Pgk

Can you help me to restore the iSuppli page as we feel that it though being a subsidiary of IHS Inc. it still is relevant for providing users with information on iSuppli. We will be improving it over time and keeping it Neutral and Verifiable MuzzammilB (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC).Reply

Hmm. I meant the Disney reference, which, to me, isn't much of a stretch. Anyway, the presence of the account really doesn't hurt me, so I'm inclined to just drop the matter. I just figured I'd explain my rationale. Thanks for the archive. Cheers, Random Hippopotamus 09:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

so u cant help me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiMan53 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

Is the bot supposed to update pages transcluding the current templates? It seems to have done so for some, but not for others... --pgk 14:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it updates the transclusions too. First it moves a whole bunch of userboxes, and then it updates the transclusions. I'm just about to start fixing all the transclusions to the newly moved userboxes now. —METS501 (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok thanks, you might like to consider sticking a large banner at the top of this talk page (when running) and on the bots page to explain the processing sequence a little, and that patience may be required, that may prevent the bot getting blocked and avoid some of the questions. We all know how critical these pretty little boxes are to the smooth functioning of wikipedia. --pgk 14:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that's a good idea. —METS501 (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I only know one of them and that's Taros, don't jump to conclusions so rapidly friend Masier 14:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fool you? Fool you? Why are you having a go at me, I didn't ask for people to vote for me. Some weird DJ nominated me and all of his friends followed, its not my fault Masier 15:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You beat me to the block of of the Ampligen vandal — well done! Be advised it is absolutely certain that Marin655biclonesredlabs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also Scientist 15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Zarzine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); and it is almost certain that it is also Zanzibarlo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ➥the Epopt 16:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi PGk That Ampligen Vandal was also me. I first didn't know how to tackle those kind of problems of poorly conceived and documented entries in Wikipedia (I first thought user Thedreamdied was an Ampligen basher)and carried on like a madman. I have gradually learnt some very basic editing techniques and have regained my balance. My apologies for the inconvenience Wamper 11:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed you were taking part in the discussion about fair use images. I recently decided I should get involved in admin work on such images some time, and put together a little page with my own take on the issue, here: User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Fair use. Knowledgable feedback on whether I got it halfway right would be appreciated! Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, hadn't seen that, thanks for that link, and for your commments yesterday. Will work them in when I find the time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why was Berth Milton Jr. deleted?

Peter ^Isotalo 00:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Remember him?? Well, I've ordered him to apologize for all his vandalism. He has apologised, and has stayed away from the site since last September. He said "Wikipedia is no fun any more. I wont come back.." He says he is really sorry for everything, and didn't understand what the site was about anyway. He admitted most of his edits were copied from other sources, and that he didn't get any fun out of it. He does have mental problems/illness and is only 13 years old, so that explains why he is the way he is. I am really sorry about it. I'm not asking for him to be unbanned/blocked/whatever your banning system is, I'm just giving you the info you need to know.

Well, I dont know if you think it's good or bad news, but, there you go, at least, one of your worries is gone. I'd stay around, but don't really understand this place much either, I'll try and learn its culture. BTW, I'm a relative of his, and he now understands that the Internet isn't a place where you can just create nonsense for the sake of it, especially on a place like this. --Shadowforce 00:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your reply. He does not have an account here now, I know that. He's not interested in being a member here anymore. You said that what I said seemed strange/unbelievable, well, no, it isn't. Anyhow, I repeat, he is not (and will not be) using Wikipedia again!!. Please just accept what I say. Thank you for banning/blocking/whatever you did to stop him editing here. --Shadowforce 10:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Could you place a notice on user's Talk pages when you block them? It saves other editors leaving pointless warnings, and other admins the annoyance of going through the block procedure in order to discover that it wasn't needed. Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well done for blocking User:Wikipedia administrators is in love with Kate McAuliffe. I was just about to find an admin to block them. Sorted now though; thanks. Retiono Virginian 20:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Found yet another bad username: User:Don't feed the Administrators. Retiono Virginian 20:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think you are over exaggerating when you block these users, they must be friends and will follow each other. I think you should leave them be and not blame me. Masier 15:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm in it for the long haul. Most likely you'll get to more of 'em before I do.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Pgk. I recently saw a new user created on the log that claimed to be a bot of Tony Sidaway. I left a message on Tony's page but I see he's been out for quite some time. I don't want to jump to conclusions but the contributions strike me as bogus. I would appreciate to know how you feel about it?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reverting my page. --EscapingLife 23:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Axl 19:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

[1] Thought you might have a comment here. You always seem to say exactly what I wanted to say, but better. :) pschemp | talk 18:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. How come this user can still edit? Xiner (talk, email) 20:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, of course. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 20:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you don't understand, let me state it clearly: the hard work which was contributed by myself and other editors was mercilessly removed, WITHOUT DISCUSSION. I have been personally insulted in the History section. Is this appropriate Wiki behaviour? (What about "be nice"? I have worked in harmony with other editors.

Please look at his comments on the History page of Musical Notation. This is clearly racist, derogatory, and destructive to "good faith". I do not believe this to be a matter of an editorial dispute. Why were there so many deletions and additions, without ONE WORD on the talk page?

The truth is on the History page. READ his remarks!

However, I WILL TRY MY BEST to resolve the issue...but certainly personal insults and inappropriate language should NOT be tolerated on Wikipedia.

I WILL make an effort to establish a co-operative approach with this individual. Time will reveal the results. Prof.rick 11:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello again,

Yes, whenever I edit I try to enter into thorough discussions with other editors on the Talk Page, until we come to agreement. Most of the editing I did on the Music Notation page was done this way. If I make an edit without discussing it (because sometimes it seems there are no other editors there to discuss it with), I leave a detailed explanation of my editing on the Talk Page, along with my reasons, and await feedback.

But how can you "work with" an editor who NEVER uses the talk page, undoes the hard work of others (which has been arrived at by concensus), and even deletes your remarks from the talk page???

If you check the talk page now (at Musical Notation), you will see I have made an attempt to reconcile this conflict.

