User talk:PeterSymonds

This user may have left Wikipedia. PeterSymonds has not edited Wikipedia since April 5, 2013. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Excuse me, but why did you delete the redirect M.o.v.e to make way for a move, despite the consensus name at the talk page being Move (Japanese band)? --Prosperosity (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, it was an uncontroversial move request; the only reason Ryulong couldn't perform the move himself was because of a bot edit that got in the way. I don't have an opinion about the move. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An SPI where you previously commented has been reopened. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nableezy. Sincerely, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onelifefreak2007/Archive

I would appreciate it, if you could take another look at this. Compare Razzinator (talk · contribs) with Razzfan (talk · contribs). Similar usernames, and both make unsourced changes to "Razzie" Awards pages. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there just isn't enough behavioural evidence for me to take any action here. I don't think this is a sock issue. The fact that similar usernames edit an article with a similar name and introduce unsourced edits over a year apart is not strong enough. I think this now needs to be addressed as a content issue; if the edits are problematic, feel free to bring them up on the applicable noticeboard. With a few fairly obvious differences in behaviour, I don't feel comfortable with labelling this user as a sockpuppet. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, User talk:Razzfan has been blocked repeatedly for that same behavior pattern. So you are correct, in that if it keeps up, the account will likely face escalating blocks. -- Cirt (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine if he's blocked; I'm not defending his behaviour, and I haven't particularly studied it. What I have studied are his behavioural patterns from a sockpuppet investigation point of view. I would just rather not see him blocked as a sockpuppet without sufficient evidence and, while convincing, there just isn't enough in my view. Another clerk may disagree before the case is archived. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The case has already been archived. No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at this? Same exact articles, similar usernames, same pattern of adding unsourced info, articles include List of Total Drama series characters and List of General Hospital cast members and Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actress, etc. This is not simply coincidence. How can I appeal this sock investigation finding? Can you please have another look at the contribs of Razzinator (talk · contribs) with Razzfan (talk · contribs) ? -- Cirt (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - more evidence connecting Razzinator to Razzfan

Compare [1] with [2]. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PeterSymonds, have you had a chance to compare these two diffs? This really is a case of WP:DUCK. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PeterSymonds, I see you were able to address me, here [3]. Perhaps you can please respond to my query, in this thread on your user talk page? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought it was a little redundant considering Fastily blocked him for unrelated reasons on September 8, so I considered the matter resolved. Was there something else you needed me to look at? Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had not realized that. A response to my repeated queries to your talk page would have been nice. I was starting to get under the impression that you were ignoring me. :( -- Cirt (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'd actually missed the thread responses until fairly recently, so I wasn't sure whether you were still wanting a follow-up. Sorry about that. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Alright. Well - I had posted three followup requests in the interim... Oh well. Thank you for the response today. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you closed the case prematurely. The new accusations are behaviorally based, not technically based, and the previous findings do not shed light on the behavior. I agree that a new CU check will not be helpful, but an experienced admin should review the behavioral suggestions and comment on their strength or weakness. Therefore, I reopened the case and put it into the non-CU section. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I'm well aware that checkuser is not the only form of evidence, and while my comment may not have been clear enough, I'm still not convinced that the behavioural evidence is adequate to suggest sockpuppetry. It was comprehensive but circumstantial at best. I read through everything before making my closing comment, and I'll read through it again, but I was not convinced. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, if you read it through and decide that the behavioral evidence is insufficient, please note that. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, I talked with you on #wikipedia-en-help as Loki, and you helped me in marking my CI as edit=sysop as requested (Protection Log). Again, thank you for your help. --»Wolfnix« 23:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am interested in becoming a clerk at SPI. You were on the list of clerks and didn't have a trainee so I decided to contact you. I have Rollback and am familiar with the allowed uses of alt. accounts and am a fairly well established/ trusted editor. I know I'm knew but that doesn't mean that I don't understand the policies. I understand them and follow them. Mr. R00t ^Talk 19:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; thanks for your interest. At the moment our backlog is almost exclusively centred around the administration of cases (primarily blocking users). We have enough clerks to deal with the other bits, but we'll let you know if we need more. Thanks again. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make sense for you to be training new clerks for when you have a backlog of new cases? Mr. R00t ^Talk 19:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but we're really in need of more people who can take care of them by blocking users and making admin judgements based on things like deleted content and contributions. DeltaQuad and Spitfire (among others) adequately cover the non-admin side of things, but we're only after admins to train at the moment. Sorry. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, please contact me when you need clerks again. Mr. R00t ^Talk 19:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing what in the contributions points to User:Fabstoflops being a sock of anyone listed here. What in their contributions points to this?--Chaser (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The page Pete Burgess after tagging it for deletion for being created by a blocked user. The other socks of Googler459 started reverting vandalism in a similar way (using the same manual summaries for warning. It's also interesting, although probably not very relevant, that this user falsifies rollback and Igloo summaries when reverting edits. It was mainly a block based on the page and similar reversions; the user denying knowledge of Bonkers189 seems odd considering the page he tagged as being created by a "blocked user" was clearly tagged as Bonkers189. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Since you participated in The MfD, you might be interested in participating in the Deletion Review, as well.

