deletion was applied under erroneous circumstances (there was no consensus to delete. Consensus may be a subjective thing, but it's certainly >50%), I undeleted. I would have posted to votes for undeletion if it had been validly deleted, but as its deletion had not been accepted on the Afd page, I didn't see that as necessary.

Apologies for not posting you a notice.

zoney ♣ talk 13:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you see, it was already on votes for undeletion (DRV). Your action was completely unnecessary. Moreover, it's up to DRV to determine if deletion was erroneous (and it will likely determine so), not just one admin. Mackensen (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my actions, having reviewed Wikipedia:Undeletion policy it seems I was indeed in error. Where I was coming from is detailed in my personal response to Lar at User talk:Lar. zoney ♣ talk 14:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to request for information[edit]

I have provided a response to your request for more information at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#TPIRFanSteve. If you need more specific information, please feel free to let me know. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 15:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated? Perhaps you have another explanation of my observations, especially after the appearance of Daor Nedlog (talk · contribs). Every new user comes in and supports User:TPIRFanSteve, regardless of whether he's right. What's his game, then? - CobaltBlueTony 17:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown. My observations are based on IP evidence. Mackensen (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts. They are genuinely appreciated! - CobaltBlueTony 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbor View High School on deletion review[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Arbor View High School. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, I expected as much. Mackensen (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some more investigation of this school and found several attributes that I found notable and thought were article-worthy. (Starting with it being the largest school in the fifth largest school district in the country.) As you deleted the article "without prejudice to re-creation", I took the liberty of creating it again in a somewhat expanded form. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Outstanding. Happy editing, Mackensen (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006[edit]

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages[edit]

It appears you closed this AfD as a "Delete" on the 27th (along with the other 2), but the article is still here?--Isotope23 19:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a really long story. I'd suggest wandering over to WP:DRV for full comprehension. Short version: I deleted; deletion was challenged; another admin undeleted one (but not the other two) by accident/on purpose. Mackensen (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough... thanks.--Isotope23 15:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser for General Tojo[edit]

I have added some requests for check user for possible additional sock puppets which have sprung up, if you could investigtate: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#General_Tojo. Thanks. Andrew73 21:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple more names for checkuser! Thanks. Andrew73 11:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Asian cities in different languages on deletion review[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Names of Asian cities in different languages. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. The same for Names of African cities in different languages. Thanks. --Lysy^talk 22:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney logos[edit]

I'm somewhat concerned about your deletion of Logos of the Walt Disney company. How is this case different from, e.g., Closing logos of Viacom or Google logo? There was clearly no consensus for deletion, so what policy is your decision to close the debate with deletion based on? Is there an actual policy against fair use galleries in encyclopedic articles?--Eloquence * 18:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose the major difference is that I didn't close those two. There's no specific policy against fair use galleries per se, but I cannot imagine any scenario in which you could have a gallery composed of fair use images without breaching that doctrine. There's no need to enable copyright violation; it's rampant enough as is. Mackensen (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser[edit]

Hi. You recently handled a CheckUser of my account and the account of one of my friends. The incident that spurred this also involved two new users, User:Plinky and User:Daor Nedlog, who are unrelated to me but who others suspect I am using to meatpuppet. When I came home tonight, I discovered that someone has now created the blatant imposter account of User:TPlRFanSteve and was using it for vandalism before it was blocked.

If I were to request a CheckUser of Plinky, Daor Nedlog, and TPlRFanSteve, would I be able to find out if one or more of them is editing from Dayton, Ohio (and more specifically, the Dayton Public Library System)? If they are, there's a very good chance that they're a person named Harvey Daye, Jr. who has been trolling the online game show community for close to six years and who holds a particularly large grudge against me. This is getting to a point where it's ridiculous, and I'd like to at least know if there's an explanation for it that reaches beyond Wikipedia. -TPIRFanSteve 01:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I obtained such information I would be unable to release it absent extraordinary circumstances. If you can demonstrate systematic harrassment then we can block him on sight regardless of his actual identity. Mackensen (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. Don't want to do anything that would violate policy. -TPIRFanSteve 03:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser clerk assistance[edit]

