User talk:Mackensen - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mackensen (talk | contribs) at 15:13, 7 December 2006 (→[] unblocked). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:13, 7 December 2006 by Mackensen (talk | contribs) (→[] unblocked)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

No
Solicitation

Mackensenarchiv

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.

Unsigned messages will be ignored. You can sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right to disruptively eliminate gigantic blobs of wiki-markup from signatures on a whim if I think they're cluttering up my talk page.

A RFCU from way back...

User talk:84.114.131.26 requires attention from you. Daniel.Bryant 13:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, fabulous. Mackensen (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought it'd make your day :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 13:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Backslashing proxies used for abuse

72.52.143.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) apart for the blanking vandalism and attacks seems to be a backslashing proxy This edit sugests he is Stevenak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Proxy appears also to be used by whoever used 83.98.189.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which is also backslashing. I can't tell if it is a open proxy or just used by one person. I have noted it on AIV, and leave the info with you as your name is on the WP:OP. Agathoclea 09:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's backlashing the above concerns are irrelevant--block and be merry ;). Looks like someone nailed them both already. Mackensen (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion request

Since you expressed an opinion on Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote, I would appreciate it if you could comment on WP:DDV, in particular as to whether it accurately represents the way Misplaced Pages works (and feel free to reword it if it doesn't) and as to whether it is correct that we generally discourage (but not forbid) voting. Thanks. (Radiant) 08:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Puzzled

Why did you delete my comment? --Ghirla -трёп- 18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Human error. I'm terribly sorry about that. Mackensen (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. Mackensen (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Ghirla 18:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"the Cabal's Own Pikemen"

..your ideas interest me and I wish to hear more :) --Elar a girl 04:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Template: UK heritage stations

Can you please enlighten me as to why you have removed this Template from the Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland Railway stations, and substituted it with a template for stations being operated by one of the TOCs or Network Rail? Stewart 18:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Because the template was identical, save formatting, and its deletion had been requested. Mackensen (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest then Template:UK stations is used instead of Template:Infobox UK station. This allows a linkable caption to be used. See Partick railway station - I have also editted Rhyd Ddu railway station. Thoughts?? Stewart 21:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Aren't those the same template (doesn't the former simply redirect to the latter?) Mackensen (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That had escaped me having previously worked on Template:UK stations to get the caption incorporated prior to the move to Template:Infobox UK station (see Adding a caption to the Image). All is now clear. Stewart 22:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Lillywhite Campaign Article

Now that you've closed out the deletion debate (and have asked that the discussion sorrounding any content changes be moved to Discussion page of the article), it is okay to remove the deletion notice from the article page - correct? (the notice itself states that it can be removed once the discussion is closed). Just thought I'd ask anyway. While the content can certainly be built upon in the article, it seems that there were more users that wanted to keep the article (alongside a few merges) instead of delete - particularly because Wiki policy was cited. The user Milchama was primarily pushing on the opposition - which is fine - but my concern is his/her intent might be malicious considering how he/she spammed user talk pages with deletion requests. Let me know your thoughts, and if you'd like to remove the notice... thanks!

Yes, I forgot to remove the notice. It's gone now. Mackensen (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/United Wrestling Association

Ah, yes, I will add it to my to-do list :) semper fi — Moe 20:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser page of Khosrow II

Hey, I'm waiting about for 2 months for checking user of Khosrow II Can you please take a look? Here the link , Thanks Zaparojdik (talk · contribs) 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear to have ever been listed on the main page. I'll go ask a clerk about it. Mackensen (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only was it never listed, it was apparently created as a closed archive which explains why it never showed up in the unlisted category. Weird. Listed now. Thatcher131 17:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ambriel

Hi, you closed this but your closing has been blanked by the nominator. Can you sort this, please? TerriersFan 00:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting this. TerriersFan 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fiddling with the pharaohs...

