Jump to content

User talk:Gurch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miranda (talk | contribs) at 22:13, 23 September 2007 (→[[User talk:67.84.116.10] ]: respond). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi--thanks for offering to make us a banner ad! Could you? If you could post it to our talk page, we can see if anybody wants to suggest changes to the wording or whatever. Thanks! Katr67 20:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to make this. Gurch is AWOL right now. Miranda 02:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The image is not in syndication! Gurch please help!

Miranda 21:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Miranda 21:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid wall -- note AfD decision

Apartheid Wall is a disambiguation page as a result of an AfD. Please watch for changes which try to make it into something else without discussion. A recent edit by Jayjg (talk · contribs) had the deceptive edit comment "fixed", for a major, controversial change to the article against the AfD result. You then semi-protected the article. Please check the history of the article. Thanks. --John Nagle 17:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't semi-protect it. I'm not an administrator, for a start. It has been semi-protected for some time. All I did was categorize the page correctly (into Category:Semi-protected redirects). My previous edits were simply an attempt to create a stub rather than a disambiguation page that didn't actually disambiguate anything (by merit of having only one item in it) – Gurch 16:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i know it was a while ago...

but thanks for the page revert.--JWJW Talk SignLong Live Esperanza! :) 00:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your comments in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I am working on all the constructive critisism I have received. Hopefully next time I will have sorted out everything you pointed out. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007

This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User:Duff, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Gscshoyru 15:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal attack"? It's a statement of fact, nothing more. If you're going to go after someone for personal attacks, how about those who support banning him in the first place? – Gurch 15:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the block log, he isn't banned. So either there's something wrong with the log, in which case I apologize, or you are in fact making a personal attack. Gscshoyru 15:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been given evidence [1] that this isn't the first time this has happened... I can't exactly see your reasoning for doing so, but according to this [2] it may not be totally malicious. My warning perhaps should not have been such a high level, but you really shouldn't do that. Gscshoyru 16:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user is banned. Please see their most recent contributions, for example here – Gurch 16:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Now I see what you're doing. You're pointing out a flaw in the way Wikipedia and another program interact, in a way that has effectively blocked Duff, though his username itself is not blocked. I apologize for jumping to conclusions, though you must admit from my standpoint it was pretty damning... and I still think there should be a better way to protest this. But I apologize for being so harsh. Gscshoyru 16:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a flaw in the way Wikipedia interacts with anything. There are no technical issues here. The problem is an idiotic policy that was not decided on by the community and which goes completely against Wikipedia's philosophy of openness and pseudonymity. There are better ways to protest it, but none of those work either. As a result, constructive contributors are being banned, not to mention checkusered in violation of the privacy policy. This "policy" prohibits 20% of the world's population from editing the "enyclopedia that anyone can edit". The excuses given are that it cuts down on vandalism (so what? schools vandalize for more, but we only block anonymous users in such cases) and that there is a chance people might use it to have multiple administrator accounts at once (despite repeated reiteration of this "problem", there is absolutely no evidence that this has ever happened or is likely to happen, and with or without this "policy" there's nothing to stop it happening anyway).
"The free enyclopedia that anyone can edit" is more "the free encyclopedia that you can edit if SlimVirgin approves of it". Sad. – Gurch 16:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, policy rather than techincal issue... that's what I meant. 20% of the world? Ew...
Yeah... I understand now. I totally misunderstood what the intention was of the edits. I apologize for well... not assuming good faith. Which I perhaps should have. I'm not going to take sides on this issue, because I don't know enough as of yet, but it's a viable issue and Gurch's edits were a form of protest, so to speak. It would be good if there was a way to have both anonymity and the ability to block ip vandals, but this seems to be difficult, if not impossible. So no hard feelings, right? Gscshoyru 17:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not difficult. Tor IPs can be blocked anonymous-only, with account creation disabled, just like any other IPs. No anonymous vandalism would be possible; potential vandals would have to create an account elsewhere first, which we would then block directly. We've been doing this for years with school IP ranges and it works perfectly. Yet the FUD over "anonymity" and also "admin sockpuppets" (again, something for which there is no evidence, at all, of even a single isolated incident, let alone a persistent problem) appears to be working – Gurch 17:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read more of the stuff and I see that it was a protest, and that the user is not auctually banned, but has the IP blocked, meaning that the user is welcome to edit from another IP. Still, my apologize, since you were trying to help Duff and not to attack the user. ♠TomasBat 01:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of edit summaries

Please do not misuse edit summaries. This is your last warning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Misuse edit summaries"? Pah. How about we try not misusing policies? – Gurch 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bans and blocks and templates