However, the racial accusations, personal insults, and demeaning attitude expresses in the Edit Summaries do NOT make this easy! (What ever happened to "be nice"?) Prof.rick 12:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I noticed you deleted List of Drum Circle Facilitators. Its talkpage is still showing up in my Watchlist. Could you delete it also? Thanks, Ronbo76 14:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was just wondering why this article was deleted. Is there a way I can have it brought back or is it not allowed? DrivenTooFar 18:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you please take a look at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Snowbot and see if the modification made to the initial approval request are ok? I've asked to be allowed to use pywikipedia and awb, and in the initial request (approved for trial by xaoxflux), I had asked only for awb. Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 22:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've finished the trial run now. Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 11:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

There's nothing that administrators would want here, even if they did they can click reversion and see it right? so no biggy. HayasaArmen 07:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what you mean. I don't know if it would be useful, it looks like some stuff might be of interest. The viewing of deleted revisions is awkward so it's easier not to. I can't see any problem just leaving the page blank. --pgk 11:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for that, much appreciated. 1B6 17:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am a friend of User:KylieK and she has contacted me by email, and requested that i assist her in getting back her account, she also feels that it is unfair of you to not allow her to appeal (by placing a block on her talk page). I have a few questions of my own first, i am familiar with the situation but could you please tell me how you can tell 100% that she is a sockpuppet?, Besides the Sports Trainer article their was nothing linking her to bradles_01? Hoping for a quick reply. (Spencer 02 05:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC))Reply

There's an article at Hudson12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that looks like a sockpuppet notice. Did you actually intend this to be at User:Hudson12 instead of in article namespace? You might want to check it out. The same goes for Chrisfoster12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Your points on WP:ANI were well-made and constructive. You're the voice of reason in a lot of discussions on Wikipedia, and that I commend you for. --sunstar net^talk 21:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear PGK:

I'm writing to understand why you deleted the reference page for my magazine, The Nibble. The code you used was G11, "Self Promotion." I hope you will spare a few minutes to understand my confusion, and give me some feedback that may help reinstate the page—since other magazines in the industry similar to The Nibble have Wikipedia pages. In sum, I would like to re-submit the page for your review, deleting anything that might be construed as self-promotion, although you will see from my examples below (e.g., the Zingerman’s Wikipedia page has links to purchase products from their website) why I did not believe that The Nibble page “broke any rules” when I submitted the content.

BACKGROUND

We at The Nibble are educators and users of Wikipedia ourselves. We are very sensitive to your content and your readers. We felt that the page we created was extremely helpful to Wikipedia readers, with 1500+ words about the specialty food industry--content that exists nowhere else on your site and is very hard to find elsewhere. Perhaps two paragraphs were about The Nibble itself, in the same manner as Wikipedia pages for other magazines in our field, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saveur and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook%27s_Illustrated.

However, rather than supply minimal “stub” overviews like those two examples, The Nibble provided considerable information to anyone wanting to know about specialty foods--a $35 billion industry--including a link to the industry's trade organization website. We updated the page from time to time as new information became available, and only found out our page had been deleted when we went there today to add new industry statistics.

By the way, The Nibble sells nothing and charges nothing for our publication and 2,000+ pages of archives: We are pure journalism, helping to raise awareness for small producers and artisans and to educate consumers on how to choose olive oil, cheese, etc. We have developed more than 40 food glossaries that exist nowhere else, from chocolate and caviar to the different types of culinary oils and chile peppers. Ours is free information, just like Wikipedia, and is considered by consumers as well as the trade to be a unique and extremely valuable resource (many executives from Whole Foods, Starbucks and other major companies in the specialty food arena read it). If “self promotion” is interpreted as our having written that “subscriptions are free,” we can easily delete that line or paragraph rather than have the entire page deleted.

CONFUSION REGARDING CONTENTS

I would appreciate better understanding your decision to delete The Nibble, while retaining hundreds of pages that reference other periodicals and retail companies like Zingerman's Delicatessen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zingerman%27s), some of which actually have links to sell their products on their Wikipedia pages!

I have read the criteria documentation on your website and thought I was following it. But now I am genuinely confused. Is it a question of WHO is allowed to have a page, or WHAT is on the page? For example, Fizzy Lizzy, a product we have reviewed in The Nibble, has a page that is factual, but it ostensibly promotes a particular soft drink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizzy_Lizzy). Otherwise, why have a standalone page for Fizzy Lizzy in Wikipedia instead of simply including a mention in an article about soft drinks? Juliette Rossant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliette_Rossant) has a page that promotes her: It includes links to her website and her blog. Does it escape being considered “self promotion” if the connection is in a link, rather than in copy that says “click here to visit the website/click here toread Juliette’s blog?"

Are there particular words or sentences that are offenders? E.g., if you say that “Subscriptions to The Nibble are free,” that is a fact, and it is different from most publications which charge. But is that promotional? Given that Zingerman’s page had links for consumers to directly buy from their Mail Order, Catering and other departments, I didn’t think so...but when my page was removed for "self promotion" while other magazine pages are allowed to explain that they exist, it is the only thing I can think of. Is it the fact that we created the page rather than a third party—-because there are many numerous parties who would be happy to create the page.

NEXT STEPS

I would like to turn The Nibble entry into an acceptable one: We invested a lot of time in preparing an educational brief on our industry (specialty food), rather than the stubs that exist for so many articles. And since you allow pages of so many other food-related magazines, I don’t believe your decision to delete our page has anything to do with our own well-regarded magazine (I am happy to provide industry references if you require them). So, with your guidance, I would like to:

(1) Re-submit the page, deleting anything that I feel might be perceived by you as self-promotional, or (b) Get more direct input from you.

I realize that you are very busy and appreciate your time.

Sincerely, Karen Hochman Editorial Director

Both User:58.169.2.254 and User:58.169.35.253 have been on recent vandal sprees, both now blocked 31 hours. I'm not sure how it works, but the 58.169.xxx.xxx range needs watching. I see they are requesting to be unblocked. I also posted this to Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit. - Dan D. Ric 13:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Although I find it peculiar that I never reverted any of the IP edits, so I can't figure out any reason for my page to be vandalized.. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 16:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Uhhh...does Invader Soap has an expiration date? 'Cuz there is a message that said:

With an expiry time of indefinite.

