User talk:Glen/Archive8
|
This page has been archived please do not edit it. If you'd like to discuss one of the topics below, do so by clicking here
|
I did it because...
[edit]Hi Glen, this is Ishango. The reason why I deleted the stuff in the articleCrime In trinidad and Tobago is due to the fact that There are those who, instead of giving an unbiased well-researched histoical views of Crime In Trinidad and Tobago, prefer to use their computers and time to peddle half-baked jouralism, hearsay and weasel-words as the unvarnished truth.It is clear that they do not know anything about how the histoical legality of Trinidad and Tobago came about. I want to tell all of these people: Enough is enough continue and I will continue.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ishango (talk • contribs) 15 October 2006.
Wiener Ball
[edit]Boy have I got a bee in my Bonnet! You deleted a page detailing one of the greatest threats to civilization of all time. How can you, in good conscience, delete an article especialy at a time like this. Wiener ball is on the rise again in the developing nations of asia and our government is simply trying to brush it under the rug like dust. You right wing nut jops are all alike, substituing objectivity and social justice for party lines and theocracy. It's a god damn shame. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Anti Clutch (talk • contribs) 17 October 2006.
¿¿
[edit]What page did I screw up exactly? Whatever it was, It was completely unintentional. I probably just clicked "Cut" instead of "Copy" I'll accept any disciplinary action deemed necessary though. But please, dont ban me, I also share this computer with my roomate, he might have done it. I see that you're in anti-vandalism, and you need to know that I would never fdeliberately harm wikipedia, or any wiki besides Uncyclopedia, but that's meant to be screwed up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whytecypress (talk • contribs) 18 October, 2006.
Hows that??
[edit]that work for you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dpeper7 (talk • contribs) 20 October, 2006.
Jyrki Seppa
[edit]Thanks for the note, but if you look at the history, i am trying to keep it at its original article spelling. If people want it moved from its original article spelling, they have to do a requested move. I have demonstrated that Jyrki Seppa is the most common spelling according to google (i hate google searches but Ryulong opened that can of worms). I am a strong believer in the 3 revert rule, but on the same hand, proper move requests must be done to move an article. If Ryulong wants the article moved, then he should do a request. The article should stay at its original spelling until that time. The article should immediately be moved back to Seppa and Ryulong should do a requested move. Masterhatch 03:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, why wasn't Ryulong warned about the revert rule? He was the one who started it by moving it away from its oringal spelling. Masterhatch 03:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You are no better than the vandals you defend against. Masterhatch 05:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. But i still have a lingering question: shouldn't the article in question be returned to Jyrki Seppa? In the event of an edit (or move) war, doesn't the original rendition hold until a consensus is reached? You used google to "prove" the most common spelling in English, and i used google to disprove it. I am not sure if you have returned to that page since that day, but have a look. If you feel it should stay where it is, please tell me why. If ryulong really wants it moved, then he should do it properly and do a request move through the proper channels. In fact, he should have done that with all the articles he moved around unilaterally. I am not asking you to get involved in anything except the Seppa article, so dont' think i am asking you to take sides. I don't know your personal pov on the issue, but i am asking that you do the right thing with the Seppa article simply because the logic you used to move it doesn't hold water. Masterhatch 05:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for ignoring me. Thanks for trying to solve this dispute through discussion. Masterhatch 21:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
name change
[edit]Hi Got a message re name change; I saw a note on the name change page about changing the signature; would this suffice? wiki is all new to me/us so either is fine, it just seems the sig is 'less costly'
we chose the screename solely as an identifier, not to promote.19:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
2nd question, is there a place to find a template to create a new page for wiki?
Glen - since your final warning at User talk:86.7.30.140, this user has continued to vandalise - this time at TWIN (band). Do you think it's worth now blocking this user? Regards, Mr WR 17:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Huh?
[edit]I was wondering why you created Andrew Sylvia (talk · contribs). A Karmafist doppelganger? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just a heads up, he's now been blocked. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, Glen created the account, so it's not a sockpuppet. I justed wanted to know why. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not an admin, so I didn't know about the idea. I figured you did it for that reason, but there was an edit to their monobook. I was wondering if it was a bot, or something along those lines. I knew it wasn't a malicious account, which is why I didn't like the fact that it was blocked. I guess I was just curious. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
copyvios
[edit]Hi, I see we're working on the same thing apparently. Not all of the text is a copyvio in most of them, to maintain a stub article I urge you just to find the copyvio text and delete it... so we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Thanks. --W.marsh 01:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, you deleted some articles, but left the talk pages :-) I am tagging them with {{db-talk}}. -- ReyBrujo 02:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism?
[edit]Hello Glen,
I am not a regular contributor to Wikipedia and right now, I am only working on my undergraduate degree in English and Professional Writing. I will only be beginning my core classes after this current semester is finished, so I have not so much as contributed anything to Wikipedia! I don't feel I ought to be editing anything right now - I did remove a portion of the sexism entry under the subtitle Anthropological Linguistics for the reasons I listed, but I didn't add any additional material, and in my post, I suggested that the original author may want to return to restate or clarify their meaning. When I read it, I thought there was some socially derived organicist bias due to content, and I see the irony in that becuase Wikipedia is a socially constructed Encyclopedia. I may not have logged in when I did that edit, but I found that several people have accused me of vandalism regarding other articles that I hadn't even visited until I was accused of 'tampering' with the established paradigm. I thought that observing what goes on in Wikipedia would have been a introduction to how competitive writing can be, but I am not out to 'vandalize' anyones work.
Sincerely,
Twining 202
IP issue
[edit]Hi Glen,
I found the page that was about the Vandalism. It's an IP address and it seems to be the same one that you responded with: it may be that I didn't log out after my edit?
Donald Black
[edit]Hi Glen, you're quick! Many thanks for the correction. I've never created a new article before, though I have done quite a few minor edits. Do I need a template to create a disambiguation page or can I just start a new page? I've been reading the Wiki help pages but feel a bit confused, lol. I am still checking that all the links in the new Donald Black, sociologist, article are working correctly. Thank you muchly Roaming27 06:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Explanation: the article "Frot" includes a reference to Donald Black's Wrestling for Gay Guys. I assumed that it was NOT Donald Black the sociologist, but I could be wrong. I was going to create a disambiguation page and a stub. Well, that was my ambitious plan, lol. And yes we're nearly neighbours *smiles* Roaming27 06:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! I see that you have already created a disambiguation page. I have now created a one-sentence article, I hope to add more info as I can. Sorry if I've caused any hassle. Roaming27 06:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I see you warned this person. However, maybe you should ask them to change their name (WP:CHU), because in essence, it reads Turk-killer. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Magic!