Aside from the tag on the checkuser page, I do belive many of the checkuser clerks have Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Clerks/Requests watchlisted. Big red flag for help if you post a comment there. Its there for you to bug the clerks. Discussiony stuff is on that page's associated talk page. There's other pages there that were created several weeks back that you may find interesting, but mainly the noticeboard is all you probably need to read. Of a related note, I'm currently looking at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ceraurus. It all screwy, but I'll finish it tonight, probably late. Kevin_b_er 05:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its done! Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Clerks/Requests#Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser.2FCase.2FCeraurus Keep in mind that my summary is, of course, unofficial as checkuser clerks are quite unofficial. Kevin_b_er 08:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks. Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haris Cizmic[edit]

I had assumed at the time of closing that they were sockpuppets and was not suprised to see you tag Lionette earlier. Do you think that even with the sockpuppet activity that the three articles, Haris Cizmic, Adisa Cizmic and AXA (band) should be listed for AfD? I did believe that Haris Cizmic was notable enough to warrent an article in light of the changes to the article, the provided references and most of the delete comments were prior to the changes. Which is why I closed it as keep, against consensus (suprised I didn't get any complaints about that). Can you check the three articles and if you think they should be relisted I will do it as a group and list it due to sockpuppetry. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, they're too busy taking all of my closes to DRV so you slipped through ;). I think for transparency's sake they should all be relisted so that an actual discussion can take place. The three articles seem to me to be hovering on the edge of inclusion, and they're marred by bad formatting and likely copyvios. Mackensen (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All done. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haris Cizmic AfD[edit]

I'm the guy who started this whole mess. Once I was able to quiet the mob, a good-faith effort was made to fix the page to Wikipedia standards. Once I asked them to put that energy into fixing the page instead, The sockpuppetry essentially ceased. The pages as they stand now meet Wikipedia standards, and editors other than the sockpuppets put a lot of effort into helping them get fixed instead of deleted. If a sanction is necessary, it would be better to sanction the editors who behaved badly, instead of pages that would otherwise not be up for deletion. --DarkAudit 15:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haris Cizmic copyright violations[edit]

If the images are the work of the author of the page (or a young nephew as a favor, see AfD for Haris Cizmic's input), how can they be a copyright violation? There was a good bit of discussion on this in the original AfD, and it appeared that the matter was settled satisfactorally. --DarkAudit 15:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLZ Help[edit]

How to interpret your judgement [5].Does this mean I am being declared as sock of user:wmnnzzr.Holywarrior 15:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It means what it says. Mackensen (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU General Tojo[edit]

Can you take another look at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/General Tojo? They're adding more names and asking for a range block. Thatcher131 16:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mwahahahaha[edit]

Looks like you've landed the job of being Lead Checker now <insert evil laugh here>; ping me when you're feeling overloaded and I'll do my best to lend a hand. Will check in inasmuch as is possible while retaining my sanity. ;) Thanks for doing the job, and my sympathies on the harassment that will no doubt soon beseige you. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks. Glad to see you around again. Mackensen (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for IP disclosure[edit]

I see that the privacy policy allows for disclosure of IP addresses turned up using CheckUser in the interests of combatting vandalism. Well, User:Dragon Emperor has threatened to keep making sockpuppets. I would be interested in obtaining the IP address(es) of Dragon Emperor so I can place nice long blocks on them to combat the abusive socks. I'll be in the admin IRC channel if you'd prefer to disclose the IP privately. Thanks. --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, I contacted you because you responded to the checkuser case. Thanks for that, by the way. --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney logos discussion[edit]

Hello,

I was looking for the previous discussion of the Walt Disney logos page, which was at Talk:Logos of the Walt Disney company. Do you know where it went? You didn't, by any chance, use your "oversight" privilege?--Eloquence * 12:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the discussion in question is here: Talk:Logos of the Walt Disney Company. Appears Calton (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) tagged it as a speedy last night. Eloquence, I've got considerable respect for you as a long-time contributor (longer than myself by far), but I'm really offended by the insinuation that I've got something to hide here and that I'm trying to squelch discussion. Mackensen (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I checked my contributions for comments, but didn't find the page anymore. I tried finding it manually, but got bitten by case sensitivity and suspected oversight as a possible explanation for the apparent complete lack of track record (which might have been partially appropriate if there was a copyvio I didn't know about). I don't think that the talk page should have been speedied and have undeleted it (ongoing discussion about the deletion is explicitly cited in CSD as a reason not to speedy), but you were at no fault whatsoever. Sorry for the confusion. :-)--Eloquence * 13:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LinkStation on deletion review[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of LinkStation. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reswobslc (talk • contribs) .

