User talk:Fran Rogers/Archive 10

Hi Krimpet, you deleted this image on 15 November 2007 on the grounds of CSD 18. There is one problem, however, with this picture at Commons as it has been put under a {{PD-art}} license which requires a source to be mentioned. Can you tell me if any source information was provided at the original image page you have deleted? Thanks for your help, AFBorchert (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding :/ The original image indeed said nothing other than {{PD-art}} regarding its source... no other information was provided. krimpet✽ 08:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You've always come across to me as a thoughtful and kind admin with at least an ounce of common sense, even when you opposed me on my third RFA. Such was the reason why I supported you during Bedford-gate; you're a decent person who came under attack ostensibly for being female. Consequently I'll be willing to give you support when you come under fire for such actions in the future, especially if Bedford Theresa has a go at you; he lost his bit for being sexist, and he seems to be still beating the dead "womenz=evil!" horse. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, is your script working? I have it installed as per the instructions, cleared cache etc, but I don't see the Move image button in image edit pages. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked it for a while, admittedly... it's a rather old tool now, made obsolete by new features in the CommonsHelper tool itself; I suggest using that instead :) krimpet✽ 08:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Broken for me, too :( It's a pain having to use CommonsHelper on its own. I think it broke when all that TUSC stuff came in - Alison ^❤ 08:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know it was still actually in use! I'll try to give it an overhaul - don't want to let my userbase down :) krimpet✽ 08:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It should work now. :) krimpet✽ 20:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to say Hi. I saw you were an admin and RIT alumni. I'm a 3rd year majoring in New Media Interactive Development (Web Development). It's cool to see other people at RIT on Wikipedia. Nice to meet you! :)

--Dan Leveille^TALK 07:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For your bot, you should have it go through the "blocked non-exit nodes" cat regularly and remove the tags if it's been unblocked or switch it if it's back to exit (and notify an admin). Also, it seems to have stopped working period. Kwsn (Ni!) 08:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have made a request for reconsideration on this article. Best regards, --Winger84 (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I was looking for the List of Fictitious Movies article and discovered that you had deleted it last year. I respectfully disagree with this decision. However, most of my experience in Wikipedia is simple editing, so I'm not quite sure of the proper protocol to contest a past deletion. The article on contesting and reviewing deletions is a little confusing, and I don't know if it even applies to such an old deletion.

I'm asking you -- my rival in this -- for help so I don't appear as a stiffnecked troll or something.

Basically, the point I wish to make is that Wikipedia continues to maintains Lists of fictitious plays, books, musicals, and other media; I would argue that the list of films is exactly the same as far as notability.

What is the proper steps to take in this case? Thanks for your help.

Shawn Wilson (ShawnVW (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC))

Could you look at my AE report: here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

When you get a chance, run maintenance/update.php as a dbroot please. Schema fix. :) Kylu (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's late and I'm very tired, but it seems to me that this should find a rangeblock, given this block log? Looking at User talk:4.154.7.116 in particular. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Your actions are currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Inappropriate_accusation_of_abusive_sockpuppetry. John254 02:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Is he blinded by a potential hot Scandinavian cyber love fest? :p Minkythecat (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

[//toolserver.org/~krimpet/rbhelper.php?db=enwiki_p Rangeblock finder] produces Rangeblock finder. However, [[tools:~krimpet/rbhelper.php?db=enwiki_p|Rangeblock finder]] produces Rangeblock finder. Both appear to be the same, but one is obviously different from the other.... --MZMcBride (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a bug in the tools: prefix - it encodes the question mark into %3F, causing Apache to look for a file called rbhelper.php?db=... rather than supplying GET values to rbhelper.php; my suggestion would be to avoid using the prefix. (The rickroll is actually my 404 page. :p) krimpet✽ 18:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey User:PPGtest is operated by me :p. Did I miss something or was this an accident?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ohh, sorry about that. :/ When Grawp was e-mail bombing people with Emailuser a few weeks back, I went through your block log, filtered it to what looked to be all your Grawp blocks, and re-blocked them with e-mail disabled... but it looks like PPGtest slipped through. My apologies :) krimpet✽ 18:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not perfect, but it's better. :D Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a million Lara - that ketchup-drenched plate on there before was an embarrassment to Western New York as a whole. <_< krimpet✽ 18:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you comment at WP:VPT#Custom edit messages? — CharlotteWebb 16:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Damn, woman... it looks great!! Thanks so much! <3 Jennavecia ^(Talk) 22:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :D I enjoyed the challenge! krimpet✽ 00:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Edit summary not working properly please. I suspect this bug's right up the alley of a smart cookie like you! :) Kylu (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

• Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
• Your contributions are also welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Any idea why the CH2.js script is no longer working? I used it for a while a couple of weeks back, it is still in my monobook.js and nothing has changed, but now it doesn't work when I click "move image to commons" tab on an image page. Doesn't seem to be browser specific either as I checked it in both Firefox and Safari. --TimTay (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You deleted a public domain image Image:Shawneetown bank.jpg (work of the US Government last November. I was unaware of this or I would have objected. Please restore the image and refrain from deleting public domain images. --Zeamays (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I took care of it, but next time, try just asking nicely and being more aware of the situation before snapping at someone; Krimpet deleted the image because at the time a copy existed on Commons, and it is fairly standard to remove duplicate images when a Commons version exists. Shereth 17:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to restore the image because Shereth has been kind enough to restore it, but it isn't clear to me why it was deleted. --Zeamays (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

*cuddles Krimpet* -- Gurch (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Bot_Status_Tool — Rlevse • Talk • 17:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at its contributions and it has not made any in a while. Also Category:Tor exit nodes seems out of date. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please see my talk page on meta ... specifically, this thread. I don't override blocks of other admins without good reason and I don't have the background. If this was not an intentional block perhaps you can talk to Dragon695 on your respective talk pages there? Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Krimpet,

I noticed you found the bug with the allow usertalk system, which I wrote. Would you be able to provide me with any tests you did, or other information? I'd like to get this sorted ASAP.

Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) 08:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I found the bug after posting this, so please reply there. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) 09:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We had the same problem at Wikiversity. Could you please comment about it here for our information? It would be very useful. Its hard for us to keep up with some of these issues. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this message is to inform you that User:Foxy Loxy has restarted their RfA. The new discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 2. GlassCobra 10:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:PatPeter; he is requesting an unblock. Claims to have stayed away for 6 months, and pledges better behavior. I have started a discussion at WP:AN. I would appreciate your input, as you were the blocking admin. Later. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Blueboy96 16:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User 24.148.100.86 continues to vandalise. See his talk page--Philogo 00:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Krimpet, I’ve been conversing with Werdna (perma-link to discussion thread here).

There are two templates, {{delimitnum}} and {{val}}, that delimit numbers (add narrow spaces) in values like this: 6.0224438467(40)×10⁻²³ kg. Unfortunately, both these templates must rely upon math-based techniques and both suffer from unpredictable rounding errors. For instance, coding {{val|0.29872813|e=-23|u=kg}} produces 0.29872813×10⁻²³ kg (note the …29) but adding 2 to the value, {{val|2.29872813|e=-23|u=kg}} produces the correct 2.29872813×10⁻²³ kg.

I had told Werdna that all we needed was a character-counting parser function  to use in these templates. Such a parser function would continually be asked the following question: “are there five or more remaining digits in the string?” If so, move over three more digits, add a space, and ask the question again. Details are at bugzilla:15677 and a detailed description of its functionality is here. He responded that the developer community discussed this request and apparently didn’t want to set a new precedent of creating new parser functions as it risked encouraging more such requests. He suggested that he might be able to write an entire magic word but had to back away from that offer, citing that too much is on his plate right now. He suggested I contact you or Mr.Z-man. I thought I would start with the first name on his short list: you.

Can you help in any way? Whereas it would be nice to see an easier-to-use template as is described in bugzilla:15677, looking at the number of articles that currently link to {{val}} and {{delimitnum}}, it would probably be better, if we were going to just make one template, to just re-write {val} with the character-counting capability. All it needs is to not choke on big numbers and not have rounding errors. The best outcome of all, would be to have both delimitnum and val. Greg L (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

  Hello! Your submission of Lilacine Amazon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if you're still online, please make sure to stop by T:TDYK and address the concerns raised with your nomination, so that it doesn't get removed! Thanks, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I got some e-mail from this schmuck earlier today. The e-mail address was (drumroll, please): Grawp@live.com. Yes, another Grawp wannabe. The e-mail was nothing but a bunch of HTML code; I suspect this little freak was trying to send a Grawpesque browser-crasher. Just so ya know that the little darlings on Encyclopedia Dramatica and 4chan haven't quite gone away. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That e-mail address indicates this actually is "the" Grawp (formerly User:JarlaxleArtemis). Thankfully, he doesn't seem to realize that it's impossible to send HTML e-mail through the Special:EmailUser function. -_- krimpet✽ 03:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice to learn that the Wiki-gnomes in the IT department were using their noodles on this one. I've blocked the account and if I get any more, I'll block them too. Nothing terribly offensive about a bunch of computer code, after all. :) Thanks for the update. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, Krimpet. I'm a little confuzzed, and wonder if you can help me understand: this appears to show that Dddike (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked. However, this appears to show that Dddike is an alias of Regushee, who does not appear to be blocked. I've no recent beef with Regushee/Dddike, though s/he certainly has made problems in the past. Are there two Dddikes, or am I seeing double, or...? Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