[edit]That barnstar of yours, it's moving!--Konst.ableTalk 10:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why you revert my reverts of banned user Sheynhertz-Unbayg (using his sockpuppet Zickl)? If yes, please re-revert my re-reverts and tell me the reason :-) I have let the edits to one Australian swimmer that removed a db-bio and added a See also section instead of explaining notability in prose stand, but the rest (especially Wertheimer) is the kind of edits that got the user banned and that are currently cleaned up by the nice people at Wikipedia:SU. Kusma (討論) 11:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Charles Manly
[edit]Why did you delete Charles Manly? He is the only governor of North Carolina without an entry. I'm pretty sure I edited it once. Awbeal 14:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I think your warning has been ignored in favour of them giving each other barnstars from other peoples pages. –– Lid(Talk) 16:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppet/Userpage Vandal
[edit]Glen, need some help with a vandal who has called you out by name is making a nuisance of himself on the Designer Whey page, my talk page and the Biological value page. 63.17.106.109 - check out his contributions, you'll see that his incivility, 3RR violation is enough for a block, but he also called you out by name on his very first edit.
I also have a strong suspicion that this user is also a sockpuppet of 63.17.103.250. Note the similarities in edits.
If you have time, can you please look into this? I normally wouldn't go through this channel had they not mentioned you. Yankees76 20:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 23rd.
[edit]
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 43 | 23 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Report from the Finnish Wikipedia | News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones |
| Wikipedia in the news | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Yamaguchi先生 09:15, 24 October 2006 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
Thank you for all of your work with removing vandalisms from Wikipedia. Yamaguchi先生 09:15, 24 October 2006
Hi Glen,
I see looking at the WikiProject user warnings page, that you are a participant in this project. I have recently started an undertaking to harmonise all user page warnings and templates. For this I would like your assistance. I have listed a number of ideas on the project template page here as a first draft. I fully appreciate that as with most editors and admins, that you are fairly busy. Therefore I am not looking for anyone to carry out the actual work, I am willing to do that myself, with help from a number of other RC Patrollers who have come forward. But what I am looking for is your invaluable input, on the draft ideas and also to suggest other ways you believe we may improve the templates. I do however require the services of a couple of administrators to put into effect some of the new templates, as they are currently protected. Please take 5 mins to look through the new templates page, and both the project and templates talk pages and leave any ideas or suggestions that you may have. Best regards Khukri (talk . contribs) 09:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Karl Stefanovic
[edit]Someone has vandalised Karl Stefanovic's entry. I'm not sure how to revert the edit. Thanks Glen. Roaming27 00:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I took care of this and have it watchlisted now. Thanks. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
OOOOOOOOOO_WEEEEEEEEENER_PENIS_LOL_OOOOOOOOOAAA
[edit]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OOOOOOOOOO_WEEEEEEEEENER_PENIS_LOL_OOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21&action=edit Hi Glen, I wasn't sure where to report this vandalism. Roaming27 02:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Copyright infringements
[edit]When deleting copyright infringements, make sure you check earlier revisions. Unless the page was newly created recently, the copied text is usually added recently and can simply be reverted, removed, or deleted and restored. —Centrx→talk • 03:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Note that aside from saving articles that people wrote, if this is not done, it is rather easy for someone to get articles deleted just by adding infringing text. —Centrx→talk • 03:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for expressing an interest in my recent RfA. As a followup, I wanted to let you know that unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. My current plans are to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 10:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]
Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.
A few features that you might find helpful:
- The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.
There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
- Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
- Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 01:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
He's doing his thing again. I know your warning was a week ago, but he hasn't been on since then. HalfShadow 01:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
He is doing vandal with many articles. Please ban him for some long time. --- ابراهيم 12:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Happy Halloween!
[edit]Hope yours is the greatest!
Signpost updated for October 30th.
[edit]|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 44 | 30 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
RE: "off wiki"
[edit]Sure thing! Enjoy the rest of your holiday, mate hoopydinkConas tá tú? 11:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
My editor review
[edit]Hello Glen! I recently filed an editor review and was wondering if you could give me some feedback on my edits and on what I need to do to improve myself. I know we don't know each other as much as we do other users, but any and all comments about my work would be greatly appreciated. My editor review can be seen here. Thank you for your time and happy editing! // Sasuke-kun27 01:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Re your messages: I was just about to tell the user about how to upload images, glad you took care of it. I am, however, confused on why you told me about watching 3RR. Yes, I did revert three times in a row, but they were all for restoring bad images link attempts or removal of the image entirely. I thought since the page was getting damaged by this editor, exceeding the 3RR is okay. Am I unclear on the rules? -- Gogo Dodo 00:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Re your message: I see. Well, okay, but I was trying to protect the integrity of the article. The editor was replacing content with non-functional content. I thought the 3RR was more for edit warring or things along those lines. Yes, it was not strictly vandalism, but it certainly didn't help the article either. -- Gogo Dodo 01:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Re your message: I stepped away to think about what you said, and now that Survivor is over, I thought I would reply... I think this is where WP:IAR kicks in per the "maintaining" part. My pondering even thought of the other editor's POV where technically he wasn't going to 3RR either as he actually ended up with three different results during my reverts: Photobucket image, linternaute.com image, and then no image. But like you said, better safe than sorry. No worries. See you around. =) -- Gogo Dodo 05:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Dick DeVos article
[edit]Hi, Glen. Thanks for helping to watch over the Dick DeVos article. I had requested that the article be at least semi-protected until Election Day. What do you think? The Jennifer Granholm article is fully protected right now. Steelbeard1 00:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
VP Awaiting Approval
[edit]Hello there, I'm horribly sorry if I sound impatient but I and a few other users submited their name to the VP Awaiting Approval list yesterday as well as today. Do you know when a VP moderator will drop by to take a look at the list? Thank you very much.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
VP Ongoing Issue
[edit]For some reason my name has been removed from the list of authorized users. I was added by Betacommand here [1], and he welcommed me here[2]. I had difficulties using it, did everything I could myself, was unable to, so I requested assistance here [3]. Instead of assistance, I was removed from the list. Because I have had difficulties on wikipedia recieving help from administrators when requested, this message is in essence a generic template I am writing on all moderators' talk pages and discussion boards in the hopes of recieving if nothing else a response - ideally, however, a solution. Thank you very much and apologies for my impatience. Gregorof/(T) 05:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
admin coaching
[edit]Two weeks?! Okay, the first thing you teach me is that little thing called self-control... :) riana_dzasta 12:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
re:Sprotect tag
[edit]My apologies. Thanks for the info. I knew that admins had to protect pages, but for some reason I though anyone could semi-protect a page. My bad.--Andrew c 14:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
You can start from the top. Thanks. :) - Aksi_great (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Done! - Aksi_great (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
You know, Glen
[edit]It makes me wonder about your intention when you make comments like this: he seems to be unable to grasp any concept of wrongdoing [4] while refusing to discuss with me. Yet on my page at that earlier time when you were discussing with me, and quite to the contrary of "unable to grasp any concept of wrongdoing", I discussed my wrongdoing, discussed earlier situations, discussed more direct and less punitive alternatives which would keep Wikipedia running more smoothly with less emotional upset and better productivity. Your statement to User Fahrenheit451 did not recognize, and in fact denied my statements which I made on my user page. You don't acknowledge my willingness to remove the phrase User ChrisO was so offended about (black hats) and you don't acknowledge the discussion which you and I had went anywhere, or produced anything. Your statement to Fahrenheit sounds more like, "I punished him as hard as I could", rather than the actuality which any editor could read. I would still say, as I did earlier, it would have been better if ChrisO had simply asked me to remove the phrase. And if he were too abashed to talk with me, if you had asked me to remove the phrase. But no, instead you made it into a maximum block situation. And now you talk about it in ways which are not accurate. You could have soothed the situation. Instead you not only chose the most punitive possible course, but continue to talk about it in ways which misrepresent what actually happened. It makes me wonder, Glen. Terryeo 22:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
admin coaching
[edit]Hey Glen, that's really nice of you - thanks for taking the time to do that! Is it OK if I contact you tonight about it? (Assuming NZ has night at more or less the same time as us... you're not that far away :p) Just drop me a line telling me what you want me to do at this end, and I'll get back to you about it. riana_dzasta 00:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Um... sorry I haven't been able to get back to you, I've been busy. Any chance you're still interested? :) riana_dzasta 00:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hello Glen! Hope you're enjoying your break :) I have to go on one myself starting today and ending 23rd November - uni exams start in a little over a week. Is it OK if we beging after that? I have created a page in my user talk space here, which you can use for contacting me.