As the deleting administrator I support my own judgement. Clear consensus of established users to delete. Mackensen (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please describe your assessment of "clear consensus". I see five keeps (six if you count that I mislabeled my own) and six deletes. That's about half-and-half if you ask me, and is by no means "clear". That's also before considering that four of the deletes were for a completely different version of the page that really was more like advertising and had little resemblance to the article you deleted. The original nominator of the article changed his mind as well (see his comment David Humphreys 02:02 28 June 2006). Also please see the comments at Deletion review. If LinkStation needs to go, so be it. But if it needs to go because "consensus has been reached", then that is a mistake. Reswobslc 23:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for running the checkuser for me! Gsd2000 01:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Just a follow-up: Shouldn't User:XGustaX be blocked as well as the puppeteer, or is that covered by blocking his IP? ~ trialsanderrors 02:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally don't block the puppeteer; there's no established precedent for such blocking, save in extreme situations. That is to say, he isn't banned by the community and no such ban has yet been sought. Mackensen (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the info. ~ trialsanderrors 02:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remove the tag?[edit]

The user who has claimed that I (User:SincereGuy) was a sockpuppet (or sockmaster, he/she couldn't make up his/hers mind) of another user seemingly simply because I disagreed with him/her, got his/hers request for a CheckUser turned down. Can I remove the "suspected sockpuppet" tag now? --SincereGuy 05:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Mackensen (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with CheckUser[edit]

I am certain that User:Truthwanted is User:192.117.103.90, avoiding violation of WP:3RR at Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses by logging out. Actions and language are identical. HELP!!! - CobaltBlueTony 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need CheckUser for that. I'd suggest WP:AN3RR or WP:ANI. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles[edit]

A few days ago, Jtdirl posted the following note on my user talk page: Your skill is required on British Isles where some users are intent on POV-pushing and downplaying the fact that many people find the term offensive. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 16:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Now that I'm involved in the article, I see that the problem is one that two editors together cannot resolve. So, if you have the time, a skilled editor such as yourself is quite needed on the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 22:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: queary[edit]

Hello, I could not find an email address in your profile. Hope that is not an issue with whatever you need me for. Apologies for the slow delay, I've just returned from vacation. You can reach me at avick86@gmail.com, as specified on my userpage. AscendedAnathema 01:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment I regard the matter as settled. In the future, you can click the "email this user" link on the left-hand toolbox. Mackensen (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU Ceraurus[edit]

Can you sprotect Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ceraurus? It's a long story. Thatcher131 02:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mackensen (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not sure whether to file an expanded RFCU myself regarding Ellis/Kinsella etc. or just let them stew in their own walled garden where it doesn't affect me. I'm not sure that anything can stop these editors from being dicks short of arbitration and even then I expect they would just try and sneak back. Sigh. Thatcher131 11:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email note[edit]

I've dropped you a Wikipedia email, containing the evidence supporting an indef block on JHartley as a reincarnation of indef blocked user HeadleyDown. It's following the comment that if he is a reincarnation he should be blocked.

For reasons explained in the email, I do not want to put the evidence on a public page. I hope you're okay with it being sent by email instead. It's not too long. Please let me know when you get it. Diffs are included. Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review and block much appreciated, thank you. LTA subpage set up for HeadleyDown. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Followup email (brief) on 2nd sock ring by same individual headed your way. Don't know if it matters, don't want to assume :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, 2 in a day. Another sock. See email. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:MACK[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to inform you that I marked the proposal as "failed to archive consensus". The talk page was pretty left to waste while straw poll had an overwhelming number of "oppose" votes, and only got a trickle flow of new votes. If ya disagree, please revert me and drop me a message. Best wishes. Charon X/talk 00:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all; I figured it had been already...Mackensen (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

