User talk:Ricky81682

Wikipedia:Self-Reliance‎[edit]

We had an edit conflict on Wikipedia:Self-Reliance and I accidentally recreated par tof it after you moved it. Meters (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)‎

Self-Reliance Page[edit]

Sorry. This is my first time editing on Wikipedia so I did not know until I started adding different things to the pages. I was told to edit in my sandbox first before I moved it, because I am a student, but I understand your concern. From now on I will add a few things at a time directly to the page instead of copying and pasting it all at once. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpatel9 (talk • contribs)

A Model of Christian Charity[edit]

Thank you. I forgot to add the zero at the end. When I went to edit this, there was only one citation for the book, so I thought that the rest would change but they did not. Do you know how to change the other citations so they also say 370? Rmpatel9 (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

They aren't combined. My fault, I did some but not all of them. How to do it is explained here but it can be quite complicated, don't worry about it. The actual work is in finding the information not these little details. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request on hold[edit]

I have placed an unblock request on hold at User talk:ApparatumLover. the editor says that his/her days of playing around are over, and he/she certainly has done some constructive editing as well as playing, so I am inclined to give them another chance, on the understanding that the block goes right back in place if there is any more playing. What do you think? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I agreeable to that. I hope that editor understands why listing the user pages of new editors for deletion is particularly inappropriate. I can't imagine a worse way to scare off new editors. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have unblocked the editor, and also told him or her what you have said about listing the user pages of new editors for deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

They are not my numbers, they were the numbers that were already in the article. I reverted because changes were being made to the data without any explanation. A lot of times those types of edits are test edits by new editors. Occasionally, they are vandalism. On Baloch people the IPs did drive by edits with no stated reason for the change, then rather than explain themselves, the IPs chose to assume bad faith and make personal attacks. You are the only one to point to sources, though your tone came across as confrontational. Checking those sources shows that the changed numbers were correct and the larger incorrect numbers must have been inserted sometime in the past. Now that evidence shows the old numbers were wrong, I will not be reverting to the incorrect numbers. Edward321 (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Carolmooredc[edit]

Hi, you protected Carolmooredc's user talk page today so that only those with sysop rights can now edit it. Could you please reduce this restriction? Though over the last two years we have seen more and more banned users as a result of Arbcom cases getting their own talk page edit right removed, there is I believe no precedent for this act.

Carolmooredc's ban has raised several important questions about how the community of the English Wikipedia should improve, this user talk page is part of that on-going discussion for many valid contributors to this project. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

+1 I would like to know the justification for this protection 基 (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:Site ban and WP:BLOCKBANDIFF are relevant - the rules that apply to protecting user talk pages are Wikipedia:Protection policy. Apart from the formal aspect can you also elaborate on what you think was achieved by applying a year of full blown protection? 基 (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Chiming in here, I can understand Carol's ability to post on her page is extremely limited under the ban, but I don't see why the page has to be protected based on the very little that has happened there since. There has been legitimate news coverage criticizing her ban, which I why I posted that link on her page.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Rather than protecting the page against all edits, a more productive move, might be to add a notice on the talk page to limit discussion to that which may support a future unban request. Other banned editors have been able to provide this as evidence of their public discussion about their block and their intended approach for future contributions to the project. In the longer term this may help Carol, even if they feel like not bothering right now, so soon after the ban.

The page is not being used to hound or harass any party, so those types of concerns that have been used as reasons to stop other banned editors from using their own talk page, appear moot. --Fæ (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
+1. I'm a bit flummoxed as to why full protection is remotely necessary given that discussion on the page is primarily well-wishes with a short discussion about a news article that is linked and discussed much more extensively elsewhere on-wiki. It also seems to be out of line with our protection policy, and is especially problematic given that it prevents other people from making any comment on her talk page as well. The standard protocol for problematic use of a blocked or banned user's talkpage is revoking their TPA, not protecting the whole thing - although I would disagree with even suspending TPA in this instance. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The appropriate remedy to a banned user posting is to remove their ability to edit the talk page, not to restrict others from editing the page. NE Ent 01:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I made a request for discussion at WP:AN. In this case, the editor's talk page has been subject to a number of attacks from my understanding given the various past protections. Would it really be preferable to allow others to edit her page but not her? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble parsing a number of attacks from my understanding given the various past protections. -- thinking maybe some words are missing? (feel free to dump this comment if you update the statement) NE Ent 01:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