- Apologies for any inconveniences :( (trust me, I don't want to stay away!) All the best, riana_dzasta 03:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
POV Dispute, Vandalism, Blanking, and more than 3 reverts on the Designer Whey Protein article by Yankees76!!!
[edit]Hi Again, Glen. 6317 is back. Need your help to sort out POV Dispute and many reverts by Yankees76! The Designer Whey Protein is disputed over neutrality! A boiler plate warning is in order for yankees76 for making more than 3 reverts in just a very short time period. 63.17.106.109 20:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Both users are the one in the same. Glen knows me. We go way back. I will honor Glen's final overview regarding 'Yankees76' many reverts in a very short time period. 63.17.106.109 20:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- None of the accusations above are valid. To have a POV dispute, I would actually have to have a POV on the subject - I don't, I'm merely cleaning up poor use of NPOV templates and [citation needed] templates, which the sock above is reverting at every turn. And Glen, to my post above, I'll also add harrassment, following me around on Wikipedia and posting here and on the Admin board in "defense" of his actions (which a different IP than the one making the edits and accusations). Note that I'm not the only user who finds his actions unacceptable. Thanks. Yankees76 23:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hey Glen - are you sure you know this user? Are you aware that he performs edits like these? Note the following edit by the user on a third editors talk page regarding this issue.[5] Now he's hinting that I'm a sock. LorenzoPerosi anyone? A further instance of the users beligerant behaviour here on my talk page [6] and in edit summaries here:[7]! This is getting rediculous. I've put in a request for investigation. Let me know if you can offer any insight. Thanks. Yankees76 06:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello Again Glen,
I agree with Ginkgo100 when he wrote on Yankees tak page >>> a content or NPOV dispute, no matter how obnoxious, is NOT VANDALISM.
With that said, Yankees76 has made numerous reverts, thus violating the 3 revert rule which is more than obviuos. Rules are rules. Yankees76 has made several reverts on not one but two articles in question which are the biological value article and the designer whey protein article. Perhaps action must be taken to the violation of the 3 revert rule. Please investigate the violations that Yankees has made to the 3 revert rule to the biological value and designer whey articles. 63.17.64.192 17:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please provide some proof before you go around Wikipedia making baseless allegations. If it's "more than obvious", you should go to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and make your case. I'm actually challenging you to do this - that's how confident I'm that you're simply harrassing me and nothing more. I'll be checking the noticeboard for your reply in the meantime. Yankees76 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Need help with problem user
[edit]Hi, Glen. I wonder if you could recommend the right place to report the actions of SuperDuperMan (talk · contribs) at Talk:Tom Swift. To give you an idea of the tip of the iceberg, this is a message he left just today:
- "Yet another self-serving response. It's not for you to decide what is a personal attack and what is not. As much as you long to be one, you aren't an admin and probably never will be. I'm done with you Feldspar, you are a shameless hypocrite, a blowhard and an insufferable know-it-all. SuperDuperMan 00:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)"
There is strong suspicion that this is just one of a number of usernames being operated by the same editor; I myself strongly suspect that SuperDuperMan is the same person as MookiesDad (talk · contribs), Noumenes (talk · contribs), and DocSimpson (talk · contribs). In fact, I think I have just discovered proof that MookiesDad (talk · contribs) is also Fwdixon (talk · contribs), since on the 5th of October, MookiesDad removed fourteen capsule book descriptions from various Hardy Boys book articles with the edit summary "rm copyrighted material from my web site" and those capsule descriptions are almost identical to the ones found here, on what Fwdixon identifies as his web page. So ... you know better than I, where can this sort of thing be reported these days so that it will actually get attention? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
For the past month Fwdixon/MookiesDad/SuperDuperMan/ 71.125.234.14 has engaged in flagrant sockpuppetry, repeated personal attacks, 3RR violations and removal of legitimate warning messages from his various user talk pages. This demonstrates a brazen disregard for the rules of conduct governing Wikipedia. He is now engaging in prank, retalitory warnings about supposed 3RR violations on my user page and in an edit summary on [[8]]. It is unlikely that his disruptive behavior will stop without intervention by a Wiki admin. Antaeus and I have tried to get this user to moderate his behavior without success. Pak434 15:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments requested!
[edit]Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Messenger2010 - comments are welcome - I believe after you read your talk page above you'll be partly up to speed. Another place to catch up is here [9]. Thanks mate. Yankees76 04:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Glen:
[edit]I appreciate the message that you put for deleting my article about Kes the Band but I put the article there so people could find information about the band just like other artist such as Akon/Bob Marley/etc...
How can I re-instate and article about the band without getting it deleted?