...for relieving the horrid tedium of combing through article history at Rick Santorum to identify the point of introduction of a copyright violation. I appreciate the laugh. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

When you block known Grawp socks, could you protect their talk pages from editing? Grawp and his wannabes tend to use unblock requests to insert HTML to crash browsers, and it's a pain to find a lot of unblock requests like that. Cheers Fritzpoll (talk) 12:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

And this morning, User talk:Dddike was (again?) maliciously turned into a browser-crashing mess by Dddike. I rolled it back, but...! (linked to Dddike talk page hist rather than WPlink to talk page, just in case) —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C15:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Just FYI, I mentioned you user talk page at WP:AN#Indefinitely semi-protected user talk pages since it's one of a great number of indef semi protected user talk pages. I'm explicitly not complaining or reporting, yours just happened to be one that I used as an example, since it's in principle against WP:SEMI.
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 22:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You also happen to have protected one of the other examples I used. Again, just FYI. Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 22:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some questions at the bottom of the talk page for this script - does it still work? Cirt (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I take your point completely; but I think that we are so often up our own butts here that some constructively meant satire is a valuable safety valve as long as it doesn't get pointy. In the UK, where I live, for example, politics was never the same again after That Was the Week That Was comprehensively and sometimes cruelly debunked the status quo. I'm not suggesting that should happen here, because we have enough outside critics (if we care). However, the occasional well-meant sideways critique should not be treated as being evil; it's one mechanism by which societies tend to self-analyse and self-regulate. I think your addition is a good start, but might benefit from amplification to demonstrate that although the goal is to build an encyclopedia, there's no reason to be po-faced bunters in doing so. Cheers --Rodhullandemu 23:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What evidence, exactly, justifies your block of Kristen Eriksen? In any event, the "e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page" options, without any evidence of talk page or e-mail abuse, are inappropriate, as they prevent her from appealing the block. John254 23:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's completely appropriate, because he's sockpuppet of a serial cross-wiki vandal. krimpet✽ 23:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of what evidence? Per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Confidential_evidence, "The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence which cannot be peer-reviewed." John254 00:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a report on the administrators' noticeboard concerning this block. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Inappropriate_block. John254 00:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Find something more productive to do. You're wasting everyone's time. krimpet✽ 00:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Krimpet. It's been two months since you protected Rochester Institute of Technology against moves. Is it too soon to ask for unprotection? Powers ^T 15:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeremy the move vandal is still at it, sadly. :/ But on the bright side, I don't think RIT will be renaming itself any time soon, unless that plan to rename to South Henrietta Institute of Technology goes through... krimpet✽ 05:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I restored the image of Conservape-tan to the WP:Wikipe-tan directory not realizing that it had been debated and deleted once before. Face told me about it, and said that it might just get deleted again. Since you're the author, I decided to let you know that the image is back. If you don't want it there anymore, you can just remove it and that'll be OK with me. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Krimpet,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! :-)

  Hello! Your submission of A.W. Underwood at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dravecky (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you have deleted the content on my userpage. It had been vandalised, but in the future could please check with people before completely deleting their pages? Thanks ;) --Iron Chef (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Krimpet/flaggedrevs, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Krimpet/flaggedrevs and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Krimpet/flaggedrevs during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. roux   11:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I closed the debate (like the one for Promethean's "no"-template) as Snow-keep. You should read the last comment by Stifle (talk · contribs) regarding the licensing though. Regards SoWhy 12:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Following the deletion of the "Clitty" redirect, does that mean that you agree that "boobies" should also be removed from Booby (disambiguation)?. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No. krimpet✽ 01:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The following note was left on my talk page. As you were the deleting admin, I am forwarding it to you. The RfD mentioned in the note is located at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 December 26#Didiot → Laura Didio. --Allen3 ^talk 00:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a "heads up" - Didiot was deleted by User:Krimpet hours after you closed the RfD as "keep" (and this was less than two weeks after the first RfD's "keep" close on the same redirect). I didn't think that an admin can trump two consensus closures - and this seems to indicate that the redirect needs to be protected. I'd leave a message on Krimpet's talk page, but it's semiprotected and my work computer rejects cookies... It just seems to be a shame that policy is being ignored here... Thanks for your time and understanding. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it due to BLP - it was a disparaging redirect with no sources justifying that this "attack nickname... used by advocates of open source software" is notable. BLP trumps a couple of low-participation RfDs, both of which only had a single "keep" vote, and one of which was closed early. If you disagree, you can start a deletion review. krimpet✽ 01:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you check the target article? It appeared not only to have the epithet cited, it even had it discussed in a NPOV manner (referring to the contention between DiDio and some Linux advocates). That seemed the justification for the "Keep" in the first RfD; I was surprised that a new RfD opened two days after the close... and urged a "Speedy keep" on the basis of WP:Speedy keep. Well, it seems that the IP started the DRV - I will check over there, but it seems to me that a bad precedent was set by speedying after the "keeps" following prolonged (in time) discussion, though. B.Wind (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted due to "Patent nonsense:"