If I were to semi-protect it, would that accomplish a lot? It was semi-protection before and yet there were attacks there. Your edits would continue. I thought that limiting it to administrators under December 1, 2015 (I didn't chose 'one year' but that specific expiration date) would prevent possible issues with the editors communicating with her or her about the use of her talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi would be reasonable -- I'm not aware of any attacks since her banning. NE Ent 03:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Did I ever state that there were any attacks? User:Neotarf was similarly banned. That editor lost access to their talk page and to email and the only reason User talk:Neotarf is semi protected is because users were screwing around removing the ban notice. In this case, semi-protection would not protect us from the users who are communicating with the editor, namely individuals such as yourself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't directly communicated with CMDC since sometime preceding the filing of the case, and my last comment in the case page can be found here. I appreciate you opening the AN thread for feedback; I think I'll confine my future comments there, except to note that no one (at least I) is accusing you of "abuse" or bad faith, we just disagree with a specific action you took. NE Ent 12:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Check my block-log. You may use my past situation as a guide to what should/shouldn't be done. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You were blocked on May 6, 2013. This is the sum total of all engagement on your talk page from your ban until reinstatement. Here, other editors have chosen to engage with the banned editor. Do you think it would be appropriate to prevent Carolmooredc from editing the talk page while allowing others to continue to do so? Do you think there will be attacks on her talk page? Do you think it's preferable to permit access and to allow possible attacks and then to revert them afterwards or preferable to just prevent any usage until she can appeal? Rather than a manual change, I automated the protection so it ends on the day any appeal can be started. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the events leading up to my talkpage privillages being revoked, occured April 22-May 6, 2013. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, thank you for striking out several comments that were... a little heated in their tone. Sometimes it is worthwhile to step away from the computer and do something else for a little while. —Dark 09:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm grateful that you've included an automatic restoration of CMDC's talkpage privillages. It was a consideration Richwales didn't bestow on me :) GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW, don't you mean CMDC's talkpage is protected until (not under) December 1, 2015? GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably a good reason why it shouldn't be protected. No one can fix my mistakes. :) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

MIA[edit]

Ricky81682, sorry I have been MIA; busy week and also currently in a discussion on two pages (Ulises Heureaux, and Joaquín Balaguer) as a certain editor insists to use WP:OR and revert my edits, while I have posted 5-8 sources (mostly books) on the particular subject. Like there is no question. Anyway, resuming to the compas article, etc. Savvyjack23 (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Ziad Abu Ein[edit]

Hi there, Ricky81682. It appears that the Ziad Abu Ein article has been deleted. Would you be able to help me get it restored or rewrite it? Thank you for your help. Rustandbone (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ricky81682, thank you for all your help with this article (twice!). I couldn't have done it without you. Rustandbone (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't modify or remove posts.[edit]

Hello. I just want to say: Please do not modify or remove other people's posts, as you did with this edit [1] to Baconbutterz's talk page. Thanks. ApparatumLover (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Deaths in 2013/My OR stuff[edit]

Note early on in the deletion discussion, user copied everything to User:Deaths_in_2013/sandbox. This should be deleted as well. Should not need another deletion discussion to delete the exact same content that was already deleted. – JBarta (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

User:AMK152/Cameron[edit]