You've changed all the pharaoh succession boxes from one form to a basically identical form. Now, it looks like there's no cosmetic difference, but was there actually a vital reason to alter all of them? Thanatosimii 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Vital? No, I couldn't claim that. I do think there's utility in having all succession boxes using the same internal template, in case that system ever needs to be overhauled. It didn't make sense to me for the Pharaohs of Egypt to have an independent system. The template, created by Emsworth, dated back before the standardized succession box system was commonplace and its continuance felt like an anachronism. There shouldn't be any cosmetic difference either. Mackensen (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ping

"You've got mail" Thatcher131 05:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me wake up first ;). Mackensen (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's not especially urgent. Thatcher131 12:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  - No, but interesting in its own way. I've responded. Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Bobabobabo

I know that you are uninvolved in this matter currently, but I need immeadiate assistance with this user, and you're the only checkuser/bureaucrat who I can see is online. If you use mIRC, please contact me there.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Charlie the Unicorn on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Charlie the Unicorn. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. misanthrope 13:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Another vandal

Hey, can I get you to take a gander at the guy who keeps (several times over the last two weeks) vandalising Battle of New Orleans? Thanks in advance.--chris.lawson 14:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

?

You'll understand this question: What on earth was that? ;) --PaxEquilibrium 21:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Maior popping up again

Hello Mackensen, User:Drini indef. blocked Maior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for DRV tampering and subsequently you blocked a sockpuppet Maior1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has been coming back time and time again with sock after sock. Could you take a look at this talk? Thanks. (→Netscott) 07:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Francis Stewart Hepburn, 1st Earl of Bothwell

This is wrong. His surname was never Hepburn. It was always Stewart. I note you have (properly) previously queried this. If you are an administrator, maybe you have the authority to correct this major heading error. David Lauder 17:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

So many thanks. David Lauder 10:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lǐ (李) (surname)

Following your closure, and prior to taking it to DRV, I would like to understand exactly what you consider to be the grey area in the policy about the use of Chinese characters. Admittedly, it was a complex debate. I do not believe that a default keep per no consensus is justified, as this would apparently be in violation of WP:NAME, and overturn a strong consensus arrived at when WP:UE was drawn up.

Furthermore, it appears that some editors were attempting to use the AfD to decide policy, which I believe is completely the wrong forum. I feel that the default keep of the article sets a dangerous precedent: It is one thing to use characters which could theoretically be recognised without their diacritics, but sinograms, like arabic and sanskrit are different. I would ask you to prevent vigorously wikipedia's descent into anarchy. Ohconfucius 02:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD isn't the place for that, and I considered that as a matter of disambiguation both sides had a point. It wasn't a keep either, it was no consensus, because there was none. Mackensen (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Gibraltarians

Mackensen, Im assuming goodfaith but I dont understand your reasoning. If wikipedia guidelines state that an article cant be deleted unless there is a rough consensus to delete, and such consensus is not found, why did you delete it? Please explain this to me, otherwise I can only assume that you are abusing your position as an admin!--Burgas00 18:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have explained my reasoning already. Consensus isn't just the counting of heads. I looked for those keep and delete arguments which took Misplaced Pages policies to heart. I also looked back to the previous AfD and DRV for guidance. Based on all these things, I determined that there was a general consensus to delete. Best, Mackensen (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to say...

I would just like to say that I love admins who evaluate arguments instead of counting votes. That is all. Thank you. BhaiSaab 02:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For holding up Misplaced Pages Policies and believing that Misplaced Pages is not democracy on a recent AFD case. --TruthSpreader 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina

I noticed you deleted this page because the vote was to delete, but I counted, and it was a tie.--Sefringle 03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote. Mackensen (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually its a keep by vote count Keep 18 Delete 17 Neutral 1 . Mackensen please reverse the delete since the results are contrary to your claim. If it is not a vote then on what basis do you delete the page? At the very least the result is simply no consensus , meaning leave the page as it is--CltFn 04:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)--CltFn 04:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Also , would you kindly post the vote count at the top of the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ali Sina (2nd nomination) page so that we can all clearly see whether there was a consensus reached or not?--CltFn 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, AfD is not a vote. Please read up Misplaced Pages's policies. Mackensen (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps , but how can you say consensus was achieved when there were move votes to keep than delete?? As far as I can see this was a incorrect implementation of the AFD process. My suggestion would be that you restore the article, because it was deleted prematurely and wait until we achieve a consensus. --CltFn 12:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  - I can say that because I've read the relevant policies, and I'll do no such thing pending the outcome of deletion review. Please take a gander at Misplaced Pages:Consensus. Mackensen (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Big Fight Special