• 1. Total nonsense, i.e., text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. This includes sequences such as "sdfgdsfkgdyhgdkhgdsklhsklgroflmaolololol;;;'dsfgdfg", in which keys of the keyboard have been pressed with no regard for what is typed.

and/or

• 2. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.

My personal user page had facts about me that were completely and totally true. It wasn't nonsense or gibberish. You may have considered it to be little silly, but it was still factual, and it was my own personal user page. If you have more accurate information about myself than what was presented on that page, I'd encourage you to edit it to increase it's accuracy.

Please restore it. If you don't want to, please give me specific reasons why. If it was in haste, no worries. That page has stood with little alteration (except for when I changed my hairstyle) for years. It mystifies me that you deleted it. Durty Willy (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you still haven't responded to my request. My user page was never a candidate for speedy deletion, per the guidelines for user page ownership, CMT, and especially the Wikipedia AGF policy. If it was vandalized it should have been reverted, if it was in violation of user page guidelines, you should have contacted me or gone RfD. Please restore it or provide an explanation. Durty Willy (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your comment when it was at the top. Restored. krimpet✽ 04:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry for putting my request at the top. Happy new year! Durty Willy (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

THIS PAGE WAS BELOW THE MINIMUM KAT QUOTA BUT I HAZ FIXED IT FOR YOU. Ceiling Cat (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That peeking Jimbo head is creepy as hell, especially when you're not expecting it. Gah! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, you blocked User: 203.111.235.50, which I have agree with, but the block log shows a strange duration.[1], sou you may want to double check what the outcome means and if it is what you intended. Or if such info can be readily translated into a time, I'd be interested to know how. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You claim on your userpage here to be sixteen years old, and you uploaded a pornographic picture claimed to be of yourself on Commons. I hope you realize that this is highly illegal under US law... please don't do this again. Fran Rogers (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed that the photo was of me. I only stated that It was my original work. Please undelete it immediately per WP:NOTCENSORED ... Misty Willows ^talk 22:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it isn't you, you'd need to provide documentation from the person in the picture that they've given their consent and that they're also over the age of majority, per Commons policy. (And if they did, they would probably be in serious hot water legally for providing pornography to a minor. Wikimedia would rather not get tangled up in these sorts of legal issues, especially over a photo that was small and of dubious educational value.) Fran Rogers (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no person in the picture, it's not even a fucking photograph, it's a pastel drawing enhanced by photoshop. ... Misty Willows ^talk 23:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, we're not buying it; that's clearly no pastel drawing. -_- Oversighters have removed the image permanently, so the discussion is moot. Please don't upload explicit self-portraits again. Fran Rogers (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"masturbation close-up". A pastel drawing? We're not stupid. —Dark 04:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Your attention would be welcome at Misty Willows' talk page. She has since been blocked, but is continuing to assert at that page that the image was not a picture. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

 

She's lying through her teeth. As I said when I deleted her latest upload on Commons (and blocked her, since she was warned), child porn processed with a Photoshop filter is still child porn. Fran Rogers (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In relation to the above matter, I have requested Arbitration. Please see here where you are listed as a party. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for stepping on your toes... I'll just let you fix it up. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I screwed up the /temp page I created to keep it protected while I deleted/restored... forgot to cascade protection. :p My mistake. Fran Rogers (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of protecting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tosh.0‎? It's getting vandalized too. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey. I see you blocked Ikip (talk · contribs) tonight for violating an arbitration restriction; did you log the block here also? —C.Fred (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. I wasn't sure whether to add it there, but I see the part I cited was under "remedies," so I'll add an entry. Fran Rogers (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

