User talk:Arcandam: Difference between revisions

This bug is caused by Reflinks (the latest version). "Meld je aan of registreer je om een reactie te plaatsen!" is Dutch and means "Login or register to comment".  In progress [1] [2] Arcandam (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Arcandam (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for the stroopwaffles! Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but what's the old account? I'm not saying I doubt the reason for the block; it's just that not saying who the alleged sockmaster (or former account, in this case) is leaves them an opening to challenge the block on those grounds. When they do, those of us who review their unblock requests have to figure this out when there isn't even anything in the block log summary explaining who the other account is. If they're editing disruptively to begin with, that's not a problem. But in this case it's not obvious. Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naming that account might get me in trouble, so I rather don't, especially if it isn't in a CU request. I am already working on another sockpuppet investigation at the moment and I have to go cook dinner soon. But I don't think we necessarily need to link the sockmaster and the puppet, we have proof beyond reasonable doubt that this is a sock and that this person is not here to improve the 'pedia but instead prefers edit disruptively by starting disputes and editwarring over silly stuff like a SPA tag. So for those who review unblock requests it should be an easy decision imho. Arcandam (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. If we believe him he is not using an alternative account in a inappropriate way (WP:ILLEGIT) but abusing WP:CLEANSTART, both are excellent reasons for an indef block...[reply]

Hello, you asked why I edited the Chiropractor article because of the "vandalism" and after viewing the contributor's other edits, I saw a bit of a conflict of interest going on, including the "quack" comments in the editing which didn't seem very helpful or neutral. If you need the links, let me know and I will tryto find them again to link here. Actually, here they are but I do not know how to reference them like other people on here do.... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/An-Apple-A-NY-Day&oldid=501746482 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/An-Apple-A-NY-Day&oldid=503518368 These links show the user making quack jokes, so I didn't think his editing was intended to be useful to the chiropractic article. Just a thought. Riverdancing (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, I understand. It seems like someone else has reverted you. An easy way to make a link is by using square brackets. To start the link use a square bracket to open it, then put the URL of the website, a space, and the text you want displayed then close it with another square bracket. So for instance this code: [http://www.stroopwafel.nl stroopwafelpower] automagically turns into the following link: stroopwafelpower Arcandam (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Riverdancing is almost certainly a sock of the forementioned sockmaster.. I'll add them to the SPI page. Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This planet is weird. Arcandam (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forget wimpy kittens. This one is big and tough enough to protect a beer fridge from anything. Don't let the lazy posture confuse you. In other words, thank you very much. All perfect. If I delete/archive my talk page section I assume the 'permalink' will not be effected?--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can this cat protect my beer fridge from global warming? Cool! Some background info: If I link to a section on my talkpage and afterwards I remove that section on my talkpage the link will be broken. But we can link to a specific version of a page. To do this, you'll need to click the "View history"-tab. You'll see a list of the versions, with the time and date. If you click on the time/date of one of the versions you'll end up at a page with a URL that ends in something like this: "&oldid=504700782". At the top of the page you'll see a small warning message that says something like: "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arcandam (talk | contribs) at 04:27, 29 July 2012. It may differ significantly from the current revision". A short answer to your question would be to simply say "yes", but I already wrote this comment before I noticed you had posted on my talkpage. Arcandam (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I have another question I asked about copyright on commons but no one seems to commit to an answer. Do you know anything about copyrights? My cat was born in Canada and I take it to the US and freeze it as a 3D sculpture. Then I take it to Andorra and run it over. This now makes it 2D. I then take it to Italy and take a picture of it. I develop the film in France and have the images mailed to my next stop in Germany. I then go to the UK and scan the images to my laptop. Then I go back to Canada and someone steals my laptop. Can the thieves upload the images to commons as non-threshold of originality in the source country?--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they can upload it, but it will be deleted soon after. We already have plenty of roadkill photo's. And the cat won't be 2D after getting run over. Arcandam (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. I am not an expert on copyrights, or anything else, but I don't think that that cat was "born" through conventional feline reproduction.[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For all of the great work that you have been doing at WP: AN/I! Electric Catfish 18:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Arcandam (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got an email you may find interesting. :) Sceptre ^(talk) 00:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A weird but interesting email indeed. I liked the part about libel laws not applying to deceased people. Arcandam (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting in how much we necessarily worship at the altar of the newspapers too, especially given the very notable lapses in reliability such as that. There have been a few newspaper articles come out over the past few days where I've seen where not only are they wrong, they're deliberately so. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, where I come from we don't call those things newspapers. Arcandam (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out, these brownies can be addicting! Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Nom nom nom! Arcandam (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is excellent news, thanks! Arcandam (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Arcandam! Do you help out with AFTv5? Electric Catfish 23:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need some help? I'll try to if I find some free time. Arcandam (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment it is impossible for me to mark something as resolved. Clicking "Feature this post" doesn't do anything. Arcandam (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you think it is canvassing or not, please don't revert war to remove editor's comments on other editor's talk pages. (I am thinking of the reverts at user talk:foxj). If you believe someone is canvassing, discuss it with them (as I know you already are doing) and bring it up on a noticeboard or a neutral admin's talk page if you think it needs attention. Repeatedly removing the comments will achieve nothing, except perhaps annoy the recipient of the comments! Thanks. OohBunnies! (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert war. Arcandam (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You removed his message. He replaced it. You removed it again. That's the beginnings of an edit war to me, and obviously others see it that way too. Removing comments from other's talk pages is exceedingly bad form (with the exception of vandalism). Please don't do it again. OohBunnies! (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your account does not have permission to use WP:Rollback, so please do not use edit summaries like this one without first obtaining that permission - it confuses other editors.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, who stole my rollback and why? Arcandam (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See below.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a ridiculous situation. Arcandam (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for this particular message, since I didn't know about the below. I should've checked your user rights log.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies from you are not necessary in this case afaik. Arcandam (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your recent mass use of rollback in an edit war with The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs), I have removed your rollback. Please note that rollback is pretty much only for vandalism and a few select exceptions like edits in your userspace and reverting your own edits. Mass rollbacking relatively neutral messages to involved admins is absolutely not appropriate. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I expect you to apologize. Arcandam (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to agree with Reaper Eternal here. Mass rollbacks weren't appropriate here. To get rollback restored you'll have to show you understood that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning." Ryan Vesey 03:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Editor retention and WP:Dontinsulttheregulars and WP:pleasehavesomeclue. Arcandam (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]