I closed a few AfDs as keep earlier today, including some that I voted in. I feel that this was unprofessional, so I ask your opinion: should I revert the closure and have you determine the closure yourself? Thanks. — Deckill e r 03:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine. Just list them here and I'll take care of them. Mackensen (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That should be all of them. I reverted most of the stuff I did in realtion to the AfDs. — Deckill e r 03:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll take it from here. Mackensen (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mackensen (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. — Deckill e r 04:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You did the right thing by asking someone to close (even if I did only differ in one place). Mackensen (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And even then, I agree with your decision; the whole "cruft dam" arguement shouldn't apply to lists of links, in many ways. Perhaps that one AfD was the flaw of my closings earlier; I was worried to make an actual decision on that one, since I had direct association with the people involved in the process. Thanks again. — Deckill e r 04:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About "Shinmin no Michi"[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinmin no Michi

I wonder why the result of this voting is "Keep". I suppose the result is as

Keep of 2
week delete of 3
merge of 1

Does this result mean "delete"?--Questionfromjapan 11:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on review, it's a history merge. I missed the two other users backing up your explanation because they simply commented on your post (it was late, I was tired). I'll fix that up. On the other hand, it is a keep in a sense--the content remains, just in a different place. Mackensen (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. And if you have a time, please modify the announcement of the result on talk page. I really apreciate your hard work on administration of wikipedia.--Questionfromjapan 11:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More vandalism[edit]

User:The+Invisible+Man has struck again here with a new sock puppet account, User:Invisible!. Please deal with him accordingly. Additionally, feel free to semi-protect my talk page. -- LGagnon 23:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've block the account, plus an additional sock account created at the same time. Mackensen (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Insert-Belltower[edit]

Hello Mackensen, I'm Aeon I-B's Advocate. It has come to my knowledge that I-B was indentifed as an Abusive Sockpuppet. This tag was removed by I-B. I have advised him to restore the tag until you remove it or confirm it. Happy Editting Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 05:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I-B and UCRgrad both are curently in an AMA case against several other editors on teh UCR article. A couple have brought up the sockpuppet issue. Is there any information that you can give me on this in order to help bring this issue to rest when we bring it up? Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 17:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU deferral[edit]

Theres an RFCU which Essjay's deferred for your attention, if you have a moment. Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smyneretits[edit]

User replaced deleted page Tyara bumdeeay, then vandalised my user page after I G4'd the restored page. --DarkAudit 22:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted and blocked. Mackensen (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PoolGuy range block apparently ineffective[edit]

It appears the range block you imposed on PoolGuy's IP range is ineffective, since about 2-3 additional accounts were created (and edited) after the block (note Pschemp's newest additions to the CheckUser request). Perhaps you should revisit this case, run another Checkuser, and/or adjust your block. 69.117.4.237 04:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that 70.130.184.87 has been affected by this rangeblock and has requested to be unblocked. Is the sockpuppetry from this IP difficult to contain without the rangeblock? // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 05:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Starfyredragon. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 06:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was my impression that the block only affected account creation. Hmph. I'll undo it. Mackensen (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just doing a drive-by on this after seeing it on the noticeboards and elsewhere; you may be interested in looking at a Mediation Cabal case where a user going by AquaticTheory is telling a story that sounds an awful lot like PoolGuy's "socks are allowed" defense, including a bit about how an RFCU was run improperly - which I recall being the basis for an ArbCom case that was instigated by one of PG's socks. The similarity in names and stories seems like it might be worth looking at. Cheers! Tony Fox (speak) 16:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for unblocking. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 00:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In ref. to my last note above, I'd suggest you take a peek at these: the MedCab case and a discussion started from the Members' Advocates page - two users, same story. Smells funny. Tony Fox (speak) 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely"[edit]

Mackensen - what does "likely" mean? Indefblock for the sock or not? - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It means likely sockpuppetry and definite meatpuppetry. I leave it to your discretion. Mackensen (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Ceraurus made a recent edit to his talk page; it may be possible to check him against Arthur Ellis now (noted on the RFCU/Case page). Thatcher131 15:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Thatcher131 15:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All things considered (and especially considering the Ellis/Ceraurus related vandalism of July 5), would it be worth posting this to the Arthur Ellis RFCU page? Thanks. Thatcher131 16:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good idea (good job there, by the way). Mackensen (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]