Jump to content

User talk:Cactus.man

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brian Radwell (talk | contribs) at 19:38, 31 August 2006 (Please Help. My Article has been moved.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This Talk Page

If you leave a message for me here, I will probably reply on your talk page unless you ask me not to do so,

Trying to follow discussions between users can be important, and it becomes so much easier to work out who said what to whom, when and why if those discussions are available in one place.

If I leave a message, or a reply to you on your User talk page, I will reflect that here to keep the record of our discussions less fragmented.

Archive
Archives
This user is an administrator.The Janitor's Cupboard

Talk To Me

Start a new section here

RfA Stuff

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Worm That Turned 2 246 4 4 98 09:47, 18 November 2024 3 days, 6 hoursno report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

What i said was true

Entirely true! and certainly applies to the singer Morrissey. You think it's a joke? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.170.52.205 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Wrong about Morrissey Mr. Cactus

You're just simply wrong about Morrissey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.170.52.205 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The Stepford Wives (2004 film)

Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. -- Cactus.man ✍ 10:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the summary because of the neutrality dispute. I felt that by leaving it there, the POV might have influenced future writers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.147.4.6 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the explanation and your efforts to improve things. It is important to leave these notices and the text in place because they place the article into categories that allow other editors to find articles in need of attention and improve them. In this case Category:Wikipedia articles with off-topic sections and Category:Articles which may be biased. I'm not sure who placed the notices there, but they really should have started a discussion on the article talk page. If you have some knowledge on this topic, perhaps you could start it.
I see you are quite new to editing here. You may want to consider creating an account which offers many benefits when compared to editing as an unregistered user. Here are some useful links to help you get started:
If you need to experiment and improve your editing skills, you can use the sandbox quite safely.
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your user name plus a date and timestamp after your message. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page.
Happy editing .... --Cactus.man ✍ 11:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

set up the books thing

and added xrefs to all three pages to the other two, yours, Phaedriels and mine ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff, mighty quick too. Now to get the literary thinking cap on ... --Cactus.man ✍ 14:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Selfish of me but I wanted to be the person who does it... I need a better book icon for the individual user title bar though... that was just the first one I found... ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty time for that new icon. Just a thought, I think that a different colour for each page's user- header bar would be good, it would give a quick visual clue to which page you are on when in the midst of reading. That's why I changed initially from Phaedriel's colour. Thoughts welcome. Also, I see that Lkjhgfdsa has added the Wikipedian Gamebox. Things are taking off :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 19:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

Pre-script: we are currently undergoing peer review, see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland.

I am beginning to think that the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board is not the best vehicle for pushing up the quality of the Scotland article (we ought to try to get it to WP:FA, in order to get into Wikipedia:Version 0.5, or, failing that, Wikipedia:Version 1.0), and the other key Scottish articles. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that we really ought to start up the long-mooted WikiProject Scotland.

Most of the stuff at the notice board (at least on the bottom half) is actually WikiProject material anyway, and the Talk page is really being used as a WikiProject talk already! The notice board should be just that: for bunging up brief notices and signposts. I am thinking of launching a Wikiproject and correspondingly radically clearing out, and chopping down, the noticeboard (a re-launch if you like). The Scotland Portal concept is fine (but currently mediocre/undynamic content), but in stasis: it needs a good kick up the jacksie.

For comparison, have a look at:

And, if you are at a loose end, have a look at:

Thoughts? Please express them here. --Mais oui! 19:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eAcceleration wiki page

Cactus.man,

I am the CTO of eAcceleration. We did not iniate this article and would be quite happy to have it deleted. Articles or (positive or negative) product or company review do not blong on Wikipedia.

By the way, I was in the process of editing the article when Matisse popped his edit in. I saved over his deletion notice quite unintentionally.