May I inquire as to why you fully protected Tosh.0? I am wondering because the article's history shows no content dispute or vandalism by established accounts. Thanks. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the (dozens of) vandalized revisions right before protecting the page. Fran Rogers (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, well there's the drawbacks of no longer being an admin. Thanks for the quick response. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I disapprove of this, and think you should go fix it. NW (Talk) 04:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Back in 2007 a rather irresponsible Commons user copied File:PazandakGrader1918.jpg to Commons without copying source or description info and slapping an unsupported license on the image different from that here. And you deleted the copy here as being a duplicate of an image on Commons. I've just taken care of the copy on Commons which had been listed for deletion there. Probably old news, but I wanted to mention it to you just in case to keep an eye out for such bad "copying" to Commons and not delete the local copy here if the Commons copy is badly flawed until/unless the Commons copy can be fixed. Thanks for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Defender 911 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, ♠TomasBat 01:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask a question if I may, but I'll understand if you'd prefer not to answer, or would rather answer via e-mail. (I asked User:NuclearWarfare, but they suggested I give you a try.)

If an editor's account is blocked here, so that they cannot create new accounts, what happens if they go to another wiki, say Commons, and create a new account there, where they are not blocked? Would the global login system automatically create the account here, despite the block?

This has nothing to do with my account, by the way, I'm curious about a brand-new editor's account. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think auto-creation is impacted when account creation is blocked, but I'm not 100% sure unfortunately. Best to try it out and see. Fran Rogers (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The user I was concerned about has been blocked in any event. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Did be break 3RR? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fran, Personally, I think the changes were well intended and neutral. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd add to that - as you've posted elsewhere on your antipathy to cruft, I feel this makes you non-impartial where it comes to editors such as Ikip, and hence involved. So I hereby ask you to reconsider the block. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Addressing all of the above:

1. Peregrine, he didn't break 3RR as far as I can see, but 3RR isn't a hard-and-fast rule. Okip's reverts were over multiple pages, and weren't clear-cut reverts, but they were edit warring. (The only reason "3RR" was in the block message was because I used the standard drop-down reason: "Edit warring or violation of the three-revert rule". Now that I think of it, that's confusingly worded, since you don't need to break 3RR to edit war.)
2. DGG, he was asked to stop moving talk page content around by NuclearWarfare and Risker, and continued to revert them multiple times.
3. Casliber, my or anyone else's opinion on "cruft" isn't the issue here, it's edit warring. I haven't been following this whole BLP RfC at all, and I'm not interested in partisanship. [IO]kip came on my radar in the first place because of his rapid-fire spamming a few weeks ago (when I blocked him for twelve hours), so when NW and Risker started warning him, I noticed on my watchlist. I don't understand how this is "non-impartial."

Fran Rogers (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This whole debate is polarising - generally folks feel a natural antagonism to those on 'the other side' - so when there is a block which has required some interpretation - e.g. as in multiple-reverting-not-exactly-3RR - I'd steer on the side of safety. If I blocked someone deletion-minded for a situation which could have been interpreted either way (i.e. equivocal reason for blocking), I'd let someone else do it to avoid any perception of impropriety. Especially with no warning first, even a succinct and unequivocal 'Knock it off right now or take a 24 hour rest'. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Fran, would you be willing to take this to an admin board for community input? Quite a few Wikipedians have expressed doubts about this block--not all of whom are Okip's ideological soulmates. You're right that edit warring blocks can be nuanced decisions. Might be best if a broader spectrum weigh in on the decision. Durova⁴¹² 03:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it looks like he's unblocked now, so never mind. Best wishes, Durova⁴¹² 03:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you deleted [2] because it was on Commons, but it appears that the image on Commons was a copy-vio of the image on Wikipedia (i.e. was falsely attributed). DuncanHill (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You deleted my photo, supposedly on the grounds of it being a duplicate of one in the commons, but the one in the commons was a copy of mine, and now the only existing photo (and the one currently profiled in a very large number of articles) gives credit to the guy/girl who copied it from me (and, as an aside, has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism) and me, as the actual original copyright holder, appear nowhere. Would you please help me? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Undeleted. Sorry, the bot misled me into deleting it back in 2007. Fran Rogers (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted -- all the best! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fran Rogers, I noticed your creation of filter 296. Unfortunately, we are really at the absolute limits of how much the filter can handle, and have been working very hard to compress the filters so that edits do not go through unchecked. Do you have any objections to me merging this into the already-existing filter 52? This would save valuable conditions. If you're trying to detect something in particular beyond just blocking the edits, perhaps I can be of assistance in crafting a more efficient filter. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)