Honestly, I find it easier and much more respectful to talk to people about their subpages instead of slapping up a deletion tag without asking the person about the page and its purpose. This: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AMK152/Cameron is not necessary. I have already tagged the page for deletion. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 00:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you would find it easier. They would suggest it's not appropriate and you would argue it is. Nothing would change. A deletion review, however, is not a thing perpetually argued away. It's a specific action looking for a specific outcome within a finite period of time. You are welcome to make your case for retention there. – JBarta (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but in this case we don't need a discussion, so I marked it for deletion since it is no longer needed. Every subpage that was nominated for deletion, the nominator has incorrectly stated it's use. Don't assume I would argue; all I would want to be able to do is tell the person the purpose of the subpage so a bunch of people don't discuss it thinking the subpage is used for something I never intended. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 00:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily matter what the nominated pages are used for or what your intentions are for them; it matters whether they conform to the WP:USERPAGE and WP:NOT guidelines. Almost none of the pages in your user space conform to those guidelines: most either look like articles (failing WP:FAKEARTICLE) or they're just they're lists of stuff being hosted on Wikipedia (failing WP:NOTWEBHOST). Some of your pages could possibly be drafts but that's not obvious, especially when the information has been forked from an existing article. Have you considered placing {{userspace draft}} at the top of your actual drafts? Or creating your drafts in Draft space? Ca2james (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

AMK152, ask you what? Can you look over all these pages for me? If you think they should be deleted, then list them now. You shouldn't have to wait until an MFD is filed to list them. Why don't we start with you listing the ones you recognize are problematic for deletion and then people can evaluate the others. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, you're arguing keep on one and this one you want listed for deletion. Why are you making it my job to figure out which ones you acknowledge should be deleted but hasn't listed them on your own and which ones you disagree with me on? -- 01:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about asking me the purpose of the subpage before listing it for deletion. I am presently reviewing them. I am not sure what you mean by your question. I have tagged 12 subpages of mine for deletion and 11 of them have been deleted. That's 11 less deletion discussions because I tagged them for deletion myself. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 02:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I wasn't waiting around for an MFD discussion. It has been a while since I reviewed my subpages. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 02:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Crossing out comments by a banned editor[edit]

I see that it is sometimes done. Is it supported? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm.. I'm definitely not liking the sound of this. Reminds me of Stalin erasing all traces of those who were purged. In modern parlance... it's a dick move. – JBarta (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It is standard practice to remove edits by banned users. Banned means not allowed to edit. Chillum 09:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

He's talking about crossing out comments made by an editor before they were banned. – JBarta (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Did I screw up somewhere? - Ricky81682 (talk) 09:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, G5 is applicable but after the ban is imposed. I believe pre-ban edits are left alone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

As it should be. Comments made by an editor before they are banned are comments made by an editor in good (if shaky) standing. – JBarta (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, why the need to strike out comments? Just ignore them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring them takes all the fun out of proclaiming to the world that the varmint should have never been paid attention to in the first place. – JBarta (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Premature close of FergusM1970 ban discussion[edit]

Hello Ricky81682. I note you recently closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community ban discussion of FergusM1970, and proceeded to block User:FergusM1970, after the discussion had been open for only 12 hours. In my estimation this was clearly premature; the Wikipedia:Banning policy states that such discussions are to be open for at least 24 hours before taking action, and I see no compelling reason to invoke WP:IAR in this particular case. Though most of the contributors to the discussion supported the ban, I have seen the consensus shift in similar discussions which were allowed to continue for a full day or longer. Furthermore the user in question was not being actively disruptive during the time of the discussion; his contributions were mostly to discussion pages, with the few article edits being only to address problems which other users had raised.

I considered bringing this directly to WP:ANI, as this is the second time in as many months that you've improperly banned a user. (In November User:UrbanVillager complained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive861#Rogue Admin that you imposed a topic ban on him despite being involved and after too short a discussion period; his complaint was upheld.) But I think the simplest way of fixing the situation would be for you to reverse your block, reopen the discussion, and allow someone else to close it after at least another 24 hours have passed. Psychonaut (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel the close was justified, there was clearly a consensus for the ban with one person opposing, in addition the discussion had also run it's course in other areas. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I reversed the block and reopened the discussion. Psychoanut is right, someone else could block him indefinitely based on his conduct or the discussion but banning policy does require 24 hours. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Reclosed with same outcome as consensus remained evident. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

May as well expand on previous comment - consensus was fairly clear prior to the first close but no harm in the reopening as requested in case there were significant additional points or views to be added. However, several hours later there had been little further input and some obvious trolling from the subject of the proposed ban. As the sequential open periods now totalled close to 24 hours and the thread had become unproductive, I closed it a second time. Happy to discuss further if required, or if there are concerns.