Bernsieboy 21:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Problems with User:Terryeo
[edit]Glen, Terryeo is repeatedly making false accusations about an image upload. These are tantamount to personal attacks. "Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom." The discussion is here: Image_talk:Oec_febc_promo1.png. It is becoming very annoying. What do you suggest?--Fahrenheit451 16:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, the personal attack in question is that a particular image F451 uploaded is "high resolution" for purposes of Wikipedia:Fair use. Pretty much every editor who has considered the question on the fair use talk page agrees that the image is high resolution for relevant purposes, but F451 won't back off on the idea that when Terry says that the image is high-res, he must be engaged in a personal attack. Any guidance you can offer would be helpful. Thanks, TheronJ 18:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The image was low resolution, 72 dpi, and I pointed out to Theronj other discussions on this matter quoted here: "Theronj, there was a discussion of resolution here Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Guidelines_for_.22low.22_and_.22high.22_resolution where there was agreement that 72 dpi is not high resolution. I ignore the offhand comments on the image page you cited from those who do not edit images professionally. I do. Here is another brief discussion at the bottom of the page: Template_talk:Fair_use_reduce. As for Terryeo, I tolerate him best I can. I do not think the situation with him will ever improve. If you wish to mentor him, you may. I will not participate in any further actions to fix a situation with him I have determined is not fixable. I am ending the discussion on this as I see it as a waste of my time. Thanks.--Fahrenheit451 00:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)" An offhand discussion by non-professionals will not yield the same results as one done by those with proven skills and experience. As Theronj states, I will not back-off on the idea. I don't compromise with the truth. --Fahrenheit451 01:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've certainly tried to cool the situation off, posting in response variously to User:Fahrenheit451. He (or she) has not yet stated specifically what "personal remark" he (or she) is offended about, while he (or she) has modified the image page to produce a more appropriate label. Terryeo 02:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Terryeo, I pointed out the false accusations to you, which are personal attacks. So, please do not pretend to be ignorant of the matter.--Fahrenheit451 03:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. However, a "false accusation" isn't specified as a personal attack at WP:NPA. In any event, I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. Terryeo 21:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo's ban
[edit]Does Terryeo's ban on editing Scientology-related articles include inserting Scientology ideas into non-Scientology articles? I was quite disturbed by this post in which User:Justanother seems to be suggesting that they begin gradually altering the Psychiatry article to subtly reflect their own POV. wikipediatrix 20:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Esperanza Admin coaching - October 29
[edit]As far as I can see you are not currently assigned as a coach to anyone at Admin coaching. Are OK to receive a new trainee? Thank you for helping with admin coaching! Highway Grammar Enforcer! 22:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]Thanks for the help. Good hunting and best regards. Culverin? Talk 12:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Also how can I get non-Admin rollback with Lupins tool? Or do I need an extra add on. Culverin? Talk 12:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
RFA thanks from Mike
[edit]
|
Thank you for your Strong Support on my recent RfA, which I withdrew at 16/20/4. The criticism I received will hopefully result in me learning becoming a better editor, and thanks again for your support! |
New template
[edit]Remember the Andrew Sylvia account fiasco? Well, I created a template for any similar sorts of things in the future. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey!
[edit]Whatsa monobook? (Looking around...plenty of books, no monos). -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Holy crap, where did all those tabs come from? Cool, new toys! -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well that seemed to work. At least the rollback; I think the warning-the-vandal part was the popup window that Firefox just suppressed. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This definitely makes it easier to revert nonsense. I installed and tested VandalProof 1.3 last night and this morning, but it's broken (postings on the bug forum concur). -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Monobook upgrades
[edit]Hello Glen, my friend culverin told me about some upgrades that makes fighting vandalism easier, if were not an inconvenience or a strain on you time, would you be able to give me non-admin rollback? Thanks in advance, Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 08:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I like! Very cool. Thanks Glen, for both your time and consideration. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 23:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Yikes I came within milliseconds of blocking that account as an imposter! I need to learn to read I think lol Glen 14:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ha ha! I knew with all the dilligent folks here, I'd need to move fast! Thanks for keeping a lookout... :) —Wknight94 (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
November Esperanza Newsletter
[edit]
|
|
|
Mike from Michigan
[edit]Thanks. He was definitely annoying. Actually, Luna Santan beat me to the block by a few seconds. Academic Challenger 03:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey
[edit]No, it's just caffeine :) Take care -- Samir धर्म 07:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Admin coaching - November 6 - Undercover coaching
[edit]Sure go ahead, if you haven't applied for a new coach, then taking one out the list is fine. Do you have a coaching partner, or are you fine by yourself? If you're not in the active section of the coaching box at WP:ESP/AC, then move yourself when coaching's begun! Harmonious coaching, Highway Ringo Starr! 09:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- And now this is where the problems begin... there aren't any free coaches, I'll ask an experienced coach if they'd take a back seat with you. There's actually quite a few coaches who haven't even replied to me, they're going down shortly. ;) And yes, I'm having an active RfA as we type, nominated by our leader of Eserpanza. It's going somewhat rocky, but what's about a smooth ride? ;) Highway Ringo Starr! 10:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for voting in my RfA! Anyway, if you have coaching questions, just drop me a message, join the cabal who already do XD (I'm seeing orange "new messsage" boxes in my dreams). Happy coaching, one down... 50 to go. Highway Ringo Starr! 10:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Glen.
Sure, I can help you with coaching Riana. Just to know, I prefer co-coaching because although I want to help, I am not sure how much time for WP I will have in the next months. keep me posted. --Tone 11:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
University of Sussex autoblock
[edit]Hello there Glen: Thanks a lot for your very rapid attention re. the autoblock - that did the trick. (Probably that block would have meant most of my university would have been autoblocked, at least anyone using the main Windows network). It's a while since I was very active as an admin here, and I can't remember whether or not it's OK to remove collateral autoblocks on yourself or not, so I thought it best to ask someone. Hell, I've been gone so long I didn't even know you could block anons only from a given IP. Thanks again, and cheers, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Open proxy?
[edit]Hi Glen. I was just wondering how you knew this user was editing through an open proxy. I saw Dancing for Darfur listed for speedy deletion and thought it was worth saving for the Darfur Wiki, but perhaps not if the user is being problematic. I'd appreciate more information on this. Thanks. Angela. 13:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- If they're in Darfur, they may have a perfectly valid reason for using an open proxy. I'm not aware of any edits other than that article being created (and only once), so the block before they've had a chance to respond to the first warning seems unfair. It's only using open proxies maliciously that's a problem, not using them in general, unless there has been previous spamming of this domain that I'm unaware of. Angela. 13:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'll reply on my talk page to keep the thread in one place. Angela. 13:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Jinxtengu
[edit]Hi Glen! Probably best to leave it for now, to allow the troll to pointlessly appeal the block or allow others to review the blocking itself. IIRC, the page will be deleted after a period of time anyway now (that was the proposal last time I looked, which was ages ago). Cheers! ➨ ЯEDVERS 13:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
One last thing
[edit]Glen S. thanks for Sprotecting User_talk:Centrx could you also delete Image:Centrx.jpg... that's a bit of left over from the vandal's antics. Thanks. (→Netscott) 15:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh and User:Im feeling EMOtional needs indef. blocking as well. Thanks again. (→Netscott) 15:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought this was hilarious; basically he was saying "Unblock the article immediately! I need to vandalize it!" -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- My vote is for the admin who unprotects it to spend the next hour babysitting it.... -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!