What you did to Big Fight Special was not good. Many articles on what appear very trivial issues make up a good 60% of English Misplaced Pages. If you've got two weeks annual leave from your job, I can link you to a few of them. What now if I begin to rewrite the article? Will you delete it again? Evlekis 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Any closing administrator would have done the same thing. What you decide to do is entirely up to you. Mackensen (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/E-Sword (second nomination)

Why'd you delete E-Sword? The only comment calling for deletion was from the nominator. I see no consensus that it should have been deleted! Not having sources is not a criteria for deletion. I was not involved with that page or the project at all, but I think you made a mistake in closing it the way you did. --Karnesky 15:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, the need for verifiability is non-negotiable. It's irresponsible to create articles without sources. I can't help it if people arguing keep ignore fundamental policies. Mackensen (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy states that WP:V should probably be addressed by cleanup, not deletion. --Karnesky 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore: the AfD did not bring up any problems about verifiability. You acted out of process. If you saw problems with WP:V, you should have been the first to comment about it -- you shouldn't have closed it. I encourage you to restore it. Otherwise, I think this calls for deletion review. --Karnesky 15:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I considered that, but this wasn't the first nomination. Editors had two years, and two nominations, to fix it up. Again, they're free to create an article that has sources. And the AfD most certainly brought up those issues. You can't prove or disprove notability without sources. Any assertion of notability without sources is no assertion at all. My actions were completely within process and I stand by them. Mackensen (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe the page was a recreation of deleted content. Can you confirm? --Karnesky 15:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that the previous debate deleted it because it was an advertisement. That was two years ago. I believe that the old database crash lost those deletion revisions, but that debate definitely took place. This is a different article, but suffered from the same problem: absent reliable, verifiable sources, it is an advertisement (that it also read like one is almost beside the point). Mackensen (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

E-Sword on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of E-Sword. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Karnesky 16:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Duly noted and expected. I have responded. Mackensen (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Short and sweet

Kudos to you. See above for recent reeasons why, but also for your general kudo-worthy-ness in times past.
152.91.9.144 23:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom

I'm quite bemused by your vote for geogre - you oppose because he's too valuable an article space contributor? By similar logic, presumably those candidates who are excellent admins are also opposed by you for their vandal fighting (etc.) prowess? Or are we just supporting expendable candidates to stop them from messing up articles? --Mcginnly | Natter 00:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that's a fair question. I hope we aren't at the Peter Principle quite yet. I commented to Geogre several days I ago that I viewed arbitration as a sentence, not a reward. I try to support candidates who I think bring the best balance of talents to the committee. My ideal candidate is a mix of janitor and article editor, preferably one with loads of free time (one thing that strongly recommended Paul August to me). I also look for at least informal experience in dispute resolution--preferably the person defuses situations. Mackensen (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what circumstances lead to your disillusionment with Arbcom but I'd hope candidates appreciate the time required for the job, certainly, having read geogres numerous (lengthy) and well reasoned responses to just about anything ever asked of him, I think he has the time..... Regarding dispute resolution perhaps a serious point; appeasement has something of a chequered history. I'm rather dismayed geogres candidacy has provoked such opposition, he stood up recently, to what a number of people saw, as abuse of power by certain individuals and appears to paying a price for that. In a community of volunteers if wayward individuals are attempting to assume power beyond their remit, is appeasement the best course of action? --Mcginnly | Natter 01:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  - I'm not calling for appeasement, and I'm not entirely disillusioned with the Arbcom. My remark about sentencing has more to do with the high workload and corresponding stress. I think my best statement on administrators and potential abuse of power was made during the last Arbcom election (Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Mackensen), and I'll not restate it here. I take the view, broadly, that the best possible outcome of dispute resolution is that the group of editors concerned patch things up and go back to editing the article. Obviously this isn't always going to happen, but it remains an admirable goal. To that end, we need to get people talking to each other. This strikes me as less adversarial than collegial. Now, in reference to the abuse of power, that represents, in my view, an unusual set of circumstances not likely to be repeated, and I prefer that we not build policy or procedure on a boundary case. That being said, I'm prepared to concede that I'm wrong. If in the next year we are confronted by a massive abuse of power from established users it will of course be necessary to re-examine the existing structures. It would be my hope that we don't come to that. Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Thanks for the chat. Extraordinary circumstances aside, I think he'd be pretty good at dispute resolution but we'll leave it there. To quote Curb your Enthusiasm "A good compromise is when both parties are left equally miserable.". Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

reference desk comments

Can I interest you in commenting about the ongoing situation at the ref desks? I'm starting to suspect nothing will work except bring an rfc against one or more of the worst offenders, but I'd like another opinion on this before proceeding down this path. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Mackensen/New admins