I couldn't understand that. 24.251.234.86 23:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Gamer Junkie 06:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, thank-you for responding so promptly and being so polite.
My reasoning for suggesting what I have, is based on the fact that for the two times that I asked for help I got one response and then nothing. I checked to see if the users were still online (by checking contributions) and found that they were but they hadn't responded. I also checked to see if they were still responding to other requests for help (which they were). It just feels very frustrating. I understand that people are busy, I do. I just felt like my requests weren't too much to deal with, I'd given all the relevant information and nothing was happening. To my knowledge, most/all the admins I've come into contact with have been male. The male user that I feel has bullied me somewhat told me to "stop crying under my desk".
One question, can you really not tell my gender from my user name?
Lastly, I'm sorry if I've caused any offence. I generally keep unpleasant feelings to myself but I guess I was just quite frustrated. --Seraphim Whipp 20:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I realise just how foolish I sounded. See at the bottom of this thread here. No more stupidity for me! (I hope...) :-)

Seraphim Whipp 00:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your comments are appreciated and well-received. I still think the articles should be split into two and it can be done well, providing that they are well-linked such as providing links from Dallas Green, alexisonfire etc. I think the content does need a chance to get expanded. I will scour the net for anything and everything that can be classed as encyclopediac in order to flesh it out a bit, in fact, for both articles, Dallas Green and City and Colour. Can I ask your opinion on this? --Seraphim Whipp 21:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. If you have time, can I ask you some about Zazzer? Thanks. -- Whereizben - Chat with me 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, here goes. Hopefully this is not wrong of me to be asking... I noticed him first when he applied to be an admin and got nowhere with that. I was looking through some of his edits today and found that page with the blatant copyright infringement, and then looked at his talk archives and noticed that he put himself as an adopter, and adopted two people, which I though was against the guidelines. He also has over 500 edits mostly because of things like 230+ edits to his own user and talk pages - Edit Count, and he had a block that he explained away. I just thought it would not be right for someone who has put up copyrighted material and who in reality has fewer edits than the 500, and has ignored the policy on adopting a user, to be an adopter at all. Thanks for the help, whenever you get to it. -- Whereizben - Chat with me 19:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Great, I appreciate you taking your time to help me with this. -- Whereizben - Chat with me 19:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK so partially I can't read, it says they should not currently be adoptees, so this may change what people say, and I apologize if I taking up too much time. -- Whereizben - Chat with me 20:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You recently blocked Slavophobian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and they have asked to be unblocked. Upon review of their talk page, block log and contributions, it is not immediately clear to me why you chose to block this user. I'd appreciate it if you would explain your rationale on their user talk page, and advise on whether or not their unblock request should be granted. Thank you, [Post-boilerplate addendum: I see the username is a problem, do you object to an unblock to change it?] Sandstein 22:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Algebraist 18:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Look at this. [2]. Retiono Virginian 22:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey man! Whats up? Anyways, I recreated M107 .50 caliber, but this time going to other sites and rewording it. I also did some other research and came up with this new article. Take a look. -- Cheers! :) Zazzer 22:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

dude I'm in a network i have not edited anything. geez.new admins!! when i edit i use my account because i am also an administrator. For longer than you have been.

Can you take a look at Image:Edward Speleers.jpg I was looking at it and I noticed you have looked at it before and put that a source was needed. The uploader appears to just have removed that tag without sourcing it, and I am not sure if I am allowed to/should do something with that. Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 22:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just in case any of you haven't seen the new bot request to track the bot approvals process, this is just a reminder to use the correct templates at {{BAG Admin Tools}} so the bot can correctly identify the stage of bot approval. Also, the approved requests section has been moved to a separate page at Wikipedia:Bots/Approved bot requests for the Bureaucrats to watchlist. When approving a request, make sure you remove it from the main page and place it on that page so that a bureaucrat can flag it. Thanks. MetsBot 16:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've put this user up at WP:AIV. Riley Workman is a well-known victim of an unsolved British murder. The page the user created was simply to poke fun at him. I bet the picture is a copyright violation, too. Sam Blacketer 10:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why isn't helpmebot or Tangobot in IRC not working in the Wikipedia boot camp room? Thanks. Real96 17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, it works now. Thanks! Real96 23:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've got an issue I'd love to hear some more on at:Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group#Another_second_opinion_needed if you have a moment. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

What about the headshot on this article was invalid, and what could be done to make it valid? Hewinsj 06:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the quick response. At the time I just figured it would be useful to have an image there, but should have made sure it fit the fair use criteria. I don't mind that it was taken down and will try to keep what you said in mind in the future. Hewinsj 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You blocked my other account for no reason. You're a bad administrator.

Just a heads-up that I made a small change in the {{DRV top}} (or {{drt}}) template: the level 4 header, with a (closed) marker, is now part of the template. So any discussion can now be closed by simply replacing the four equal signs on each side of the title into the the template text:

 ====[[Title]]====

is changed to

 {{subst:drt|[[Title]]|Decision}}

which turns into

Hope that makes closures a bit easier. Comments and questions please here. Take care, trialsanderrors 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