Gurch, regarding the ban templates on Duff's userpage, he isn't banned. A ban is when the community gets together and kicks out a specific editor due to disruption or exhausting the community's patience. It's actually different than a block, which enforces a ban. See Wikipedia:Banning policy. He's also not blocked. Rather, he is autoblocked because he is on a tor and/or a proxy IP. I realize the tag was meant in part to protest the situation, but it might annoy the person (Duff) who is subject to this autoblock and, regardless of that, is not appropriate in this case. Thanks.--Chaser - T 00:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user is banned. Please read the definition of a "community ban" in Wikipedia:Banning policy:
There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she has been indefinitely blocked by an administrator—and no one is willing to unblock them. Users blocked under these circumstances are considered to have been "banned by the Wikipedia community."
This user has been indefinitely blocked by the idiots who enforce Wikipedia:No open proxies, and no administrator is willing to unblock them. They are therefore "banned" under this definition.
The user is hardly going to be annoyed by being labelled as "banned", since that's the term they used themselves. Please see their most recent contributions, for example here – Gurch 09:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gurch, please stop politicizing what happened with Duff. Duff has maintained a very mature approach in dealing with a very frustrating problem, and unless you are acting with his/her blessing, you're out of line. First, there is no action any individual administrator could take that would resolve the situation: unblocking an IP would be a temporary solotion that would literally only last a few minutes, until Duff's IP address changes again.

But more important: regardless of whether or not it's "true" that he/she has been "banned," it's not up to you to determine whether or not that is displayed on his/her talk page. Duff is perfectly capable of editing that page; if he/she wants such a tag, fine. But it's not your page. -Pete 13:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOP

Hi Gurch -- all respect, I'm just concerned with the bad feelings preventing us from moving forward. Hopefully that's ok, o/w let me know. Best, Mackan79 11:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


To Gurch

I have reported you to Wikipedia for bad mouthing other people that has an account on this web site and I quote “Anyone that has an account on this web sucks”. Do you have any sense because you have an account on this web site. If you say any thing like this again wikipidia said that they will bar you from they web site. I would like to see you bad mouth me again!! 

                                       Duff

Hi, Im a representative of the new WikiProject Companies. We are a small project that, as you can imagin, needs to get very big. I have seen your work with creating other banner adds, and was wondering if you would be interested in helping us out?

Currently Gurch is inactive at the moment. Leave a message on my talk page and I will make one for you. Miranda 03:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wait until Gurch gets back. Miranda 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done See project talk page. Miranda 01:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gurch?

Where are thou, Gurch?  :( --Iamunknown 07:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have wondered the same as of late :( GracenotesT § 18:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Panda Band

As a contibutor to the above article would appreciate your feedback as to whether the articles on The Panda Band's album This Vital Chapter should be deleted - your feedback is important as to whether the item is retained or deleted. Dan arndt 09:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I never vandalised any page. In fact, I haven't edited a page in a while. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.17.4.116 (talk)

Actually your IP did vandalise a while back which is why you were warned. However, it's quite possible that other users share your IP and so these edits were not made by you. If you wish to avoid receiving further warnings that don't apply, you might like to consider creating an account. Will (aka Wimt) 21:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


huh? what are you talking about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.199.15.4 (talk)

The edit that the warning pertained to was this one from back in March. Of course, as I said to the previous IP, it's quite possible that the edit was actually made by someone else who shares your IP. Creating an account is the best way to make sure you don't receive anymore warnings that are aimed at someone else. Will (aka Wimt) 21:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I am glad to see that someone is good at making ads here. Anyway, would it be possible for you to create a Wikiproject Colorado banner? You may use

This picture for the banner

Thank you! --Jimbo Herndan 23:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Miranda 01:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another ad!!

can you please make me an ad for the WikiProject U2. you can use this picture:

i made it myself so there is no copywrite. Smithcool 20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qxz,Read This!

There was one of your ads on Wikipedia on one of the last part of the ad, I saw the fraze "Would you like to spend the next year or so cursing the day, you heard of Wikipedia?" Is that supposed to turn people away from Wikipedia? I deeply apologize if I am sounding rough. However, I would not want conspiracy to rise in Wikipedia. So tell me--

Does this Image look firmiliar?




--19:44, 12 August, 2007 (UTC)

It's a joke. :-P Gurch is currently set to away. Miranda 01:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh,I'm sorry. I didn't know-Angel David 21:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating animated GIFs

Hi! I was thinking about creating a Wikipedia Ad and wondered what program you used to create all the nice-looking animations with fancy transitions etc. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're a "Category" expert?

Can you answer my question at Wikipedia talk:Special:Categories? Thanks. --Ludvikus 16:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[User talk:67.84.116.10] ]

User talk:67.84.116.10 has vandalized Apollo 11 3 times is sequence, please block indefinitely. Thank you. LanceBarber 20:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gurch is not an administrator. Please report users who are actively vandalising to AIV. M.(er) 22:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihug

A Wikihug
A Wikihug to you! : )

I'd like to thank you for helping against vandalists!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gurch&oldid=159888226"