LiteralKa (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1st question: Hello, I have a question regarding talk pages. On English wiki we should use English language when we talk? Right? The use of other languages is not allowed?

2nd: About the warning I received[4] on the false request of User:Nmate, it is important to be retracted[5] because if another "report"[6] (where the result was case not valid) like this appear I could be banned for no apparent reason. Since the Admin who issued this warning is on indefinite Wikibreak I would like to ask you for the possibility of retracting this warning. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Palestinian leaders are habitual liars" is one of his comments from the talk page, where you can get an excellent impression of him. Anyway, I will be patient, but thought you should know he seems on a sometimes incoherent campaign to exclude all my (bloat-cutting) edits and to grow an already 140,000 plus bytes article with his 'even more bad stuff about Hamas'.Haberstr (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the history of your talk section to see the discussion of X3D edits started by me and vandalized by others. The issues have been resolved, but you should see what my original comments sparked. 138.88.65.145 (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK you undid my revision, because the one, who this edit was addressed to read it already, but you do not know the whole story to decide what is and what is not appropriate. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you leaved me also curious. Why was it not appropriate? Iyow2 (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am much more curious why a confirmed sock of a banned user is not blocked, and continuing wikihounding me from page to page.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the last post is not after you but asking something to the owner of this talk page that did something unexpected in mine. Iyow2 (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noted some duplicate warnings with the HBC Archive Indexerbot configs you have setup. I'm fixing these for you. The Indexerbot code snippet should only be placed in one place. In your situation I did left the code snippet in /Archive 1. --Kslotte (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An example of the code snippet removal. --Kslotte (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit odd. Thanks for fixing it! PeterSymonds (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I get this one Peter. Looking at the uploads he was making just before being blocked, he did identify where he was getting them from and filled out the required fields on the FUR. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue here was uploading replaceable non-free files, the first batch I deleted. I sent the user an e-mail as it seemed more appropriate given some of the claims, explaining what the problems were, but they were reuploaded. The user then sent me an e-mail requesting clarification, explaining that some of them were owned outright, but this seemed highly improbable. But I gave a link to the OTRS e-mail address in case he wanted to declare them. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had at least a halfway decent understanding of our policies in this area but I'm still not sure I get where you are coming from here. They were album covers, were labeled as such, and seemed to have proper FURs. If he was claiming on the file description page that he owned the images I could see it, but they were clearly tagged as non-free album covers downloaded from IMDB. I'm sorry if I'm being dense here, I'm just trying to see exactly how this is blockable. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he was uploading album covers and claiming them as his own; I deleted them and sent an e-mail explaining why I deleted them and why he couldn't use them on that article (as fair-use album covers should really be limited to articles about the album or song). He then re-uploaded them with the same rationale for the same article. That prompted the block, as I've so far had no acknowledgement of my e-mail or the follow-up. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your patience with my thick head, I think I got you now. I've declined the unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTome · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki · wikichecker · count · pages created · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3) (assign permissions)