[edit]Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page. It is much appreciated. Chris Kreider 19:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, thank you very much for the barnstar! Chris Kreider 20:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, thank you very much for hooking me up with the reversion tools! I am sure they will greatly speed my vandal fighting! Chris Kreider 22:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Heroics in Saddam article
[edit]
|
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
For your tireless efforts in fighting off hordes of vandals attempting to destroy the Saddam Hussein article, I award you this barnstar. You are my new hero :) Shrieking Harpy  Talk|Count 22:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
|
You deserve it. Like I said, you're my here, along with Uncle G. I watched that Saddam article and I was simply agahst. With people like you, the Wiki will survive. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 22:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
Re: Saddam
[edit]I haven't vandaled the Saddam article, nor will I ever. I thought I was making my own (amusing) opinion. I do appreciate that people put into articles like the Saddam one, but for my own hatrid for the guy, it's funny to see all the comments that vandal the article. nothing more. I apologize that it came across differently than what I had expected. --Raderick 02:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 6th.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 45 | 6 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Tom from 8L (talk · contribs), Celtic_Lover (talk · contribs) and page protection.
[edit]Hi, Glen, I add these two users into Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and you removed the request citing MT. My question is, what's MT? Also, Tom from 8L (talk · contribs) has vandalized my page within the past month. (October 31st to be exact) yet you noted that the user has no edits all month. I think, seeing that the month has just begun at the time, that the edit days prior should count towards vandalizing. The userpage of Tom from 8L (talk · contribs) notices that the user has moved to Celtic_Lover (talk · contribs). Wouldn't this be a sock puppet of the latter? Admittedly, I didn't give any vandalism warning to Tom from 8L (talk · contribs) since the userpage denotes that the user has moved to Celtic_Lover (talk · contribs). I then left a warning template there. The warning was given a while after the user vandalised my userpage many times. Fortunately, they were reverted by other users. Unfortunately, they didn't seem to leave any warning template on the vandalizer's talk page. But wouldn't the repetitiveness of the offense warrant some sort of action?
Also, as you are a mod, can I request for a page protection? I don't mean asking you to cast a page protection, I know that's requested via WP:RFP. I need an advice. I keep getting vandalism on my userpage. You can check my history [10]. And the protection policy doesn't seem to cover requests for userpages. Only user talk pages. And most protections are only enforced within a cooling down time limit. On the other hand, I don't know if a semi protection (which limit edits to 500+ edit count user) would work since many of the vandals seems to be "experienced" users. I have not yet checked edit counts.
Thanks for the advice.Feureau 11:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
64.148.190.131
[edit]Just so you know, the user has done another vandalism after your last warning. --CyberGhostface 17:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your support!
[edit]23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC) |
If I'm a bit pale in the face now, And if in the future |
Hey Glen
[edit]You never did get back to me on this, but how do you know anon IP 63.17.106.109 (blocked user Messenger2010, now editing as AndyCanada)? He seems to know you and has been quite the disruptor on the soy protein, biological value, and soybean articles to the point that one is locked from editing. I'm curious if you had dealings in the past. I've opened a WP:RFCU for him now to hopefully limit him to one account (or ban him completely). I'm not looking for help - just some insight. Thanks! Yankees76 04:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I know - you were on vacation! Hope it was fun :) Right now? Well you could check this out [[11]], but I don't want to make it seem like I'm canvassing for support. It was strange though when his first act of vandalism was said "Hi Glen it's me 63" in the edit summary. LOL AndyCanada is online right now trolling for another 'brawl'. I've have my user page locked in the meantime. Anyways nice to have you back! Yankees76 04:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- As usual - a big thanks. Yankees76 05:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- This guy just doesn't quit - 67.150.246.87 just inserted some of the same material from soy protein article that AndyCanada was edit warring about earlier today into the Biological Value article (and calling out another user in the edit summary as well!). I have 4 words for that: too much free time. LOL. I'm leaving it - I'm not interested in starting another revert war with a sockpuppet being used to dodge the 3RR. Yankees76 06:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- As usual - a big thanks. Yankees76 05:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
AndyCanada (talk · contribs) has been confirmed by Checkuser to be a sockpuppet of Messenger2010 (talk · contribs) and possibly recently registered user Just an onlooker (talk · contribs) who is already making similar disruptive edits. See [12]. What's the next step in the process? Yankees76 14:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Now the user blatantly creates sockpuppets including Doctor of Love (talk · contribs), Researcher83 (talk · contribs), Vegetables76 (talk · contribs), Veggies for life (talk · contribs) , and Vegetarian Friend (talk · contribs) all in attempts to get me to violate the 3RR rule by making stupid reverts on various articles. I've already filed a complaint, but with the number of idiots like this on Wikipedia the process of getting these socks blocked takes forever. LorenzoPerosi1896 is bad, but this guy is giving him a run for the money in both being the annoying and low intelligence departments. Yankees76 20:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC) New list o' puppets! [15]. Yankees76 00:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
If you're still on...
[edit]...can you speedy-speedy delete New South Wales Blues and its' talk - I made a bad move. Cheers, 10:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Done!- Cheers! Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 10:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Symington
[edit]You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Symington as a copyvio. I think the 'source' is a mirror of WP (see the footnote on that page), so the article is probably not a cv. Regards, Mr Stephen 19:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Wha?
[edit]Hey Glen. Somewhat of a newbie here. What was wrong with my link to the Immune Defieciency Foundation? It's a good resource for a whole host of immunology-related content, and I've found a number of other links to it by other editors?
JB—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johngordonboyle (talk • contribs) 9 November, 2006.
Template on User_talk:70.23.81.146
[edit]When I placed a test2 template on 70.23.81.146's talk page, I noticed a template saying that if he vandalizes one more time, he will be blocked. The link to the revision I made can be found here. Thank you for your time. --Bushcarrot 02:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Much appreciated! This will help me revert some of the inane things from those vandals. Bushcarrot 03:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Image:Shane-Cameron.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Shane-Cameron.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
- On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself. --Bilbo B 09:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC) If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 04:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Vandal Back at Curt Weldon
[edit]Hello. FYI, I just reverted back to your version on Curt Weldon. The same vandal returned and undid all that you did -- re-reverting his blanking deletions. 207.69.137.206 04:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
194.19.96.19 on Aids again
[edit]Hi Glen, You have just warned this used for vandalising AIDS. I have just reverted his revert of your revert (if you follow). can you block him? cheers --Bilbo B 09:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
RE: Regarding edits made during November 9, 2006 to Vivien Cardone
[edit]I did not make vandalism. Check my edits. I made it shorter...if you click on the imdb link you can still go on...it's a short cut. (207.156.196.242)
Immunology, etc.
