Misplaced Pages

User talk:Greg Jungwirth the second

Mostly curious about this one: how'd it get blocked so fast? Don't get me wrong, this is a troublesome user for sure, but I'm so used to seeing "process must be followed" (SSP, RCFU, etc), that when I saw this, I was surprised how quickly and efficiently it was handled. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It was posted to WP:AIV, so I saw it quickly and was willing to block the user immediately on the grounds of sockpuppetry and abusive editing based on a few things. The user's only contribution was this and another comment, which included some personal attacks and admission of editing on a previous account that had been blocked indefinitely. In this case, the account in question was obviously Greg Jungwirth (talk · contribs), which had indeed been blocked indefinitely, had a history of accused sockpuppetry, and had posted very similar comments to User talk:Treelo. Sill, the suspicious user name would have warranted an immediate block even without these examples. When something is this obvious, telling an administrator directly or via the appropriate noticeboard is the only process that needs to be followed. When a situation is less clear or more complex, "slower" means, such as the ones you pointed out, should be taken. Thanks for the question. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. :) Okiefromokla 22:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User should be blocked

The IP user vandalised the Paleo diet diet article after the last warning by User:Corvus cornix and should therefore by temporarily blocked. I reverted his last edit. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, my apologies. The user did in fact vandalize after his "final" warning (on a side note, users should be given four warnings, not three. Template:uw-vandalism4 should have been given). However, it has nevertheless been an hour since the user last edited, and IPs must be active now to be blocked. If the user continues vandalizing, please re-report him/her. Okiefromokla 22:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That user just vandalised the paleodiet article again. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The user has been temporarily blocked. Okiefromokla 23:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Err... ban evasion

You banned User:77.42.186.127; he's back as User:77.42.149.92. I'm not sure if he should get smacked for ban-evading or engaged. Or both. See Musa al-Sadr. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 14:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

He may have a dynamic IP, so his address could change every time he logs onto the net. He did provide some reasoning in his edit summary, so while he's technically evading a block, I don't think blocking again is the answer right now. You've done the right thing by attempting to initiate conversation for what appears to be a content dispute. However, if the user starts reverting without acknowledging your efforts, or shoots off a personal attack (which is what he was blocked for), I or another admin can block any IP he uses or the page can be semi-protected. In the worst case scenario, a rangeblock could be used to block all similar IPs. I'll try to keep an eye on the article. Okiefromokla 19:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

He is back again and continuing to edit-war using a variety of IPs. Not sure what to do with this one... he's sort of borderline, since he's commenting on the talk page, although sine-bot is signing them for him. He's also rapid-reverting and at least one other editor, George, has reverted his edits on Musa al-Sadr. Do you think you could drop a "welcome and sign your comments pls oh and you could make a log-in if you wanted" on his page? If I do it, it might just be provoke-y. I don't want to revert any more because I'm going to hit a revert wall with him and that's no way to build consensus. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 16:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, since the user is discussing the problem, but reverting the reverts of the other editor, this appears to be an edit war over a legitimate content dispute, so I have protected the page temporarily and left a warning about further reverts. On a side note, thanks for not contributing to the revert war; you have done everything correctly in dealing with this situation. Okiefromokla 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Thanks for not contributing to the revert war".. Lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.187.53 (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The anon user's point is taken. I did not realize that you were Emilyzilch because of your different signature. In the future, please use greater care. You violated the three revert rule, which is something for which you can be blocked. Okiefromokla 04:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I will. I did say I stopped editing so as not to further the revert war. I'm sorry if I unintentionally misled you, I was considering asking for a formal name-change and I guess I'll go ahead with it. Incidentally, I've had a lot of harassment from sockpuppets in the past, most of them Klaksonnian in nature. Just sayin'. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 13:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I just wasn't being as thorough as I should have been. Okiefromokla 14:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

--Smashville 23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there...

I just read your reply to some outstanding message you left me:

"You need to assume good faith — read Misplaced Pages's guideline on that here. Also, please read Misplaced Pages's description of what constitutes vandalism. Most notably, take a look at what vandalism is not, and you'll see that this user's edits are probably not vandalism. By reverting his edits more than three times in 24 hours, you violated the three revert rule which is cause for an administrator to block you, so be more careful next time. Also, in the case of obvious vandalism (which this is not), users must be warned in sequence using user warning templates before being reported to WP:AIV. WP:AIV deals only with obvious vandals and only those that have been properly warned. Now that the page has been protected, you should contact the user on the article's talk page and calmly invite him to share his view while also providing reliable sources that prove the 3/4 system is not dead. Do not accuse him of vandalism. Good luck. Okiefromokla questions?"