I have been working on Wikipedia to revert vandalism for a while now, although I took a break recently because it was too time consuming. Now I find myself with more time, and would like to continue by using Huggle so I can clean things up faster. As I need rollback privileges to use Huggle, I would be really grateful if you could assign them to me. Thanks so much. WikiTome ^Talk 17:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moot Already handled at WP: RFP/R. —Soap— 19:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - can you explain your cryptic edit summary relating to the following edit to John P. Costas (business). Further, are you supporting removal of this text? I think it would be a stretch to make a case that there is a WP:BLP issue - this is directly from a Bloomberg article and it is couched as UBS's reporting of their own losses. This is not a comment about the Costas himself but rather a loss-making division of UBS that was shuttered during the financial crisis. This editor is a major WP:COI issue as an admitted former Dillon Read Capital Management trader. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were several reasons why I asked you to e-mail me as it's not something I'm prepared to discuss publicly. I'll send you an e-mail. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I can't, since you don't have it enabled. Is there any chance you can enable it? Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have enabled a new separate e-mail account as I feel uncomfortable having to do this outside of wikipedia. Please let me know when you have e-mailed so I can go check this account. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 18:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said you already confirmed his identity. [7] Someone tried to delete something he gave permission to use. I added the link to the OST ticket you mentioned, but the automatic template doesn't say its confirmed. [8] Can you please confirm his identity there, and replace it with whatever template is necessary? The talk page has more evidence of his identity and he gives permission to publish the article there. He also did it in an email he sent me, that I forwarded to you guys. Will someone with access read both emails to confirm his identity, and that he did give permission to this? Dream Focus 17:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bringing this up again since someone just nominated that page for deletion a second time. Can you confirm that you have read the email and confirmed it? How do I update the template to show that? You didn't answer last time, you gone for awhile, and no one else apparently handling these sorts of things. Dream Focus 16:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had quite forgotten! I will look into the ticket and confirm it this evening. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, more technical issues. Erm, I think there is a little confusion here. I confirmed a ticket which identified the username to the real name, as that was a point of discussion and in need of clarification. This, however, is a totally different ticket, from somebody else, claiming that "he [Peter David] said it was fine". That is not appropriate and needs to be from the subject himself. As such, I cannot say the ticket is valid, because Peter David was not the one who sent the e-mail about that image. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have confirmed that Padguy = Peter David, then when Padguy says on his talk page that he is writing an article about the issue, and that anyone can use it, then doesn't that count as proof? [9] He mentions it'll be in his "But I Digress" article, and will concern the deletionists and be about the article of that actor, which in fact it was, and that anyone could publish it freely. And the email I forwarded was from Peter David, I asking specifically to upload it onto Wikipedia in that format, and he consenting. If there is no doubt whatsoever that permission was given, just by my discussion with him on his talk page alone, is that enough to keep the image? Dream Focus 17:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PeterSymonds has been made a member of the Order of the Mop, for their work as an admin and is entitled to display this award for being such a great admin, Kind regards and happy editing, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:43pm • 11:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your great content work, and helpful RfA criticisms, comments and votes :) Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:43pm • 11:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this is entirely deserved, but thanks! :-) PeterSymonds (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who was given the award has done something to contribute to the encyclopedia :) I believe you have too. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 10:14pm • 11:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I have proposed an unblock of User:Iaaasi at WP:AN if you wish to comment, having been one of the admins who blocked him. Regards, –MuZemike 14:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly okay with that, Mike. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who previously participated in the discussion to adopt policy verbiage that is being used as a rationale to delete "vandalism sandboxes", your input would be appreciated on the matter: Wikipedia talk:User pages#Userspace Vandalism Sandboxes. Gigs (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd draw your attention to the post-block discussion on the user's talk page, where the user is simply continuing to type all in caps and refer to admins as "mods" to further irk other users, and has indicated that they have no intention of complying with the community's request. They don't seem interested in filing an unblock request either, so it might be time to withdraw their talk page access. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Thank you for explaining your unsolicited opinions on this block. Leave it up to the mods." Well, this "mod" agrees completely with GW. If I'd kept assuming good faith for too much longer I was going to end up getting hit with another one of these. I don't care too much about being called a "mod", I don't care too much about the ALL CAPS, I don't care too much about POW's attitude... but taken together it's become obvious that this editor isn't here to get along with other editors, and is going to continue to use their talkpage to continue their game. TFOWR 08:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have revoked the talk page access, and referred the editor to the mailing list should they wish to put in an unblock request -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see, but isn't he allowed to e-mail an administrator and request an unblock that way? Should his e-mail access through his account also be blocked(, which by the way forces PoW to e-mail the unblock requests mailing list)? HeyMid (contributions) 14:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do that because as far as I am aware, he hasn't abused the email system. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then I of course understand why. HeyMid (contributions) 15:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've had technical issues. Thanks for dealing with that. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? HeyMid (contributions) 13:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably he was talking to Steve :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ PeterSymonds (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon. I personally disagree with the deletion of this person's article. I find him to be notable, and unless there's a compelling reason for the "courtesy deletion", I will likely request undeletion Purplebackpack89 22:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, I would much prefer you to rewrite the article from scratch. There were a few privacy concerns which prompted this deletion. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The project tag? Purplebackpack89 22:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the question. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i notice you deleted this blp. while i normally am deferential to the subject of article, i must take issue with the statement that a MacArthur Fellows Program winner is "marginally notable". it seems he is a public figure. Accotink2 talk 01:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PeterSymonds, if, in the future, for whatever reasons, one finds it difficult to get a response from you after requests, [10] [11] [12], what is a good way that you would suggest to get ahold of you, or a next step to take? Just curious because it did involved legitimate disruption to the project by a user that was subsequently indef-blocked. Would like to know what users should do if this type of situation crops up again. Post a new subsection to your talk page instead of posting to an older thread higher up on the page? File a repeat SPI investigation for the same user, but with the newly-discovered evidence? Email you? Would appreciate your advice. Thank you for your time. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already apologised. As you can see from my talk page, it's not like I routinely ignore comments posted there. Sometimes comments in an older thread get overlooked, because issues that I think are resolved get restarted. If it's an old(ish), and you haven't got a follow-up, just poke me again or start a new section. Once I see it, I'll respond. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, in the future will try starting a new subsection at the bottom of your usertalk page, if it occurs again. Thank you for the advice. It is most appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm wondering why you, and user jpgordon, have undone the recent edits I made to The Kitchen page? I work for the organization and we are in the process of updating it so it is accurate and consistent. Please let me know.