[edit]Thanks for the messages, Glen. Very helpful!
JB
Sorry about deleting acrticles
[edit]I just did that because half of the things didn't even have to do with SSBB and they were nonsense.
3RR block of User:Demonax
[edit]I reviewed User:Demonax's edits to Europe but couldn't find the 3RR violation you mention. In fact, I couldn't find any reverts, only a single sequence of edits to the article. Am I missing something? If you don't mind, I'll go ahead and unblock this user. Owen× ☎ 16:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, I'll leave it in your hands. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 16:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Off-balance friends
[edit]Hi Glen, no I didn't hear. Please fill me in. I have so many slightly off-kilter "friends" here its hard to keep up :-) Gwernol 17:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ah yes, he's a fine fellow, isn't he. You'd have thought that after being caught in such a pernicious lie he'd have slunk away, but aparently not. Sigh, Gwernol 20:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm back and what are the tips.
Oh yes
[edit]Kind of miss the days where five or ten people could block the same vandal all at once, and you could look at all the snarky block summaries ... oh well. :) Antandrus (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- LOL, I can barely count the number of times I've typed something in the block summary box and then thought ... "no. I can't say that." --Cancel. By then someone else usually blocks anyway ... A recent one was "That's a size 12 boot print on your left buttock. It will fade with time." The curious thing is that if there weren't some kkind of "fun" doing this job, no one would do it. :) Antandrus (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Al Jin
[edit]Hmm... then, I guess what I'll do is see if he vandalizes again. I don't understand this guy at all... WhisperToMe 03:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Anyway, I momentairly blocked someone who, at first glance, looked like Al Jin (since he had a strange screen name) - But after looking at his edits (which were legit) I unblocked him... I hope I didn't scare him away! WhisperToMe 04:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Concordia Community Solidarity Co-op Boosktore
[edit]I am presently creating a page. Is there a particular reason why you have deleted it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadpolaroid (talk • contribs) 06:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Kitrus
[edit]I know how to use the "Edit Summary" feature. In that particular case, I wrote up my rationale for Editing the particular section in the Talk page of the article and forgot to put and Edit Summary. My mistake. Who referred my edit to you? Thanks. --Kitrus 10:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- In that case, thanks for keeping an eye out. I appreciate it.--Kitrus 10:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Glen,
I presume that your bot reverted my edit. I am the creator of this article and i turned it into an enormous mess. I also didn't read the entire book (which is the topic of this article) yet. I was reading another piece and i came to the conclusion that the whole article needs to be changed. I hope i can be able to revert your (Bot's) reversion.--Daanschr 11:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't want to delete the article. This article is about a book that has an enormous in depth knowledge of the western culture and has completely changed my outlook on some key concepts of it. I will edit the article again and this time with an edit summary.--Daanschr 11:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Vitsoe
[edit]I did nominate it. As I said, I was hoping to see what the consensus was on the move/redirect. Since you've suggested it, though, I'll go ahead and do it, and hope no controversy results. Thanks. Shimeru 11:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
That's just unhealthy
[edit]I know he's obsessed with me, but you too? Not healthy if you ask me! I see lots of therapy in that guys future! Yankees76 13:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'll be keeping an eye on Muscle100 (talk · contribs) too for the time being. Another newly registered user with am interest in soy and biological value, but not much else. Yankees76 19:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Vitsoe AFD
[edit]Greetings Glen
Sorry to say it, but I think you closed this AFD debate a bit quickly. One editor tried to move the page to the name of the shelving system which was immediately reverted by the page's main defender. For my own part, I still don't consider this company notable in itself, a belief I only consider reinforced after realizing that the company website contains no hard information at all. I haven't found it anywhere on the web either. For all we know, it could be a few men working in a garage. I also find it a somewhat odd for a company to be completely unknown in its own country. Not a single Danish website mentions it, and neither does the Great Danish Encyclopedia. The only Danish furniture companies I would consider notable would be Tvilum-Scanbirk and perhaps Flexa and Kompan, in all three cases due to large sales. I have no intention to start an edit war, and I'm removing the page from my watch list, but I still believe you closed this one too quickly. Regards. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 18:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the nominator changed his mind and withdrew it. You are welcome to refile one, there was no decision made other than the nominator removed his nomination. Glen 18:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is tempting to do so, but I'll abstain since such a move would probably be too close to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Perhaps their lack of interest in the Danish market is the reason why they're completely unknown here, but I'd still feel a lot happier if I'd ever heard about them in just in the just the vaguest possible terms. All Danish websites I can find mentioning this word relate to a small location on the island Ærø. Happy editing. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 19:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah... I wasn't terribly happy about the move revert, but I'm not about to get drawn into an edit war over the thing. It just isn't worth it, even if I consider the reasoning behind the current state flawed. Shimeru 10:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Sid Haig Page
[edit]Hello Glen, A few minutes ago, I received a warning for "removing content". Actually, I ADDED content that had been removed by a now-blocked vandal by the username of "Karl eichholtz 13". He had removed Sid from the Group: James Bond Actors for reasons unknown. I put the link back. So I get a warning??? As Sid's Publicist and Fiance, I have been working on this page for the past several days to get it to be something more than a half-bio with one lousy picture, and I think I have suceeded in doing so. In viewing the page's edit history, I can see a lot of people have had their share of fun with editing this page. I can only wonder if they got any warnings. Please learn to recognize constructive editing when it happens. That way bogus warnings in no way suited to the action might not occur. Now his page is back to how it was before I ever worked on it!!! What's with that???
Thank you,
- editing name out because I did not realize this would be posted!
70.40.37.0 06:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Sid Haig Page
[edit]See, that's just it, all I did was insert a link. I did not, by any means or method, remove anything. If some glitch happened, then I can hardly be blamed for it. Trust me, it's MY job to protect Sid as well. 70.40.37.0 06:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You go, boy!
[edit]Looks like someone who can't get a date on a Friday night would rather create idiotic usernames meant to "insult" you. What a throb. Anyway, just thought I'd congratulate you for fighting the good fight. You da man. - Lucky 6.9 07:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Sid Haig Page
[edit]I have no idea how that happened, but I just got done fixing it. Are you SURE the edit came from my IP???