For reverting vandalism to my userpage. The Behnam 18:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You have apparently deleted an image that I posted earlier today, File:Sonning cutting map.png. I find it grossly insulting that you should have done this without explanation. I am, I believe, a reasonably level and responsible contributor to Wikipedia and I take your failure to provide an explanation as calculated contempt. Nick 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You will, I hope, understand that I wrote what I wrote above in error, under the wrongful impression that you were the person who deleted the image in question. I apologise unreservedly for this mistake. I will now make my views on this matter known to User:A_Train whose disgraceful and insulting behaviour was responsible for this sad state of affairs. Nick 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am still new at this so forgive my lack of knowledge. Why was the page on Thormodsgard (former Dean of the University of North Dakota Law School) deleted? It was candidate for speedy deletion, but I had contested this and explained why there was not a copyright violation. Since it appears as though you were the administrator who deleted the page, please let me know why this happened. Thanks much. Cujhanso 01:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a deletion review of MarchFirst. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rhobite 04:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Pgk, I actually had opened a RfC on Justanother. It was approved and being commented on when Justanother requested it be deleted and it was (this is a long complicated issue). After that, and after getting no response about what exactly was wrong with it from an uninvolved party, I decided maybe I was doing something wrong which is why I requested the WP:ER on my actions. Please understand, I'm not looking for comments on him but on me. Anynobody 06:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would like to emphasize that the point of the WP:ER I requested was to gain comments on how I have behaved toward Justanother, whether or not his behavior is good or bad I'm interested in outside opinions on how I handled it. I do not want this as a back door RfC, that would be inappropriate and an abuse of both WP:DR and WP:ER. I am in the process of setting up an RfC on him whether or not this WP:ER gets undeleted, why would I need this as a "back-door" when I still plan on going in through the front? I don't mean for that to sound sarcastic, but the logic does sound pretty absurd for a back door RfC. Justanother feels that any time I mention his name I am attacking him. I frankly think he is wrong, and have tried to be as fair and civil as possible with him. He has managed to evade the attempts at WP:DR I've made for some time, so now I want to know if I'm doing something wrong. I apologize for having to bold that statement, but it seems like many people are accepting his notion that I am gaming the system somehow. On another board or through a WP:RFC I'll address my beliefs about him. WP:ER is about me and is not a RfC on another user. Please also understand that nobody discussed the intent of the ER with me before deleting it. Anynobody 09:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

This user is requesting unblocking, and has been caught in a hard IP block of yours based on a checkuser situation. I just thought I'd notify you, since I can't really judge the situation. Mangojuice^talk 17:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you're around, check your inbox. (regarding FusionWarrior) --Michael Billington (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Scary Movie 5. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sumnjim 19:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just saying hi. Come visit me in #wikimedia-social some time. :) --CableModem^_^ 11:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello PGK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pgk

I am writing to you, because I saw that you were involved in a content dispute you helped resolve in 2006. I apologize for using a sock puppet, but I beg of you to ignore this fact for just a moment. Maybe you will understand.

There is still, this annoying debate to include or exclude an article on "Artmastering". Now, It has become a chaos and there are accusations of spam and rants by all the editors involved.

If you are interested to mediate, then here are the facts:

It appears that the main participants are divided in two camps; those that favor the inclusion of "Artmastering", which is comprised of a section, with questionable external links to the "Artmastering" articles on the web, and those who oppose it.

From what I've gathered, those who want inclusion, and made it known in the past as well as the present, are conformed by:

1. Mike Sorensen
2. Biggy P. (Apparently a sock-puppet to either Sorensen or Soyecki)
3. 66.214.253.155 and 66.214.253.51 IP addresses, apparently of Art Soyecki owner of "Artmastering".
4. Voy7 (Presumably Art Soyecki owner of "Artmastering Studio").
5. [[3]]75.4.209.107 IP address of BiggyP a/k/a Biggy P.
6. Mr.Strong A confirmed sock puppet account by a mysterious editor.

The opposing camp is conformed by:

1. HanKwang Who voiced strong opposition, but apparently abandoned this subject, see [4] and [5]
2. 72.24.112.119 and 72.24.231.249 (Apparently IPs of Stephen J. Baldassarre a/k/a Silent Bob of GMC Studio).
3. Evinatea (Presumably Edward Vinatea of www.MusicMasteringOnline.com)
4. Jrod2 (Inconclusive)

There have been 2 sysops that tried to mediate: Fang Aili and Omegatron

Fang Aili was overwhelmed by the editors behavior and quit. However, Omegatron stayed on the discussion and did what he could to help. Now, it seems, he lost interest.

I'd like to add a few pointers. Although Evinatea was accused of spamming and sock-puppetry [6], he admitted being at fault but for lack of knowledge of the rules. Is this the typical spammer's behavior? [7]. He also has not attempted to post new links again. It's safe to say, that he tried to clean up the table from spammers but instead, his chair legs were sawn off right under him.

Because of Evinatea's comments and apparent naive behavior, I got to understand the problem better.

Evinatea, early this past March 2007, after being accused of spam and sock-puppetry by Mike Sorensen, accused him also of spamming, but on behalf of the Art Soyecki "Artmastering" studio, creating a rather messy and cluttered argument that barely made its point. I don't think you should bother reading it, but just in case: (See User:Evinatea/Sockpuppetry for the sockpuppetry accusations and dispute).

Instead, please read these comments at the audio mastering talk page by user Jrod2 (Link to article Talk page).

He seemed a good argument Mike Sorensen and "those" who want "Artmastering".

Just, one more thing. I really don't know whether is relevant or not, but I saw this tag ([8]) today, and at the risk of sounding like I am making accusations against a sysop, let me bring to your attention the following:

There is something about Omegatron, I can't quite place it, maybe these are just mere coincidences, but in my view, his behavior has not been consistent with the behavior of a fair sysop. Also, the actions of user Evinatea, might have inadvertenty offended this sysop and resulted in bias against him, or at the very least, total indifference on his claim and arguments

You'll see for yourself.

It all might have started on March 9, 2007 Evinatea writes Omegatron, asking not to undelete suspicious links to commercial web sites he deleted. Apparently Evinatea had no idea that those external links were placed by Omegatron himself. By his own accord, Omegatron likes to include external links regardless whether or not, they point to web site businesses. [9]

(17:58) March 9. Later, Evinatea asks Omegatron why he posted those links in the first place (He does this, through a conversation with another user on the dBFS talk page) [10]

(8:48) March 12, 2007. Another user agrees with Evinatea and deleted Omegatron links [11]

(16:02) March 16, 2007. Omegatron not only re-posts the deleted links, he adds more [12].

Watch this:

(15:56) March 16, 2007 Changed Wikipedia Policy on external links.
[13]

(17:08), 16 March 2007. After changing policy, he reminds all editors to abide by external   link "guidelines".
[14]

Is this behavior consistent with honesty? 