The edits happened about the same time there was a troll, talking bad about 4/3rds and pointing to the wikipedia entry as evidence that the system was dead. The system is obviously not dead, as new camera models continue to be announced, new lenses are being introduced- both Olympus and Panasonic have come forward on this and made that clear

You can see new models being reviewed like:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusE520/

The micro four thirds announcement and Olympus/Panasonic commitment to both mounts:

http://www.dcresource.com/news/newsitem.php?id=3767

According to the definition given by the Misplaced Pages on Vandalism:

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles."

The changes he made clearly constitute vandalism because it made the four thirds entry extremely inaccurate. Moreover, there were indeed nonsense inserted in the article- like for example- doing a diff between August 6 and August 7, the following was said:

"The format was declared officially dead on August 6th, 2008, with the announcement by Olympus of the new Micro Format, code-named Phoenix."

Keep in mind this editing happened around the same time that Micro Four thirds was announced. There was never even as a rumor a "code Phoenix" in any rumor mill I can think off, nor was it officially declared dead. This compromises the integrity of the Misplaced Pages as a reliable source and is downright nonsense.

Around August 7, the same individual introduced the lines:

"Also known as the Postage Stamp format, the system provided a standard that, with digital cameras and lenses available from multiple manufacturers, allowed for the interchange of lenses and bodies from different manufacturers. "

Four Thirds has never, EVER been known as "the Postage Stamp Format." This is downright nonsense. Which again, according to Misplaced Pages's definition of vandalism, it is vandalism.

This makes as much sense as saying that the Ferrari Formula F1 have been widely known as the "poo poo Turtle Dorito car." It is plain nonsense.

I am very thankful for pointing to me on wikipedia protocols, which I admit I didn't know much on that end about, but to pretty much any reasonable knowledgeable photographer, the article was clearly vandalized.--Raist3d (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for the text formatting- I am still trying to sort this out.--Raist3d (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it took me a few days to respond, I haven't had much time to read your entire comment. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Nevertheless, as I said on your talk page, user warning templates need to be used before a user is reported for vandalizing. If this user returns and continues these edits, please use those warnings before reporting him. If you are confused about the warnings, feel free to ask someone. I will probably not be around at any given time (I usually check up only once or twice a day) so placing {{help}} on your talk page will get you immediate help. If the problem resumes, report him again to WP:AIV. Since only active IPs can be blocked, I can't block this one now — he hasn't edited in a month. Thanks again. Okiefromokla 16:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks a million for reverting the vandalism on my talkpage. It's always great to see how Wikipedians work together against things like that! --Alinnisawest, (extermination requests here) 17:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's no problem! :) Okiefromokla 16:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jackson South Coast League team

The Jackson South Coast League team page should be deleted, as the planned expansion team will never play. The SCL doesn't even exist anymore.JaMikePA (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary. Meaning, if the article was notable as a future team, it will be notable as a team that never played. WP:AFD is the place to determine that. Again, the article won't be speedy deleted because it doesn't meet any criteria for such deletion (see WP:SPEEDY#Criteria). Let me know if you need any help putting it up for a deletion discussion, though. Okiefromokla 02:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Indian removal

You've read Cultural Imperialism and the Indian removal articles and do not see Indian removal and a specific incident of Cultural Imperialism? Please explain this for it is obvious to me. Herbert Schiller clearly defined the term in his 1976 book and it perfectly describes the replacement of one culture by another which is what happened in Indian removal. Alatari (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm sorry, I'm a little foggy. I once removed a plethora of unrelated "see also" links from the Indian Removal article, so let me know if that isn't the context of your question. I will try to answer nonetheless: I would have no problem re-adding a link to cultural imperialism if there is a source that makes the conclusion that Indian Removal is indeed an example of cultural imperialism. If a Misplaced Pages editor was the only one to make that conclusion, WP:OR would apply. However, at least from the definition on the culutral imperialism article, it doesn't seem to me that Indian removal is necessarily an example of cultural imperialism. Okiefromokla 15:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Oklahoma City area citizens

Once upon a time, you changed the name of the above article (List of Oklahoma City area citizens) from "List of Oklahoma Citizens".

I've been going back and adding refs to the list, and, quite honestly, more than half of those entries in that list are not OKC citizens, but citizens from other parts of the state.

I added something to the talk page a couple of weeks ago, but noone said anything, so I really don't think anyone is following this page closely at this time, but I do think it bears continuing existance.

What do you think about going back to Oklahoma Citizens (though, maybe renaming it to include the word "Notable" or "Famous")?