What I can't reckon is why "The Devil's Rejects" is showing up red when I KNOW there's a page on here for the film. I put the double brackets on it, so I have no idea what to try.
70.40.37.0 07:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Sid Haig Page
[edit]A-HA!!!!!!!!!! So now I know the IP of the person who posted a nice bit of mischief on the 4th! Wonderful! You've been a big help! =) 70.40.37.0 07:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Sid Haig Page Copyright
[edit]I respect what you are trying to do, but as I am the one who wrote that bio, I hold the copyright, and may post it where I see fit. I co-administrate our website (www.sidhaig.com), and it was written for the site's Bio section. Kindly revert it to how I just fixed it. Thank you. 70.40.37.0 07:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Please
[edit]Geln S, Please please please, comment on the reliability of sources mentioned here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#My_Sources
I can not stand seeing my hard work is removed by others. --Aminz 08:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- To be perfectly honest I really dont want to get involved in the dispute, my job is to protect all articles from the damage that comes for editors continually reverting each other. I suggest a RFC, or mediation session be filed if you cannot agree yourselves. Sorry, but Im just looking out for the best result for the article itself, and edit warring is not it Glen 08:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand that you would like to remain neutral. I filed an RfC. This article is currently under construction and to some extent edit warring happens. But you are right, we should be more patient. But please don't protect the article. Unfortunately not many editors are working on this article, and those who do mostly having personal preferences. I think more outsiders are needed. Thanks for your response anyways. --Aminz 10:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
3RR
[edit]I agree BUT I never violate the 3RR and I always talk on the page. Aminz violate 3RR three times in last week! Three ediitors upset at him on WP:ANI/3RR. Several more besides these say his section shouldnt be there on talk page and he just ignoring them and reverting. Problem isnt the article but Aminz not following the rules and administrators backed up so not enforce them. Reports been there for awhile now.Opiner 08:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- I too agree and thank you for your steps to curb the edit-warring. But like Opiner I would like to point out that only one party has violated Wikipedia rules, and it is neither he nor I. —Aiden 10:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Template:Afd2
[edit]I would recommend that the template incorporated into {{Afd2}} should be {{la}} instead of {{la-admin}}. The administrative template winds up displaying to the regular users functions that they can't actually access, so it doesn't actually help that much. --Metropolitan90 08:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Martinp23
[edit]I think a support vote is probably going to be just as useful, but feel free to conom if you want. I've already talked to Martinp23 and I know he's going to accept the nomination. - Mgm|(talk) 09:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Why was everyone so nasty to me?
[edit]No leeway was given to me. I made an edit that should have been no more controversial than many others I have made and I was immediately accused of vandalism. The threats then piled in and no-one showed me any sympathy or showed the slighest interest in reprimanding the user who abused me. Is there no fairness in Wikipedia? Look at how many good edits I have made. I just want to be left alone to continue and not to have people yelling at me. 82.18.125.110 12:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Please change the template as it is detached from reality
[edit]Having a user page is not a "privilege". A user page is a place where people make distressing attacks on my integrity that they don't even attempt to justify. (Not even when you have done exactly what they asked and opened a discussion on the article's talk page). I don't want to have a talk page. The only "privilege" I want is to be left alone to make good edits, but that seems to be too much to ask. 82.18.125.110 12:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
What you get in return for trying to do the right thing
[edit]It turned out that the user who started it made a very simple mistake, thinking I had changed a description of the Rhodesian government when I had changed the description of the South African government. He didn't read the sentence I edited properly or my edit summary, which included the phrase "South African government". This is what you get for doing what is asked, ie providing an edit summary: slurs, abuse and threats (and not a hint of an apology from any of the five people who attacked you). So why bother? 82.18.125.110 13:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Request
[edit]Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. I would like to request that this page be deleted from the project as it is lacking in content. Your help in this would be appreciated! --Siva1979Talk to me 18:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for your help! --Siva1979Talk to me 18:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Barnstar
[edit]Wow, that's actually my first barnstar ever! And I'm not new! ;) I usually do image stuff though, I guess we are more uncaring. Anyway, thanks :D - cohesion 03:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Muhammad
[edit]Problem not the article but Aminz edit war against consensus and now get Truthspreader to help him. Everyone but him agree there are big problems with what hes been doing and not just in the animals section. He violate 3RR twice in a row. You saw that right and do nothing Why not enforce the rule? Your new rule look like if one user violate 3RR all the time the article get protected! One reason 3RR rule is there so protecting whole article not necessary when only one user is breaking it. What do you think?Opiner 04:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Surely you understand your argument is the fundamental problem with edit warring... everyone thinks that they are right. I could ask him right now and he'd say exactly the same thing about you! None of you are vandals (even though I see that terms being thrown around) and it seems you all (in your minds) have the best interests of the article at heart.