To **Mackensen** for his exceptional pearls for new administrators -- **Samir** धर्म 03:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to stop by and tell you that I was honored to see myself listed here; I'm taking my inclusion as an example of many-hattedness as a compliment, rather than as an example of being really stupid to take on so many (per point #2). ;) Essjay (Talk) 03:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Mackensen -- Samir धर्म 03:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

84.114.131.26 unblocked

Hi Mackensen, I've lifted an ip block for Leaderofall (talk • contribs) on 84.114.131.26 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • block user • block log) which you blocked back in August as a compromised host. nmap returns the following:

% sudo nmap -v -P0 -sA 84.114.131.26
Starting Nmap 4.11 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2006-12-06 16:37 EST
DNS resolution of 1 IPs took 0.00s.
Initiating ACK Scan against chello084114131026.5.15.vie.surfer.at (84.114.131.26)  at 16:37
The ACK Scan took 35.41s to scan 1680 total ports.
Host chello084114131026.5.15.vie.surfer.at (84.114.131.26) appears to be up ... good.
Interesting ports on chello084114131026.5.15.vie.surfer.at (84.114.131.26):
Not shown: 1668 UNfiltered ports
PORT    STATE    SERVICE
111/tcp filtered rpcbind
135/tcp filtered msrpc
161/tcp filtered snmp
162/tcp filtered snmptrap
201/tcp filtered at-rtmp
202/tcp filtered at-nbp
203/tcp filtered at-3
204/tcp filtered at-echo
205/tcp filtered at-5
206/tcp filtered at-zis
207/tcp filtered at-7
208/tcp filtered at-8
Nmap finished: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 35.437 seconds
               Raw packets sent: 1774 (70.960KB) | Rcvd: 1709 (68.360KB)

It looks clean, but shortly after I unblocked the IP, I remembered that "Leaderofall" fits Enlighter1's pattern of sockpuppet names. Could you please double check this host for me? Thanks -- Netsnipe ► 05:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't a proxy, but I also think that Enlighter1 is still on the other end. I suppose we could do a trial unblocking and see what happens, but those so often end in heartbreak, pathos, and discredit...Mackensen (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But also in exposing more sockpuppets. I suspect User:Universalgenius - same Reuters ect edits today. Agathoclea 13:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed. What was it I said about heartbreak? Re-blocked. Mackensen (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, my suspicions panned out (I hate when that happens). Universalgenius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is definitely an Enlighter1 sock and he's coming from the usual place. I've blocked indefinitely as it's obviously a static IP. Mackensen (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You may want to run a checkuser on Leaderofall (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) then. Likely a sleeper account in that case. How did you detect that the host was compromised in the first place? Just intuition? -- Netsnipe ► 14:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Damned if I can remember anymore. I must have seen something in the nmap results that I didn't like (open IRC port maybe, who knows?). In any event, it's clear that this is Enlighter1's address, and we'll just have to sit on it. Leaderofall is definitely a sockpuppet and I've tagged him as such. Mackensen (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He went on a spree a few days ago using proxies. If you want I can dig them out for you if you want to tag or run further checks. Agathoclea 14:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Mackensen (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

List of TV stations in Kalamazoo, List of FM stations in Kalamazoo, List of AM stations in Kalamazoo

List of TV stations in Kalamazoo was deleted per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of TV stations in Kalamazoo. I've proded List of FM stations in Kalamazoo, List of AM stations in Kalamazoo. —Quarl 2006-12-06 08:57Z

Stonnar

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Stonnar. Please be careful not to remove content from Misplaced Pages without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. *

Stonnar was deleted per WP:PROD. Please don't misuse the warning templates. Mackensen (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing

why? what is "{{db-spam}}"? --ProdigySportsman 01:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was tagged for speedy deletion back on November 21 by Calton (talk). I deleted it the next day, on the grounds that it read like an advertisement. Mackensen (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)