Pfranson (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is already a List of people from Oklahoma, so it would really be a big help if you could remove any non-Oklahoma City citizens from that list and see if they are represented in List of people from Oklahoma. However, since it's implied that anyone in a people listing article would be notable, it isn't necessary to add the word "notable" or "famous" to the title. But I would rename the article to List of people from Oklahoma City to keep it in line with other people listings. Thanks for looking into this! Okiefromokla 15:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:RSUHillcatslogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RSUHillcatslogo.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

meat

can the bone of the meat show if it is young or an oll meat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.240.198 (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon? Okiefromokla 15:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OKC

Ya I went to see the roman art at the museum down there. Plus get some photos that were needed for oklahoma pages. Thanks for the thanks,--CPacker (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean this place. Never been there. This place is good enough for me! Thanks again. Okiefromokla 02:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Oldfarmerwomancropped1.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Oldfarmerwomancropped1.JPG, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 18:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I went ahead and deleted it per the reasoning on the deletion entry. Okiefromokla 22:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

UCO

Hi I was wondering what I should do about the University of Central Oklahoma page. I have added that it is not the oldest university in Oklahoma. It was talked about on its talk page about a year ago. I added sources citing NSU as the oldest university in Oklahoma but it keeps being changed back saying it is the oldest. UCO, OU, and OSU were all founded the same year (1890). NSU was founded almost forty years earlier in 1851 as the Cherokee National Female Seminary and Bacone College which was founded in 1880. All of my sources showed that info. Please get back to me on what I should do. Thanks--CPacker 04:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've put something on the talk page there. Hope it helps. I'll put the page on my watchlist and keep an eye on it. Okiefromokla 04:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help--CPacker 04:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Thanks! Okiefromokla 05:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

California Musical Theatre

I really did not think I was engaging in incivility with User:DionysosProteus untill I read the Misplaced Pages:Civility and accusing an editor of a lie seems to be listed.....doesn't mention anything about someone who actually is telling a lie....but I get your point. Just as a quick defense....... Dionysos was pretty belligerent.

Anyway I have left a message on his talk page to try and begin working together. I just have one question. You said No more reverts. To whom is that directed? To me or to both. I knew the editor was trying to get me to break the 3RR, but I did not. We are both guilty of reverts but as I see it I am correct in wanting consensus. As the major contributor to the article I do not wish to be pushed out from under it over someone clearly not understanding wikiguidelines. Even the editor User:Bhuck refuses to stop reverting when both Dionysos and myself have stated that theatRE is the correct spelling to use for the article. I guess my question is are you saying once protection ends if the edit war continues and I make a revert again I will be blocked?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, accusing him of lying, and some of the other things you have said to him, such as "follow policy or stop editing" and calling him an ass, are uncivil. Even if you feel Dinoysos has been somewhat belligerent at times, but it's important to remember that even if someone is being uncivil, it isn't advisable to point it out in comments like "You seem bent on twisting this situation to a disturbing point of lies." I've dealt with editors who I felt were distorting the truth and operating outside guidelines, but getting past the reflex to point it out with frustration is hard. In these cases, the other editor feels they are correct, so making accusations does nothing but aggravate the situation. It's better to try understanding the point of view of the other editor, and then calmly stating your opinion and/or policy. After that, if an editor is continually belligerent and truly unreasonable, dispute resolution will sort it out, so there is no reason to get flustered.

"No more reverts" is intended for both of you—that is, if no dispute resolution or discussion is attempted and reverts continue, I will probably block the one who reverts. However, you did indeed break the 3RR because you had four reverts in a 24 hour period (that means any 24 hours stretch, not just a calendar day). I initially chose not to block you, but another administrator has pointed out some more incivility on your part that I had overlooked (like the comment "Don't waste my time or my effort and don't be an ass"). However, since you have since attempted to work the situation out with Dionysos on his talk page, I will suggest to administrators at the edit war noticeboard that the block simply be waived, but only if you promise to curtail your reverts. That is, I will unprotect the page, but until the dispute is resolved, you must promise to refrain from reverting any edit related to the current dispute. You must also promise to be on good behavior and refrain from incivility like name calling, etc. If you promise these things publicly at the AN3 case, other administrators may also choose to let this block slide. Does that sound reasonable?

PS: About the theatre-theater debate, both "theater" and "theatre" are proper American spellings according to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (spelling). Note, however, that it is usually inappropriate to change between British and American spelling in articles; it is usually accepted just to leave the spelling in whatever nationality it was written in. See Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. Also, you point to consensus in your arguments, but I see none. In fact, there don't appear to be enough editors to the article to sufficiently establish true consensus, so I would advise you to stop using that argument, as it doesn’t appear to be working much. In any case, it is obviously time to form a new consensus. Okiefromokla 02:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection of California Musical Theatre

Hello Okiefromokla. You asked for other admins to comment at the AN3 case. You may wish to reply there as to whether you are persuaded by any of the responses. I myself would probably consider four reverts in 24 hours to be blockable, but we hardly ever do blocks if protection is in place. If Amadscientist would agree to wait for a Talk page consensus before making further changes, the block could be waived. That is something that you could negotiate, if you want to go in that direction. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I see, I must wait for consensus even though clearly Dionysis refused to wait when the first revert was made. I do not see four reverts. I see three on January 11.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)