- Its a emotional subject that obviously means a lot to you all which is why this just will go on and on and on. I honestly hope you can sort it out yourselves but failing that a third party will do it. But literally dozens of reversions each day by each other is absolutely crazy. I don't know what else I could/can do I'm afraid. Its up to you guys Glen 04:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes BUT I didnt violate 3RR and no one else did except Aminz who did it twice in a row. You saw the report. Diffs are there with times. True or false?Opiner 04:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Just FYI, you probably want to use the {{protected}} template, not the {{vprotected}} one. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oops, thanks for that (force of habit - Im usually a vandal fighter and it was actually the constant edits popping up in RC patrol that brought me to the page). Appreciated Glen 04:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- True or false? you not want to block him thats fine. Anyhow they can say article protected so doesnt matter. But at least admit: no one violate 3RR except user Aminz who break it twice in a row.Opiner 09:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Just FYI, you probably want to use the {{protected}} template, not the {{vprotected}} one. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes BUT I didnt violate 3RR and no one else did except Aminz who did it twice in a row. You saw the report. Diffs are there with times. True or false?Opiner 04:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Sid Haig Page
[edit]Still waiting for the page to be reverted to how I fixed it with the Bio I WROTE. Being the copyright holder, I don't see how this is difficult...yet random users can post their libellous opinions and walk away without a warning of any kind. Spirot 07:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Autoblock
[edit]Many thanks for the quick response! Kuru talk 14:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Reasons
[edit]The reason why I removed the picture of gary strydom was because I uploaded without the permission of the author with the idea that it was promotional since it was on the internet and because I been getting in trouble for posting pictures of bodybuilders without proper rights; I have been blocked on one occassion and recently a member mamed fbb_fan has been deleting all my pictures and any written addition that I have done on any profile of a bodybuilder. So in other to prevent any trouble, I have been removing any picture or words that I have added to any bodybuilding profile, because I do not want to be blocked again. See ya!Angel,Isaac 14:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me. I did not know you had to do that when it came to editing articles.Angel,Isaac 15:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo crosses the line
[edit]Can you take a look at Talk:David S. Touretzky and User_talk:ChrisO#Request_for_a_comment? It's bad enough that Terryeo, already banned from editing Scientology articles, would troll by trying to elicit comments from two other editors about a libelous Scientology smear page against them, but his further comments to Touretzky regarding his alleged "terrorism and bigotry" are unconscionable, and, IMHO, grounds for a permanent block. This goes beyond mere trolling and personal attacks, and enters the realm of libel. wikipediatrix 16:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Allow me to second Wikipediatrix's comments, and to add a reminder that this is hardly the first time Terryeo has engaged in smearing the personal character of editors--he had a sort of "enemies list" of "suppressive" editors on his user page until he was pressured to remove it, and at one point he salted several links to the "wikitruth" stalker site that "outs" the identities of various wikipedia editors. His history of personal attacks (which verge onto threats or, as Wikipediatrix says, libel) combined with his regular disruption of Wikipedia policy pages and Scientology-related talk pages renders Wikipediatrix's call for a permanent block fully justified, in my view. BTfromLA 16:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- I asked a question there, for reasons which I have responded to there. I have received similar questions on my page [16] both recently and in the past. I have even received outright hostility using words like "jihad" and phrases like "banned user". But user discussion pages frequently involve discussions of a person's experience, expertise, etc. What is the problem ? Terryeo 17:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- All of the emotionally biased words used, were not used by me and I kept them carefully off of the page until pressed to respond about why I attempted to engage the user in communication. To respond to that query, I had to use the words. There was really no need to use any of those words in the discussion at all. Terryeo 17:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
EssjayBot III
[edit]I've set the bot up; your page currently didn't need any archiving, but check it in the next couple of days and see if it is working correctly. Thanks for shopping EssjayBot! Essjay (Talk) 16:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Unspecified source for Image:T.C. Luoma.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:T.C. Luoma.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 17:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Done
Image:T.C. Luoma.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:T.C. Luoma.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
- On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 19:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Done
Can I trouble you for an opinion?
[edit]Glen, if you have a minute, can you take a look at my comments on User talk:75.80.63.244? Was I too harsh in my responses there? (I'm not looking for validation, just your honest perspective; it's quite possible that I snapped at the user inappropriately.) -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 19:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to look at it. And yeah, I was frustrated after putting the references right under his nose, then having him continue to insist (even now) that he was merely fixing spelling errors. You know those Brits; they need Noah Webster to tell them how to spell their own language. (Ok, a bit of leftover frustration -- better here than on the user page!) And the WP:AIV backlog didn't help; if he'd been blocked soon after the test4, a block of an hour or so would have been enough to get his attention. Ok, I'm over it now; I'm going to assume good faith when his block expires. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Glen you fricken rock dude!!!
[edit]It's true!! 121.90.7.203 21:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- PS: It should probably be known that this may well be Glen not logged in...
- Glen you're nuts bra Glen 21:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Glen, you have an odd way of entertaining yourself :P....ummmmm, hope you have had a good week....¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is glen's alter ego (just kidding). Way to go. Its my party and I edit when I want to. Rock On!!! --67.150.245.145 21:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Love is like a violin. The music may stop now and then, but the strings remain forever. Your friend. Its me, Yankees Friend!!! --67.150.245.145 22:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I politely but strongly advised him to withdraw that self-nom as soon as I noticed it, but he seems to have gone offline right after he told User talk:Patstuart about it. For the record, Pat definitely did not advise him to nominate himself for admin! -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Crtieria
[edit]I'm actually trying not to tag images of bands that have broken up, and usually skip them, but I may have mistakenly tagged a couple. I generally don't tag images of dead people, unless I know of a now–public domain movie that they were in (i.e., Bela Lugosi or Robert Donat). If it's somebody who's alive I'll tag it except in rare instances (like a guerilla leader in some third-world country). Currently-active bands should not in most cases have fair-use images. Hope this helps. If you are wondering about any specific image I tagged, let me know and I'll be glad to share my reasoning. —Chowbok ☠ 23:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad an administrator finally noticed this. I think this user is going way too far in tagging images. Hope you'll look into it. TheQuandry 23:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Sid Haig Page
[edit]Glen, I looked at the criteria for "vandalism", and CLEARLY the user who keeps posting their smarmy nonsense (Ip - 66.30.5.160) is a vandal. This is directly copied from said page: "The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, this kind of vandalism is usually easy to spot." You saw what was written, and it's one idiot's slanted opinion (this person also harasses both of us on IMDB), NOT fact, nor anything else remotely useful. Yet every time I come here it's right back there big as day. What gives? Then I come here trying to do my job, and get the shaft. I'll read your copyright page for how to get my own work posted on my client's page. And I thought IMDB was bad... Spirot
PS - this is also copied from wiki's rulebook: "To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing. When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. Consider using talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating." So, how about some good faith, eh? And how about a block on the vandal at 66.30.5.160?
70.40.37.0 00:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC) 70.40.37.0 00:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Sid Haig Page Copyright
[edit]Ok, so I read the page, and I feel I must again quote wiki's policy here, seeing as how I adhered to it...
"If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). In order to contribute, you therefore must be in a position to grant this license, which means that either you own the copyright to the material, for instance because you produced it yourself, or you acquired the material from a source that allows the licensing under GFDL, for instance because the material is in the public domain or is itself published under GFDL. In the first case, you retain copyright to your materials. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract the GFDL license for the versions you placed here: that material will remain under GFDL forever.
Now, is that not what I did by posting what I wrote??? And can we PLEASE put it back so I don't have to spend another four days working on it???
Spirot 70.40.37.0 00:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Proper goodbye
[edit]Hi Glen, this is Konstable. I initially announced that I had left Wikipedia with an intention of considering a return in a few months time, but even a quick pop in for a message got me blocked, accused of "trolling", "disruption", creating impersonation accounts (I assure you I had nothing to do with that), and now an arbitration case (in which I will not participate). So I am afraid I am very unwelcome here and a return is quite impossible. I was happy to leave out of my own will in the first place, but now I am saddened and insulted by these accusations. And I sincerely regret putting so much effort into Wikipedia in the past. I have never insulted anyone here on Wikipedia and only worked to improve it, yet these people are accusing me of the opposite - I have even been accused of vandalism in one instance
I thank you for your sincere hard work in improving Wikipedia, I wish you the best of luck here. I hope the community will eventually fix itself, though there is a trend of taking it in the opposite direction.--203.109.209.49 03:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC) (This IP is shared and not quite static, changes every few weeks, so please don't respond on the IP talk page)