March 19, 2007 Omegatron advises Evinatea to reveal his name for everyone to know and he also gives him a block warning: [15]

(23:24) March 19, 2007 Edits and reverts technical concepts on the audio mastering page. [16]

(18:30) March 21, 2007 Warns Evinatea [17]

(22:55) March 21, 2007 Moves Evinatea's debate out the audio mastering talk page, and on to his own sock puppetry page. [18] And hour later notifies him[19]

The policy guideline on external links was reverted (Thank God!) immediately by a quick editor who within minutes that day, stopped him on his tracks [20].

Finally, Omegatron contributions, seem to have a correlation with the editors who favor "Artmastering". If you take the time to check, it would seem as if he is been watching every discussion by Voy7 aka "R. Watts", Mike Sorensen and Biggy P. [21]. Why?

Of course, that can also just be a coincidence.

I hope you take a renewed interest in this debate that is becoming annoying to put it mildly and nobody can discuss anything at the audio talk page due to rants, personal attacks and accusations.

I hope you take this case.

Godspeed PGK

See below. --pgk 06:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

On Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names I misttyped the link in my comment (since corrected) about not using WP:ANI for username reports. I meant to have WP:AIV. I have no opinion as to having them on WP:ANI. Wanted to update you personally, as you replied there. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

It was well said, and I can't disagree with you there... --SunStar Net ^talk 20:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I really am grateful. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pgk,

is it possible to have helpmebot source (the IRC bot running at #wikipedia-bootcamp) so I can run a clone for it.wiki?

Thank you,

Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have more on this person (omega). Interested? .Son of Deep throat 21:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I'm only here sporadically at the moment due to real world commintments, I'd hoped to get a better look/view of what you'd said above but it's apparent that I'm not going to be able to do so in the short term. In a few weeks maybe, but the way things have been going one issue goes and another rears its head. You could try looking at WP:ASSIST and see if anyone there is willing to take a look. If not prod me in a couple of weeks. --pgk 06:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you want I could simply remove the maps from each article, its not that important. What do you think? Mindys12345 07:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you deleted the article in question 6 months ago. However, it's linked from 6 other pages and the person in question gets 45000 hits on google. More importantly, the article had a claim of notability, since it listed some solo releases, which would probably make it meet wp:music, but would certainly not make it a speedy candidate. I don't want to undelete it without asking you first, so would you have any qualms about it being restored? - Bobet 10:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, solo releases, not single releases. Ie. he released albums by himself, not just with a band. And I did look, he has a discography at amg, with 10 albums listed, which would make the article meet wp:music easily. So I'm restoring, thanks. - Bobet 10:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yea, i did leave a deletion review msg on his talk page also.. but yea prob would have beeen easier just to ask. thanxs anyway

There is a current election in progress for a new member of the Bot Approvals Group. The discussion is being held on WT:BAG. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 23:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Would it be possible to mark the ips that had been banned on that page (if you have a semi automatic way of doing this). I really do not want to do it by hand :P -- Cat ^chi? 11:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Helpme bot is ill from the #wikipedia-bootcamp room. Please take it to the nearest shop. Real96 18:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Helpmebot died again due to a net split.  :-( Real96 23:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I'm not sure exactly when you changed this, but I'm having trouble seeing and clicking on its diffs. For example

<+pgkbot> IP [[User:129.31.82.88]] Edited watched page [[Sulfur]] (120, Diff: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sulfur&diff=129367330&oldid=129303970 diff]) "/* Spelling */ "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:129.31.82.88 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur

is how it looks in IceChat. The diff link shows up as

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sulfur&diff=129367330&oldid=129303970 diff]

just like that, which means I can't click on it at all, and therefore can't do RC patrol. The only way I know how to fix it would be to add a space between the first bracket and http://, or revert to the older version. I am at a loss! Thoughts? // Pilotguy radar contact 22:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for undeleting Seoul Foreign School. I shall start adding sources soon. I come with a related request... Could you also restore the talk page as well? I want to make sure that the previous 'clashes' that occurred between conflicting points are kept available, as to aid other potential users. Thanks a bunch! - Jason, (a message?) 16:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

ok. Its just that he shouldn't remove triple sourced information just because he doesn't agree with it. Inhumer 17:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do you think you could extend your bot to report changes made on the English Wikiquote to #vandalism-en-wq? Pathoschild said this should be easy for you, but if not, I could download and run the bot myself. Cbrown1023 talk 17:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you please look into this or is it maintenance? Extranet ^talk 08:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The genre of Lamb of God (band) has been solved so the protection can be taken off. Skeeker 03:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think the autoblock locator is down. It's only finding old blocks. Could you please feed it a piping hot cup of tea? Thanks. --Yamla 22:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for removing the troll's comments on WP:AN/I. I was about to respond Seriously, I think we can all see through this. Numberman4 is impersonating me. See my comment at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Numberman3 Thanks again. --Numberman3 18:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The Game is notable and is verified by multiple sources. Can you please explain to me, with reference to Wikipedia policy, why this article should not exist? Thanks. Kernow 13:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• It failed the AFD on the basis of verifiability only. It only had one source and policy was changed to require more than one source. It now has more than one source. What I am looking for is the policy that invalidates the Daily Nebraskan article as a source. I agree that a lot of the article was not based on either source, it needs to be re-written. Kernow 16:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
• And apologies for my inexperience on Wikipedia, thanks for the tips, especially the new section (+) tab. Kernow 16:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

THank you for your intervention in this matter. I did not fully understand the PROD process, as I haven't paid attention to it since its earliest days. This experience has shown me that perhaps I should more attention to it. The user who tagged the article in the first place is still upset with me. (see here for his complaint and here for my response.) Dsmdgold 18:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I am suprised that vandals still blank userpages, hasn't happened to me in a while. ffm ✎talk 21:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I was just wondering why the article The Dear Hunter (band) was deleted. I see that the reason is CSD-G4, and I'd like to know if there's anything I can do to re-create the article without it being deleted again. Also, 2 of the band's 3 albums are also tagged for deletion. What can I do to prevent that? This band is definitely notable (their albums have been reviewed in major publications and they've done several national tours in the few years they've been around) and I think they deserve a page on Wikipedia. Cheers.