David Nason CTO eAcceleration Corp. cto@eacceleration.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidnason (talk • contribs) 17:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Reverting edits to anarchism page

If you read the discussion page you'll see that the sections I removed are considered innapropriate vandalism by everyone except the person who wrote them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.139.53 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your reply. The reason I left you the above message was precisely because I saw your post to the talk page after I reverted your large content deletion. It was obviously done in good faith, but I think you need to discuss further with the article contributors. From a quick read of the talk page, the only discussion I see on this issue (other than yours) is here, with only 2 editors commenting. Some of the comment was to move information around within the article rather than perform a blanket delete, which is what you have repeatedly done. You need to get consensus for such large changes before continually reverting. Please be mindful of the 3 revert rule, and always seek agreement before making wholesale controversial deletions of content. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there are several quite heated arguements on the discussion page advocating the removal of the sections on Thomas Jefferson et al, read carefully those sections with his name in the title and the following discussions (sometimes coming under other headings like 'the bickering' and 'despise our kind'. Only one persistent editor believes these sections on US anarchism are justified, and it is very frustrating to see such innapropriate content on the page. In the interests of creating an accurate, informative and representative article I ask you to undo your previous revert so that the page is how it was after my last edit (as if I have to do it yet again it will only encourage people to assume I am a vandal and revert it). Thank you 81.79.139.53 11:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Connor Barrett

Sorry if I left it bulging at the seams, and thanks for tidying. Tyrenius 09:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Somehow I revisited the page and things just looked confusing for those who may have followed my comment, so a few indents later .... Anyway, thanks for the note and happy editing. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zinedine231 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

You correctly blcoked him last night. Unfortunately he has a bunch of blatant socks. I don't think there is any doubt. I put in a checkuser request but the vandalism is happening now. To wit, see these folliwing edit patterns of vandalism (click contribs, since it's not complicated vandalism) Same articles. Same vandalism. Similiar account names.

The admin noticeboard didn't act last night on one of them but I think that was probably workload based.

Thanks. --Tbeatty 06:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update on this user and his socks. I've blocked all the others not already dealt with, as the pattern and style of vandalism was pretty obvious. I think that it's probably not worth pursuing the checkuser request in this case, particularly as they're pretty overworked as things stand. I'll leave that to your judgement however. I'll also put the articles on my watchlist to keep an eye out for future socks. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note on my talk page. I updated the checkuser request to give them the option to drop it unless they want to try to find other undisclosed socks. --Tbeatty 07:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since they are all blocked, the chose not to do the checkuser.

Admin tools for vandals

Are the vandal tools that admins have worth pursuing? I spend some time fighting vandals like above. I don't really want to get bogged down with admin stuff all the time but if there was a one click button to tag vandals, submit the checkuser and block them, it would be worth it. tracking the vandals and leaving the messages are probably the most time consuming. I don't use IRC so I deal with vandals as I find them.--Tbeatty 21:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are LOTS of tools out there to help non-admins fight vandals. I don't think any one of them can do exactly what you described but, armed with a variety of tools, you can do a lot of good work without too much effort. Some are stand alone applications, some are javascripts that you need to incorporate into your monobook.js (or equivalent, although some don't work with other skins). Check out the following:
That's some stuff to get you started :-) If you need help getting things working give me a shout. Good luck. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Many thanks for the medal, Cactus man. Appreciated. Take care -- Samir धर्म 00:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Cooper

You deleted my article, you meany, I wanted to write one, wahhhhhhhhhh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.158.86 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Bobblewik

Hi M62 (long time since I've been on that road :-), you mentioned on WP:ANI that you might mentor Bobblewik. I agree that he is a useful contributor, his work on units is to be commended, but I also see that he has not responded to your suggestion of mentorship. He also seems to be unaware of the contentious nature of his date delinking efforts. Would you be prepared to pursue this? I really don't have the time, but would like to turn this around for the benefit of WP and "the Bobble" too. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to mentor him; in fact I've had the idea that he has to ask me before he does any date delinking on User:TheM62Manchester/Bobblewik mentorship and I will discuss it with him. Any thoughts?? --TheM62Manchester 16:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. My only thoughts are that you need to get a dialogue going with him soon. He seems to be confining his edits in the meantime to units only which is good. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi to both of you. I don't know what a mentor is in this context but I suspect that it will not work in this case. The problem is not that editors are editing outside MOS constraints, the problem is that blocks/rollbacks are imposed outside MOS constraints. If the current constraints are inadequate for all editors, they should be changed. We did it before and we can do it again. We should discuss this in the relevant MOS talk page. bobblewik 15:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wangi/RFA

Thanks for your support on my RfA. Give me shout if I can be of help. Thanks/wangi 00:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

I have an account, I just wanted to edit the page quickly. I'm having a little trouble with the images on the page (I originally made the page, and uploaded the images, etc.), they keep spacing out the text. I thought I was doing it right, but apparently not. Can you show me how to do it?