Thank you,

Justin Neal Justinbneal (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justin. Unfortunately your edit was a blatant advertisement of your company, which is specifically disallowed on this site. All edits must be entirely neutral in tone, and they also must be sourced. Take a look at a few other articles to get an impression of the tone expected on Wikipedia. Let me know if you need any further assistance. :-) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Could you unprotect Template:Editor-review/editintro? I need to make some updates to it and test it in general to make it clearer and easier to understand. I think changing the protection to edit=autoconfirmed is sufficient, as this template is quite hard to find. Netalarm^talk 21:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not. Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, I see that you lock the Bigfoot page to prevent vandalism. I read an article on the BFRO webpage about one of the references cited in the article, currently footnote 66 which references a Swedish book, "Berömda Vidunder". The artcle is: http://www.bfro.net/REF/wikipedia_edit.asp Could you take their arguments and research into account on the statement and reference used. They are saying that the book used is not a scientific journal, which should preclude it from the "View among the scientific community" section. Thank you for looking at this, Mike Mikek2003 (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the 'Some housekeeping items' header I placed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cote (film director). The creator of the article is inserting his comments within others' posts and it was getting messy (and has gotten messy again). I was trying to keep my comments separate from the consensus-building but attached to the AfD since there are new/one-subject editors posting there. Shearonink (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. :-) PeterSymonds (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the Ray Vander Laan page deleted? Did Ray request this deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.177.54 (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you protected the Herb Sandler article which basically removed the following text [[13]]:

Begin Quote Sandler and his wife have throughout their public life denounced predatory lenders and the poor underwriting practices of other lenders. However, the actual practices of their firm especially in the 2000s, undermined their conservative lending principles and reputations, especially in the wake of the housing crash in 2008.[4]

The Sandlers are credited with the invention of the "Pick-A-Pay" mortgage that allowed borrowers to pay less than the interest due on their loan each month -- which increased the total amount owed by the borrower. Analysts place the blame on the near failure of Wachovia in the fall of 2008 on the "Pick-A-Pay" mortgage portfolio they acquired from the Sandler's firm.[5]