Hi, I noticed you reverted my 'outside view' on the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey RFC page. Was I out of order there? It seemed a fair question to ask, as a lot of the conversation, including a large section by Mr Merkey is about what he calls "Major Financial Contributors", which he claims to be one of, and seems to be seeking special consideration. I tried to be as polite as possible, as Mr Merkey seems a little excitable, but it seemed more than germane to the discussion. ChurchOfTheOtherGods 08:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

What's going on with that? I'm not sure which comment you deleted from ChurchOfTheOtherGods, but I saw you blanked a large and relevant comment from Al Petrofsky. That strikes me as enormously bad wikiquette; Al has just as much right to comment on an RFC as anyone else, it's not for you to unilaterally decide which comments are "helpful" or "relevant".

I can see an argument for moving Al's comment from the RfC page to its comment page. I think that's not quite correct, since it seemed like an outside opinion. But what you did was, apparently, first delete it outright from the RfC, then also delete it from the talk page when someone moved it there. That's just dead wrong on all counts. LotLE×talk 17:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh... I think ChurchOfTheOtherGods was referring to your blanking of his copy of Al Petrofsky's comments to talk. So it's the same issue. But I see also that you claimed falsely on Church's page that you had moved those comments to the talk page. There's something very shady going on with your edits around this RfC, I'm afraid. LotLE×talk 17:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

User:ChurchOfTheOtherGods is yet another WP:SPA created to stalk and harass Merkey, see contributions. as was User:CatchFork, who wrote this. And of course User:Al Petrofsky is a transparent SPA. So in retrospect, there was nothing "shady" about my and Pgk's removal of this at all.Proabivouac 07:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I understand that Merkey says that lots of people are "out to get him" having been one of those people. The type of "incidents" that I do not agree with it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:172.134.111.168 He decides unilateraly that this person is a sockpuppet of another. Does he have a checkuser account to prove such allegations? He does not. It could be true, or not. I have no problem if he reports such incidents and gets someone to do a checkuser but to just add that template to any user he feels like is wrong. I apologize to bring this up to an admin but I do not want to be accused of "stalking" or "trolling". Thanks. --Kebron 12:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

and noted Taprobanus 17:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Pgk, your most recent edits to WP:AMA are unreferenced and unsourced. You indicate that a discussion has been ongoing for several months yet do not provide direct references showing that a discussion has been going on for more than 1 or 2 months. This appears to be a personal POV and violates WP:NPOV regulations. Furthermore you have edited a page which has been protected, this requires building consensus as stipulated in WP:CON. Can you please remove the unsourced information and discuss future changes on the AMA's talk page. Thank you. --74.101.14.217 19:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello again PgK and thank you very much for you kind response. Truly I am glad that we can work together at fixing up this mis-understanding concerning WP:NPOV regulations and bias opinions. Please allow me to get right to the point. It's it true that it has only been approx. 1 month since discussions started concerning AMA's closure? Do you not find it it a bit POV'ed to hence state at WP:AMA that it has been "Several months"? Could I suggest that perhaps this is an opinion which does not reflect reality or history. It should hence be removed for either the fact that is untruthfull, misleading, or a violation of WP:VER, WP:CITE. If not for those reasons then how about for the same reasons that adultery, cheating, lying, stealing are wrong? Thank so very much for consideration in the removal of this information which appears to go against the spirit of wikipedia rules and guidelines. --74.101.14.217 01:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please comment in your closing on the question of the recreation of the vacated category; this was rather the point of the Review nomination, in my view anyway! Johnbod 18:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! - I had been telling him he could, but he didn't believe me. Johnbod

Hi there, any chance you could have this bot answer on /msg as well as in channel? Could be a nice feature to have when there's much talk going on in #wikipedia-en-help :) Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 22:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

This was added to the MFD page of the DRV you closed. I believe it misrepresents the closure. -- Cat ^chi? 01:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't misrepresent anything. U1 was highly disputed as a valid speedy delete. -- Ned Scott 06:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but what part of that note do you disagree with? -- Ned Scott 06:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I closed the DRV your attempts to portray that as being "I was right all along, just no one could be bothered" is inappropriate and doesn't meet with my reading of proceedings. Post a DRV we do no normally go back and attach partisan notes to the original deletion debate, if anyone is interested (and I severely doubt anyone bar you two are) they can read the debates and draw their own conclusions. We don't do binding precedent so it won't impact anything else. I've had discussions with Cool Cat previously concerning that some battles simply aren't worth winning, you may win them but the cost in terms of general perception (causualties if you like) outweighs any benefit, you could probably do with contemplating that yourself. I perceive your continued beating of this particular dead horse as obsessive (if not then certainly not far off) and I'm sure others do, do you want to feel you've gained some very minor victory by putting such notes on things at the expense of people being wary of an apparently obsessive nature over the most trivial of things? --pgk 17:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why the f--- did you delete my page chatsource.--Bloodsource 19:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

[08:13]  <autocracy> pgkbot status
[08:14]  <pgkbot> Currently speaking, set by  at 08:05:11 17-May-2007 UTC :
                  RC Reader connected OK, last event 1552.94s ago : rcEdit
[08:14]  <pgkbot> Delayed new user thread running, approx waiting 0
[08:14]  <pgkbot> DNS/whois lookup thread running
[08:14]  <pgkbot> Auto CVP thread running

--Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 12:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

n/m, fixed... --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 12:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Like I said. You were in error. Jooler 12:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

While I don't agree with your closure, let me know when you've unprotected it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you unprotect the talk page, too? =) Powers ^T 15:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Powers ^T 15:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I beg your pardon, but if I'm asking for objective viewings on my AfD, which has seen little debate thus far from a broad enough sample of people to suite my personal satisfaction. Without participation, process is moot and if that warrants blocking then wikipedia is truly lost.Wikimegamaster 08:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. In a broader context, it is unwiki."1 Wikipedia editors are therefore not to engage in aggressive cross-posting in order to influence votes, discussions, requests for adminship, requests for comment, etc."