Thanks, Jack Lawson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.72.202.9 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 August 2006.

Re Gevalum
Hi, I've moved and resized the images. It's usually best to have them immediately before the section heading. Check out this diff to see what I changed. Feel free to resize to whatever you feel comfortable with. If you omit the size parameter (200px) the thumbs will display at the size set in your preferences, but this will not affect you until you log in. Hope that helps. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Security Council (Turkey)

You are contradicting with yourself by acting against your own advice you gave under the stepford wives topic which amounts to vandalism itself. Read the differences and act cortically. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.162.15.167 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The advice I gave re the The Stepford Wives (2004 film) article is entirely consistent with my actions on National Security Council (Turkey). Your edits are removing large sections of text, all the references, working external links and much verifiable information. I see you have reverted it again. If you have concerns about the content of the article, start a discussion on the talk page. Your edits are destructive to the article and are vandalism. I see you have now been blocked.
When the block expires, spend some time reading about how to edit here. Here are some useful links to help you get started:
If you need to experiment and improve your editing skills, you can use the sandbox quite safely.
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your user name plus a date and timestamp after your message. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question
--Cactus.man ✍ 17:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for reverting my userpage. DVD+ R/W 19:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert

Thank you for the quick revert on my talk page. Down to the minute! :) Capi 22:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love you, Scotland, United Kingdom

I am not removing any content and vandalizing anything. Just shut up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.174.137.168 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I think you'll find that this is removing content without good reason. If you think it shouldn't be in the article please discuss it on the talk page first and seek consensus. Thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is good reason, too

What the heck do you know? Nothing. Now shut up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.174.137.168 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Two more test {afd} for Guantanamo detainees

There are two more test {afd} for Guantanamo detainees. Would you mind going over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli and form and state an opinion on the merits of the {afd}?

Thanks again! -- Geo Swan 19:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Hi Cactus man, saw you on and I had a quick question: Would you go with Somalia or Somaliland for the first DYK on the main page now? Somaliland is unrecognized from what I understand, but is a de facto sovereign entity (runs its own elections, etc.) Didn't want to ruffle feathers on the mp. Would appreciate your advice. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 07:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samir, nice question, but one with no right or wrong answer I think. From a quick read of the article it looks as if it is technically in Somaliland, but that is probably a less familiar name to readers than Somalia. But looking at the various crosslinks between the articles, it's easier for the casual reader to arrive at the Somalia article from Somaliland than the other way around. My preference would therefore be to use Somaliland for the link. Either is probably fine though. Hope I haven't confused you :-) Take care. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, changed to Somaliland -- Samir धर्म 07:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, but expect ruffled feathers either way, maybe even a lame mini edit war. Something along the lines of The Wrong Version always holds true when there are alternative options I find :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 08:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert-warring on Pluto