Martin Eakes, the director of the Center for Responsible Lending, said that prepayment penalties would make it hard for cash-poor borrowers to refinance a loan for one with more manageable terms, and helped to get a law passed in North Carolina prohibiting such charges. The Sandlers supported prepayment penalties, acknowledging that lenders used the penalties to lock borrowers into “absolutely awful” loans, but saying that his firm used the penalties to fend off unethical brokers who enticed borrowers with low-interest-rate loans that often had hidden fees. Sandler described independent brokers as "the whores of the world”, nonetheless by 2006 independent brokers generated 60 percent of World Savings' loan business, and he claimed that he was compelled to do so because of brokers were a dominant force in the mortgage industry. World Savings was suppose to telephone applicants to ensure that they understood the terms of their loan, as a check on the representations that brokers made to borrowers, but these calls reached only about half of the borrowers. [6] End Quote

I cannot understand what precisely the BLP concerns are? The information may be negative, but it is well sourced (mostly the New York Times). Please explain.

Thanks,

LN

If you are going to not defend your editing (which do not seem to be based on any good reasons), I suggest you refrain from editing in the future. LuxNevada (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Did you read the edit summary for his protection edit? [14] It should also be noted that Peter is not the only admin who has found the article worthy of protection due to BLP issues. Killiondude (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did read the edit summary. As noted in my original now more than 8 month old post, the deleted text is sourced and does not violate BLP. LuxNevada (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no fan of Mick (and have been the target of his invective a few times) and as usual his response was OTT, but he was baited unreasonably there. I suppose the ban from his talk page was bound to happen, but I think if left alone he might have thought better in the cold light of day. Not a complaint by the way, just a note. I have reverted the offensive point per WP:BAIT as don't think Mick's use of obscenities justifies the use against him even if the intent was ironic. --Snowded ^TALK 21:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your block modification has been undone and this is now being discussed at WP:ANI.  Sandstein  22:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was apparently under the mistaken impression that actions such as these should be discussed with those who issued them. :-) Clearly I was wrong. I can't say I'm that bothered about it though. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering since I have seen you on the IRC, if you would consider taking me on as your SPI clerk trainee. I truly would like to assist with SPI requests. I have read all the clerk information and agree to abide by those policies and know when and when not to endorse a request for a CU. Thank you.  JoeGazz  ▲  12:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update?  JoeGazz  ▲  00:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PeterSymonds. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

via donatewikimedia.org ǝɥʇM0N0 23:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know how to interpret that response. However, I've forwarded your appeal to Deniz, who is organising the appeals drive. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be a pal and stuff a cork in him, please? HalfShadow 09:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Probably a sock. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to finish the article. Thanks. Lionel (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks! Lionel (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, a member of the band Old Skull died this week and as news is trickling in, it's being added to the page. Unfortunately, there's a person using an anonymous IP address to delete sourced info only to replace it with misspelled words and tribute stile verbage. Please take a look. I have no desire to break the 3 revert rule and this is already getting out of hand. You've helped me in similar situations before. Hopefully you can do so again. Thanks! NJZombie (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peter. I was istructed to speak with you. (1.discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review.) Can you help me with this?[15]

Thank you very much--Danielconstantin (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ionuţ Caragea. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Danielconstantin (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Too often great editors like you are overlooked and not given the credit deserved for all their great contributions. So I am awarding you this barnstar to let you know I greatly appreciate all you do for Wikipedia, and please keep up the outstanding work!! CTJF83 chat 03:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of these edits here? Are they vandalism? It's just because some IP here is threatening me to be reported to you guys on my talk page. Thanks.--Mr. Berty ^talk/_stalk 16:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ZAPPO! HalfShadow 17:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure your intentions were fun, that simply is not appropriate. Please avoid that in future. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awyernofunatall... HalfShadow 18:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see from meta:IRC/wikipedia-en-admins/User list that you are an operator of the channel. Would you be able to grant me access to it? Regards, Jujutacular ^talk 02:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya; done. You'll need to type /msg ChanServ invite #wikipedia-en-admins to enter the channel (make sure you're logged into freenode before you type that). If you get a cloak, you'll be able to join automatically. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That worked, thank you! Jujutacular ^talk 12:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! You're welcome. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and trust. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Very best of luck. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering why this article was deleted and how may I make it better so it doesn't get deleted again. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enagik609 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It was deleted because it showed a disregard for our biographies of living persons policy. All articles about living people must be neutral and verifiable, with solid sourcing, especially when you are introducing negative material. You might be interested in having a look at our articles for creation team for further writing advice. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedian,