I have contacted less than ten wikipedians and have been highly selective on the matter. Canvasing it is not.Wikimegamaster 08:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• I found a great article for you to read adolf hitler, it's very informative.

I'm wondering whether you'd be willing to block User:MaindrianPace (contribs) again. He's making problems, this time on at least the Billy Joel (history) article. He keeps putting images that are copyrighted over and over and should be in violation of the 3RR rule by now. -Mike Payne 04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was archiving arbitration committee requests. One of them was Willy on Wheels. What did he do? His contributions list is only 3 entries long. I saw his name before somewhere (said something like "if someone does a Willy on Wheels, then...."Feddhicks 23:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello there pgk. I was just wondering as I am interested in creating a 'wikilinkbot' for IRC so when the user states !link Hello world it would output the URL like helpmebot does. If possible, could you send me the source code with just the 'link' part inside and not all the !helpme etc? It would be much appreciated. E ^talk 23:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why do you say "This is not afd part 2, no issues raised with the deletion process" in response to my request for a review of this deletion procedure? I've never been through this procedure before, so apologize if I did not frame my concerns properly. But I feel the procedural issues I raised should be addressed, not dismissed out of hand. --ScottMainwaring 07:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please userfy and I'll clean it up. Thanks. Drew30319 01:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Drew30319 22:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pgk. Please don't take this as a necessary criticism, but could I ask you to explain your closures of discussions, especially controversial ones at deletion review? In particular, I'm looking at your closure of the Pokemon templates at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 13: in fact, I was the one who originally nominated these articles for deletion, and I still thought the overturn request brought up some good points. I was disheartened to see that the discussion was closed without an explanation on a closely contested !vote. I thank you for your participation anyway though. The Evil Spartan 16:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think the autoblock locator is borked. It is no longer finding any blocks. Could you please check? Thanks. --Yamla 19:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

You said: "Looks ok to me, any specific ones you can't see?"

Hhhm. I was looking up an autoblock in response to an autoblocked user requesting an unblock-auto. I agree, seems to be okay. Sorry for bothering you. --Yamla 20:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

So...you guys don't bother to actually review anything? Anybody can delete any article they want to anytime they feel like it? Lame. RMc 14:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Deletion review states its purpose quite clearly, to review problems with the deletion process, not to act as AFD part 2. This would cover things such as the admin closing it apparently against the strength of argument, early etc.

Thunderbunny had no argument, othet than "this article sucks," which doesn't exactly strike me as scholarly.

Your request was just "I don't like the outcome", coupled with "I don't like the guy who submitted it".

Wrong. Read what I said above. If anything, he's the one who doesn't like me.

As an aside if you do want to raise requests for reviews etc. then I suggest you drop the smart ass attitude, it adds nothing to your argument and in many ways just makes it look like you are trolling.

Ah, and now come the threats! "Be a good left-of-center boy, RMc! Always trust in your admins, they know best! Or else we'll kick you out of the club!" Please. Look: when people go out of their way to be a jerk to me, I call them on it...even if they own the Wiki decoder ring and know the secret handshake. RMc 15:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

You still haven't answered my question: why did you delete the article so quickly, without even bothering to read it? And why are you so willing to back Thunderbunny and not me? RMc 17:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I assumed you were the one who deleted it. (Who, did, then?) It's just I've seen a lot of my images/articles deleted lately without any substantial reasons given. RMc 17:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi! You recently wrote in closing an image deletion:

"Fails fair use policy, not a promotional image within wikipedia's definition of such."

Where's this definition? It would be very helpful to see exactly what it says!

Thanks!

Jenolen ^{speak it!} 06:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The definition was layed out by several people. Promotional meaning that it has been released as part of a press pack, specifically for general use by third parties to promote the item. Release to specific individuals for promotional purposes doesn't make it a promotional image etc. I've looked into it a bit for you, from Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Fair_use - "{{Non-free promotional}} for an image freely provided to promote an item, as in a promotional photo in a press packet." - expanded upon in this essay --pgk 08:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

as in a promotional photo in a press packet." certainly does not require a photo to come from a press packet, (And what's a packet, anyway? An envelope? A folder? This is an archaic term from the days when these photos were actually delivered in packets) but merely suggests that these types of photos are among those considered promotional. Other types of photos are clearly promotional, as well... But, c'est la vie. The beauty of not having a formalized definition is its ability to mean anything to anyone... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 18:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well in that debate and others I've seen (and as is generally true on wikipedia) the specific aren't necessarily that important, it's the general principle. All debates I've seen on that and appears to be the general consensus/outcome is that it is something beyond just being used by the content owner for promotion of their product/person/whatever, indeed many photos are used only for that, some are released to specific magazines or whatever as exclusives etc. it would seem a push to say we can use just about any image because someone used it/uses it for promotion in a set context. So a statement to the effect that the owner is giving a broad license to *everyone* for use is generally the requirement i.e. the form of a press packet is immaterial it's the intent that the press at large have a license to use the image for promotion being the important aspect, is the owner trying to get the image distributed and shown far and wide or are they restricting it to just a "few places". (The licenses tend to have some restrictions on them so a competitor doesn't use the image in a negative setting for instance, if we could rely just merely on it having been used in a promotion those constraints wouldn't be in place, so again it seems a fair assumption they aren't releasing it for a wider promotional purpose.) This is also consistent with the other parts of the fair use policy e.g. #2, which clearly if the owner explicitly grants such a general license is not impacted. It is unfortunate that what amounts in some peoples eyes to an overuse of fair use images coupled with an unwillingness to bring that under control ourselves, contributed to the stronger statement by the foundation on such issues. Which has led to a generally more strict adherence where a few years ago a more relaxed basis would have been applicable, but I guess getting too relaxed got us where we are today. --pgk 18:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