You and User:Ryulong are both at the limit of 3RR. Revert warring is disruptive. Please take your disagreement to the talk page and agree how to proceed. The next revert from either of you will result in a block unfortunately. Thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ryulong already violated the 3RR limit dispite the warning. According the rules, the user should be blocked and your edit reverted by an administrator.--Nixer 08:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave this to the admins at WP:AN3, especially with my explanations there, in the last edit summary, and other places. Ryūlóng 08:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nixer, thanks for your message. Firstly, whether or not anyone exceeded 3RR is dependant on exactly where one measures the starting point of the full revert. From examining the history I deemed you and User:Ryulong to be on exactly 3 full reverts at the time I left my message to you both. The intent was to stop the disruptive revert war, and I'm glad to see that it had the desired effect.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying "...your edit [should be] reverted by an administrator." I didn't edit the article, and I am an administrator. I have no desire to block anyone, but I would have done so if the revert war continued. I see that a report has been filed on WP:AN3, and I'll leave that for the regular admins who deal with that page to resolve. In the meantime I'm glad you've both stopped, and I suggest you engage in some civil and meaningful dialogue with each other to agree acceptable wording. Good luck. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now only I stopped, not Ryūlóng. He already did 4 full reverts by the time of your warning (see WP:AN3). I wait an administrator to revert the last edit by User:Ryulong. He should be stopped by an admin, otherwise UI will revert him myself.--Nixer 09:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I regard this edit to be the first full revert in this petty edit war. The substance appears to be over the paragraph structure, and whether Pluto is referred to as a dwarf planet or a celestial body. You were both on exactly 3 reverts when I intervened. User:Ryulong's subsequent edits have not been reverts, merely edits. He even edited the article to include your preferred wording of celestial body, as well as dwarf planet. Stop this petty squabbling and try working together to improve the article. As far as I can see for now, the revert warring has stopped. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is the first revert in the edit war:[1]. The edit [2] which you have cited to be the first full revert is just the return to the version [3] already reverted by User:Ryulong. Please do not "stop" revert-wars by supporting those who violates the rules.--Nixer 10:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That revert, on some minor wording, is not what I consider to be part of the revert war proper, which I explained above. I am not "supporting" anybody or any particular position, just working to ensure that Wikipedia and the integrity of its articles is not disrupted. I would have blocked either of you had you continued reverting. That the revert war is stopped is a positive thing, would you not agree? I urge you again to work with fellow editors to work things out co-operatively. I have processed your report at WP:AN3 and declined to block User:Ryulong. If you feel aggrieved at this decision you are welcome to take it further with other admins, at WP:AN or via dispute resolution. I would suggest however that you let the matter drop, move on and work towards improving Wikipedia. Thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That edit was the part of the edit war and all the way he continued reverting to the same. The present state of the article is the version by User:Ryulong with all my changes reverted.--Nixer 10:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nixer, I've explained to you above that I'm not supporting anyone or any particular version of the article, merely working to protect Wikipedia. Please see The Wrong Version for some light relief. I see that you also changed my edit to the result of your posting to WP:AN3 again from "Not blocked" to "No consensus". Please do not do so again, or you will be blocked for disruption. I've explained to you above how to seek further opinion if you feel aggrieved by my decision, please heed it and stop reverting the AN3 decision. Really though, the substantive content of this dispute is so minor, why all the effort over so little, which is now just about the paragraph structuring and minor semantics. Please move on. Thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Please see this edit by Nixer at WP:AN3: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=71981257&oldid=71980572 Ryūlóng 10:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on User:Nixer's WP:AN3 edit, although I'd already reverted it and left a further note / warning. Do you have any past history with this user? He is teetering towards a block of his own sadly. Regards. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't even heard of this guy until I did the editting at Pluto. Ryūlóng 10:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He changed it from "Not blocked" to "No consensus" now... Even though it got me into this trouble, I've reverted him. I don't understand what I did to this guy. Ryūlóng 10:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Yr welcome to stasi2 of Aug30

Many thanx not only for cordial welcome but for invaluable summary of what I must learn. All this and it's fun too !! Stasi2 15:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (just for practice)[reply]

Guess who hasn't given up

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ryulong made by our friendly neighborhood Nixer (talk · contribs). Ryūlóng 19:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to bring this to your attention. Ryūlóng 04:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for blocking 220.233.51.231, who was constantly vandalising my userpage. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 12:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure

I really can say, without qualification, that it is a pleasure. Thank you!

I am really optimistic about the possibilities of this format, although it does raise issues about what the heck we are going to use the notice board for? I will be "clearing out" the notice board soon (probably not today), but we will have to see how both the Project and the Board evolve.

I am not planning on actually actively promoting it today, cos of probably restrictions on my time, but best foot forward tommorrow. User:AntzUK has offered to help already (better drop him/her a line.--Mais oui! 13:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help. My Article has been moved.

An article I've written has been moved. I believe the article in its current form to be legitimate. I've worked hard to make a valuable contribution. Can you help?

The administrator that moved it left this message in my talk:

I've moved Radwell International to User:Brian Radwell/Radwell International, since you've put a lot of work in on it. However, the article shouldn't be put back in the main article space because it's a recreation of material that was previously deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radwell International.) You seem to have done some good work on it; I don't have an opinion right now as to whether or not this could be re-added to Wikipedia, but when you're ready to try the community's opinion, you should open up a deletion review, and link to both the deletion debate and to the article in your userspace, so people can see what you are proposing. Mangojuicetalk 17:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cactus.man&oldid=73081425"