Ironically I also closed the "rogue admin" thread referred to above - Ricky81682, I'm not stalking you, I promise . :) -- Euryalus (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, at least you didn't vote to punish me there so no harm, no foul. Besides I think the only thing he was doing was commenting on the other paid editing section of ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Phi Epsilon Chi[edit]

Readded the founding history, primary source, but IMO, enough to avoid BLP.Naraht (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Guidance and assistance[edit]

Hello Ricky81682. Could you please offer guidance and assistance with respect to ANI and concerning this discussion, inappropriately posted on an article Talk page? User:98.247.126.245 made unfounded allegations that I was carrying out somebody else’s agenda, claiming that I was acting as a sock or meat puppet, falsely associating me with recruitment via an outside website, reverting valid edits and labelling them “vandalism”, and suggesting that I was involved in "deliberate anti-intellectual obscurantism”. Apparently User:98.247.126.245 acted without taking sufficient time to examine actual contribution content and history, which clearly show these concerns were unfounded. I respectfully request that User:98.247.126.245 be asked to 1) retract unfounded allegations and offer an apology; 2) acknowledge that actions were rash and agree to act responsibly in the future; and 3) make reparation in the record insofar as possible. In particular, I suggest the following responsible conduct: 1) examine the actual history and content of contributions before acting; 2) properly log in or request assistance from an administrator; 3) assume good faith and communicate directly with an editor in good standing if there is a genuine concern; 4) do not revert valid edits and label them as “vandalism”; 5) do not post inappropriately regarding other editors on an article’s Talk page; 6) do not make allegations of puppetry without sound evidence; and 7) participate directly in good faith discussion concerning content or Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thank you – TheProfessor (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there more than needs to be done at the moment? I thought I made it clear here to make a report at WP:SPI rather than make allegations. I make the same comment at WP:ANI as well. I have no seen no further editing from the user even though it's clear that this and this make the same puppetry claims. The ANI discussion has clearly ignored the claim entirely along with the talk page. Warning the IP address likely has little value since it's probably rotated by now. If it comes up again, please inform me but now I'd say just try to move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ricky81682, for responding. I note that User:98.247.126.245 has made various edits over the past couple of years. Assuming you do not need it, I would be grateful if we could delete what is left of Talk:Evolution#Inappropriate_discussion. Yes, it is best to move on. Thanks, again. TheProfessor (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the ANI discussion is still ongoing (regarding DonaldKronos's conduct) but the comment is basically so hidden no one is going to notice at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, although couldn't ANI just link to the deleted version? Let me know if you need input concerning the ongoing ANI discussion. Discussion with the user in question was challenging, to say the least, and I agree that this is a case of WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE, and WP:RGW. His latest post on Talk:Evolution#Regarding_recent_changes, while civil, does not give much hope for productive contribution. TheProfessor (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I just put that link so the contents are clear. Within a day or so I imagine the ANI report will be archived and the talk page will archived and no one will remember or care. As to User:DonaldKronos, it seems resolved in whatever way at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ayasaki[edit]

u no need to edit my user page.. Ok.. Da## #### — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdayasakii (talk • contribs) 06:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Dear Ricky81682,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

User talk:Ricky81682

Contents

Wikipedia:Self-Reliance‎[edit]

Self-Reliance Page[edit]

A Model of Christian Charity[edit]

Unblock request on hold[edit]

Reply[edit]

User talk:Carolmooredc[edit]

MIA[edit]

Ziad Abu Ein[edit]

Don't modify or remove posts.[edit]

User:Deaths in 2013/My OR stuff[edit]

More userspace longevity articles[edit]

User:AMK152/Cameron[edit]

Crossing out comments by a banned editor[edit]

Premature close of FergusM1970 ban discussion[edit]

Phi Epsilon Chi[edit]

Guidance and assistance[edit]

Ayasaki[edit]

Happy New Year![edit]

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

Interaction

Tools

Print/export

Languages