This is the first of what will hopefully be a regular notice to help bring together the UK community so that you can be involved in some amazing things. To kick things off, there will be a UK community IRC meeting at 1800 UTC, December 7, 2010 to discuss the future growth and developement of Wikimedia UK. Without huge community support and involvement, the chapter cannot be successful and to get the most out of it, get involved.

For information on the community IRC meeting please go here

More to come about:

• Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Events
• 1st Annual UK Wiki-conference
• Trustee interest meeting - an event for those community members with even just a fleeting interest in becoming trustees of Wikimedia UK.

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon

User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 05:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously had to leave. Thanks for your attention, anyway. I'll wait for a response one way or another and then follow through on your suggestion. -Danjel (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since these are accounts are owned by the same person and WPBot has intended to take legal action per their unblock request, shouldn't the main be blocked indef until the legal threat is retracted? Elockid ^(Talk) 15:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. He retracted it. So I'm going to review his unblock request. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I didn't really take that into account, because it looked like an experiment in vandalism by a rather immature child. I'll defer to your judgement on the matter. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick reminder about the IRC meeting at 1800 UTC tonight to bring together the Wikimedia community in the UK to help the growth and success of the UK chapter and community activities. For information see wmuk:Community_IRC_meetings

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon

User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 17:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

May I ask what precipitated this: [16]? He is interacting with people who are trying to advise him on adjusting his behavior. If you block his access to his talk page, he's going to come out of the gate on Tuesday even more annoyed, and unadvised. I'd like to restore talk page access. There are more uses of a blocked user's talk page than requesting an unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can do what you like. :-) It doesn't look like he's contributing anything constructive to me, since he seems to be stirring the pot while he's blocked; but if you feel there's some use for it, by all means restore it with my apologies. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly no apologies needed, just a difference of opinion. If anything, I'm probably more pessimistic than you that he's going to turn things around; I threatened last week to block indef, rather than the more lenient 1 week. But since he was blocked for a week, I think he needs all the feedback, and interaction with people less pessimistic than me, that he can get. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peter. I just blocked 125.22.97.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for vandalism. I'm bringing this here because I noted you had blocked this IP re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fyodor7/Archive and there may be procedural reasons for altering the block or amending the SPI. If I need to alter my action or take the matter elsewhere, please advise. See ya 'round Tiderolls 08:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no special procedure. Thanks for dealing with that. :-) PeterSymonds (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up after me. :P There were like 10 different things going on at the time that got in the way (it even took like 30 minutes before I got to updating the meta list), and I completely forgot to remove the completed request after notifying the dude. Thanks again =) --slakr^\ talk / 21:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You probably have this page on your watchlist, but in case it gets lost I found this diff this morning. Any idea what he was up to? I'm actually surprised it took this long for an edit like this to appear. —Soap— 14:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no idea, sorry! I hadn't noticed it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PeterSymonds. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Matthew Yeager (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May your family have
a joyous holiday season
and a new year blessed
with hope and happiness.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

• The Ceremonies for Christmas Day (Robert Herrick) Kindle the Christmas brand, and then    Till sunset let it burn; Which quench'd, then lay it up again    Till Christmas next return. Part must be kept wherewith to teend    The Christmas log next year, And where 'tis safely kept, the fiend    Can do no mischief there.

  If you don't celebrate Christmas ... Happy (belated) Hanukkah! Happy Eid al-Adha! Happy Kwanzaa! And of course, Happy Festivus! May this holiday season bring you the music of laughter, the warmth of friendship, and the steadying hand of love. ☃

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

block notices[edit]

Are you planning on giving either of the two accounts you blocked for editing James Randi block notices?

block notices[edit]

Are you planning on giving either of the two accounts you blocked for editing James Randi block notices? --Leivick (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I only stepped away from my PC for a couple of minutes. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great. --Leivick (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you do not invent things please[edit]

I want to know what are those multiple personalities that I have used? I did not use any multiple personality, I have only a nick searchingcriminal, at least on wikipedia.org. I have never made games like this, you do not invent things please,let us be serious. For every question I can be contacted by email. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.43.162.147 (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Card[edit]

User:DeltaQuad/Christmas2010

Outing[edit]

Hello, I previously explained my previous account here:[17]

I regret revealing my ethnicity and nationality with the old account, can you please make the username invisible in all the articles the vandal reverted me in? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new sock here tagging my old abandoned account and IP, can you please undo his edits? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my ignorance; but which article? :-) PeterSymonds (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All articles edited by this account, where he connects me with my old abandoned account where I regret that I revealed my ethnicity and nationality.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the outing is still present in the edit summary of the editor that reverted the vandal. Could you take care of that also? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got them all. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do the same with everything here? [18] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:)[edit]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Reyk _YO! 21:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :-) PeterSymonds (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Range block?[edit]

Hey,

I'm wondering whether you might be so kind as to scan your eye of this.

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request of Hectorthebat[edit]

Hello PeterSymonds. Hectorthebat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, JamesBWatson (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This unblock request has now been declined, so you may ignore this message. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I'd commented but evidently never got around to it! I didn't mean to unwittingly ignore your message. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expand[edit]

Hello! I'm afraid that deleting Template:Expand was not a good idea; it's in the holding cell, and the edit history of the template goes years back. Would you be willing to restore it? At least it should be tagged as historical. HeyMid (contribs) 21:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't necessary. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Get of my case, you bitch whore"[edit]

I know I shouldn't laugh .... but I did! XD Thanks for the revert and block - Alison ^❤ 21:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC) (on my cell)[reply]

Lol. You're welcome. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my page 'Daniel Brett Severn' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplycee100 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Felice Rosser article deletion query[edit]

Hello, It's nice to meet you. I noticed that you deleted something from the Felice Rosser article, but I wasn't sure how to tell what it was. Could you help me out? I'm trying to build out a set of orphaned articles and I don't want to make the same mistake again. Thanks, I hope by the way that I didn't post something deeply offensive, my apologies if so. EstherLaver (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Esther. I took a look at the history of the page but I wasn't listed, so I haven't done anything to this article. Are you sure it's the correct article? Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

nuff said--SPhilbrickT 20:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Congrats from me as well! PeterSymonds (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor assistance list[edit]

A problem has been identified at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/list. You may like to read Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/list#Problem with inactive accounts on the list. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks James. I still believe I have something to offer to new users, since I remain active, so I've asked for my name to stay. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Guides study/project[edit]

Hi Peter :)

I know I've mentioned I'd probably be after you again soon and I think I talked a bit about the study we were planning but wanted to drop a line to try and reel you into it ;) As I’m sure you're aware we have had a decrease in new editors over the past couple years.

As a community we have a lot of ideas but We’ve been stymied by a lot of options and little data.

We want to conduct a study over the next couple months (with some resources from the Wikimedia Foundation) to help craft strategies to develop new users, to get data on exactly how our new users are finding their first, and later, experiences on Wikipedia and of course to help share the experiences of the experienced users who are here to find out what works, what doesn't and what resources they need to make their work easier.

The plan at the moment is to have several groups of users, 1 group that is just followed (the control) and several other groups with guides who actively reach out and try to help them edit and join the community. I hope that you can help us as we get ready for the study start next month and help the new users once we start! You can find out more information and sign up on the project page and if you can think of anyone who might be interested please please PLEASE point them this way or let me know so I can reach out to them personally. I'm hoping to try and get some discussion going on the talk page as well especially ideas on what you're new user experience was etc. Jalexander--WMF 22:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar awarded![edit]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thanks for helping out at WP:RFPP :) œ™ 13:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PeterSymond's song.[edit]

<Addihockey10> spidey peter, spidey peter 

<Addihockey10> Splitting images like spidey peter does. 

<Addihockey10> Can he delete? Yes he can, why is that? He's spidey peter. 

<Addihockey10> Loook ouuttt 

<Addihockey10> Here comes spidey Peter........ 

--Addihockey10 ^e-mail 00:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Total awesomeness. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 13 February 2011[edit]

The newsletter of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – Volume 1, 28 January 2011 This is the second issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed. Userboxes and profiles - Add an ambassador userbox to your page, and make sure you've added your mentor profile! Be a coordinating ambassador - Pick and class and make sure no students fall through the cracks. New screencasts - Short videos on watchlists and a number of other topics may be useful to students. Updates from Campus Ambassadors - Ambassadors are starting to report on classroom experiences, both on-wiki and on the Google Group. Other news - There's a new on-wiki application for being an Online Ambassador, and Editing Friday #2 is today! Things you can do - This is just a sample; if you're eager for something to do, there's plenty more.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

please add your profile to the Online Ambassadors mentors page[edit]

Hi Peter!

If you're still interested in being a mentor this term, please add your profile to Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors/Mentors. If you have any questions about the ambassador role or what you're interested in doing as an Online Ambassador (whether mentoring, pitching in in other ways, or something else), please let me know.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sage. I regret not mentioning it in the e-mail (I thought I had); unfortunately I cannot start for a couple of weeks, just while I finalise some other commitments (I'm going on holiday tomorrow). I'll add myself as soon as it frees up. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TestWiki[edit]

Hi. Could you please take a look: [19]. ru.Media (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, been away, but that has been done now. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FA[edit]

I think it's time you moved something from your userspace and made it an FA! Heaven knows there's enough content hidden in there. :-) Killiondude (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I think most of them are now in the mainspace. I'll take a look through and see what can be done. ;-) PeterSymonds (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

groups of students in need of mentors[edit]

Hey there. One of the classes working with the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, Jonathan Obar's Media and Telecommunication Policy, is working in small groups and would like us to assign a mentor to each group (rather than having students request the mentors they'd like, as other classes are doing).

I invite you to sign on as the mentor for one or more groups, especially if any of the topics catch your interest. To sign up, go to the course page and add yourself as "Mentor: you" in the section for that group. They students and/or professor or campus ambassadors should be cleaning things up soon to list all the usernames for each group and add a few more groups. Once you know who the students are in the group, you can leave them each a quick introduction to let them know you'll be mentoring their group.

Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll study the topics over the next day or two. None of it is really within my knowledge base, but I'll sign up if I see something I can contribute to meaningfully. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Niagara Falls[edit]

It's been 2 years since Niagara Falls was semi-protected. Worth opening it up to see if the vandals have gone away? Lot 49a^talk 06:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; we'll see. Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd move[edit]

Hi, you moved Patience Wheatcroft to a longer title, citing the move discussion on the talk page, but you didn't close the move discussion, and it's far from obvious how you reached the conclusion that there was consensus to do it (since there seem to be three "votes" on each side). If this was intentional, could you please close the discussion and explain your reasoning? (Or if it was a mistake, perhaps reverse it.) Thanks,--Kotniski (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kotniski. I only moved the page because my admin tools were needed to do it. Somebody else performed the close. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the events actually seemed to happen in the reverse order, hence the confusion. It seems clear now (though I can't say I entirely follow the closer's reasoning).--Kotniski (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you mean about the timings. Odd. :-) Let me know the outcome of further discussions if they take place. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tsarion[edit]

A great many of us are trying to get information not available in the corporate media. Why have you deleted the page of Michael Tsarion? He has been a guest on Coast-to-Coast AM on multiple occasions and you find him not "Notable"? That show averages 4.5 Million! listeners. I must assume you are a Christian and find him offensive as many people have wiki pages who have not been heard by 4.5 million people. Yes I know you are not accountable to anyone and Wikipedia is completely independent of any oversight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychicattorney (talk • contribs) 07:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Tsarion (2nd nomination). These community deletion discussions last for seven days, and the outcome is determined by an administrator (me, in this case). This decision seems to have been upheld. If you still disagree with the outcome, you can file a review of my closure, but at the present stage it would be best to draft a solid, sourced article in your user space to show how notability / sourcing has changed since the deletion. See the article wizard for some good advice about this. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Psychicattorney keeps leaving mysterious messages on my talk page and I'm wondering whose sockpuppet it is. Any idea what's behind it? Deb (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]