And whatever the definition of promotional material may be, it will hardly include image whose distribution is "strictly forbidden", as it was the case in the aforementioned deletion review. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I appear to be blacklisted on the channel, by your bot. I actually use the channel a lot to revert vandalism; could I be removed from the blacklist, since every time I look at it it's covered in bold red records of my edits? Thanks,--Rambutan (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks. How can I get access?--Rambutan (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The autoblock locator is definitely down this time. "Warning: mysql_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Lost connection to MySQL server at 'reading initial communication packet', system error: 111 in /home/pgk/public_html/dbstuff.php on line 31

Couldn't connect to database: Lost connection to MySQL server at 'reading initial communication packet', system error: 111".  :)  --Yamla 18:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Helpmebot isn't working in the help room on IRC. Could you please fix the bug? We are using Tangobot2 on standby. Thanks! Miranda 18:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have a request pending at the requests for approval page and would like your input (as you are part of the BAG) if it's not too much trouble. I'm glad to answer any questions or concerns you may have. Adam McCormick 23:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to xaosflux I've been able to run a trial of my bot which can be seen here. I have fixed the major problems with the test run (mostly one regular expression) and was hoping to run another test. I'd still appreciate your input. Thanks! Adam McCormick 03:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello pgk,

Is there a chance you could create a IRC bot (such as the one running at #vandalism-en-wp) that only shows new page creation? I think it would be a great addition for RC patrol. I would want to spend some time checking new articles and I am sure other editors in RC patrol will be inclined to do the same. Let me now in my talk, if you could. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please semi-protect the pages for Godsmack and Lamb of God (band) because un-registered users keep coming and reverting my edits to the infobox, This is anoying me because I am putting a (<!-[- -->) message in the infobox and they are not listening on Godsmack and on Lamb of God (band) un-rregistered users are adding genres unsourced and un-needed because of an on going genre edit war. Thank you for the help. Skeeker 19:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

As per past discussion. Please see: [22] -- Cat ^chi? 21:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

And as I pointed out before, the idea of putting a note on the MFD was something brought up between myself and Newyorkbrad during the DRV. I had even asked him about it on his talk page. He responded that he didn't see the point anymore (since the DRV was over at that point) and that it might cause a fuss, and suggested that the note be put on the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newyorkbrad&oldid=135679751#CC_MfD " I still think changing the MfD would cause a new fuss now; however, you can make a note with a link to our discussion on the MfD talkpage if you wish. Newyorkbrad 00:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)"Reply

So, for crying out loud, this not an attempt to undermind you or anything like that. I think you've really gotten the wrong impression here. -- Ned Scott 22:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I still think providing a link to the mfd rather than providing your analysis inside a note box (with the the de facto official appearance) would be a much much better way to present your case. You can post your analysis like a signed remark like everyone else. -- Cat ^chi? 11:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I think I've got the right impression. This isn't about undermining me, this is about your apparent inability to accept a "defeat" in an ultimately petty issue, rather than accept that there was a consensus in the DRV that the deletion was fine, I didn't close the DRV with no consensus as you wish to state and present as a formal outcome. I'm not going to revert it again, since I don't care if it's there or not, nor do I suspect anyone else cares (or is ever likely to look), nor do I believe anyone should care about it, your continued obsession with this reflects on you and no one else. Really what the #!#! are we doing reverting and talking about this 2 months after the event? --pgk 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The only reason it has been brought up is because Cat has filed an RfC on me, and it was brought up there. My honest concern is a misconception that no user page might be brought to an MfD. People were clearly split on that, and I felt that should be reflected. The actual case for Cat himself was a lost cause, something I've long since accepted. My motivation is based on principle, not the event itself. I also thought it was important that you know that this had been something discussed with the admin who had closed the MFD, and not just something I pulled out of my ass, or something that might insult you personally. Two months or not, I wanted you to know that. There is a difference between obsession and wanting to clear up any ill-feelings about the past. -- Ned Scott 22:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Both helpmebot and unblockbot have disappeared. -- John Reaves 03:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

...and all his other bots aren't working right now! We've been looking for him, but can't find him. :( Cbrown1023 talk 13:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I understand you fixed helpmebot, but it's not working again. the list just doesn't update. :-) Stwalkerster talk 18:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I put Lolcode up for DRV again, as it has had significant media and geek culture coverage since then. Since you closed the previous DRV, I figured you would probably be interested in this one. -- Lucid 07:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The autoblock locator seems to be unable to find anything from the past week. Maybe it needs a cup of tea or maybe the problem is outside of your control. Just letting you know. --Yamla 17:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

/me throws cigars at pgk. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 12:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pgk,

it seems that you blocked the IP address 83.171.174.250 on October 14 2006 indefinitely with the rationale "TOR router anonymous". I'd like you to know that this address (as the whole address range 83.171.168.0 - 83.171.191.255) is a dynamically assigned dial-up IP of M-net Telekommunikations GmbH (a regional access provider in the south of Germany). Not very surprisingly, checking the Torstatus at [23] reveals that this IP is "NOT an active Tor server". (Well it's me using this address at the moment of writing ...)

I hope you agree that an indefinite block of a dynamic IP for being a Tor node is rather pointless and thus i formally request this block to be lifted. (Yes i know that this block is anon only and might not concern me as being logged in, but i think this block is an error nevertheless.)

Kind regards, --Rotkraut (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Pgk has been away since August. You might want to contact another administrator. miranda 07:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

FYI this IP has now been unblocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pgk. I'm running a small survey about wikipedian barnstars. If you have the time, I would really appreciate you taking a look and participating. The survey can be found here. Thank you! Bestchai (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nude celebrities on the Internet, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nude celebrities on the Internet (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  – iridescent 16:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Care to explain your reasoning as to the username block of MAILER-DAEMON (talk · contribs)? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 22:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that you will not longer be able to request restoration of the tools because of your prior inactivity. You have until December 30, 2012 to request restoration or else the policy will prevent you from doing so in the future; you would need to seek a new WP:RFA. Until December 30, you can file a request at WP:BN for review by the crats. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

(delivered by mabdul 23:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC))Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect PENIS. Since you had some involvement with the PENIS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply