Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox. |
Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I've speedily restored this template as a seeminly out-of-process deletion. I've noted this on WP:DRV. This template has already surived a TFD discussion. As I put on the DRV page, this is without prejudice for relisting it on WP:TFD. Many users noticed this deletion rapidly and were confused as to where it went. I will not wheel war over this if another admin feels it deserves speedy deletion, but will argue against speedy deletion of it on DRV. — xaosflux Talk 02:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you only blocked one of Squidward's latest puppets for one week. All of his puppets are open proxies/hacked machines/zombies and should be blocked indefinitely. Your one week block caused a conflict; don't worry though, I fixed it. --Cyde Weys 03:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for participating in my RfA. Since now I'm an admin, I'll do my best not to turn the community confidence down. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line since I'm always open for constructive criticism. --Dijxtra 11:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop encouraging other users to harass me. If you are somehow "surprised" by this statement, you might want to look at this. You instigated this. KI 18:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
After I left my vote on User:KI's RfA you were kind enough to answer a query I had left in my edit summary, and give me some courteous, helpful and, importantly, neutral advice on how to respond to RfA's.
Thanks!
I think this is the "instigation" that User:KI wrote to you about.
They consider the questions I left for them on their vote page "far from civil".
So far as I can see, even if, for the sake of argument, I accepted KI's premise that my questions weren't civil, I can't, for the life of me, imagine how they could think you bear any responsibility for them.
I already had pretty strong concerns that KI was tempermentally unsuited to be trusted with the authority inherent in being an administrator. Their last notes to me, and to you, further strengthen those concerns.
Anyhow, thanks for your help, which I believe was in the best traditions of the wikipedia, and which no one should try to make you apologize for. -- Geo Swan 08:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Can you please undelete the The Sugarman Three article I was in the process of creating and give me a few minutes to state a case as to why it IS a notable article? Thanks! - Blahm 03:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Requesting SProtection for Kosovo, Serbia and Serbia and Montenegro articles Hi Xaosflux,
I need some help here. We are having troubles again with Hipi Zhdripi. Same old story, he runs out of arguments, logs out and then reverts to what he considers "the right version", thinking he can avoid a 3RR block this way (he got blocked before). The thing is his mastering of English language is so poor he isn't fooling anyone but himself.
Please have a look at the history of contributions for the Kosovo, Serbia and Serbia and Montenegro articles.
He has recently vandalised the Serbia article too and issued threats (well, a bit hard to understand but they definitely sound like threats to me) to User:HolyRomanEmperor
I ran an ARIN check on the IP addresses and all resolve to the same ISP. He has also admitted it was Hipi Zhdripi in a few of the edit summaries, anyway (see this).
I will list him in the 3RR noticeboard later on but, sincerely, I cannot see the point as the dynamic IP addresses seem to change quite a lot and a block on his username would not affect his unlogged edits.
In the meantime, I feel forced to request to have those three articles sprotected. Thanks in advance.
Regards, Asterion 19:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
What's an RIR lookup? Sorry, I'm lost here. Do you mean a reverse IP lookup? --Asterion 17:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I posted a proper article on Rapidan the Game but I would like it to be what comes up when you type in Rapidan because Rapidan is the name of the game and currently there isn't anything ON the rapidan page... can we fix this ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boxsavell (talk • contribs)
I don't follow your edit summary on the Administrators' vandalism notice board. Does that mean you're going to block him, or...? Kafziel 05:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
What I wanted really to know, is when does the Project edit count stop being low. Could you give me some sort of a border so that I can know in the future? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your speedy keep vote of {{ifdef}} (see Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 18), there's actually two issues here. It's not just that we have #if
now, it's that it's a fork of {{qif}} and basically complicates things even more. Even if we decide to keep qif for now, we absolutely should not encourage the use of still other conditional templates (especially when ifdef is [almost?] identical in functionality to qif; I could see the point if it did something exceptionally different/better, but as far as I can tell, it doesn't). Anyways, just wanted to clear that up. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 04:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This undecidedness spread by me is because everyone says that none will count my edits, but judge their quality rather. You see, when I find an article, I save it; and skim up for the internet for sources, expand it, clean-it-up, fix all typos & errors and place some tags if I didn't finish the job/do it properly. Now, after totally moving an article from an errorous stub, the result I get is 1 edit. That's the thing that's been annoying me. I mean, I do not want to seem like some obssessed Wikipedian that now contributes only to sum up his edits. I am here to contribute, and I thought (and am thinking) that adminship will help me quitte a lot.
Anyways, thanks! You've been very helpful! Cheers. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You speedy deleted this page... due to copyright. I accredited the content at the very TOP of the page saying all content was from the Dahon site. Another bike co seems to have alot of content straight from their site as well. Why the differnece? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Brewer (talk • contribs)
first up - how do i reply to your messages in talk?
second - i have checked the copyright info you gave me - what constitutes permission? e.g. Permission to reproduce this web content was granted by NAME, TITLE, CO on DAY MONTH YEAR? is that enough? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike Brewer (talk • contribs) .
Great idea, done. --Rory096(block) 20:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Xaosflux/Archive13! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Xaosflux. About a week ago you kindly added an 'sprotect' on the Sudoku article for a couple of days which seemed to stop one specific pest. Thanks! However, the Sudoku article seems to attract an extraordinary volume of antisocial people who repeatedly place ads for their personal website in the Links section in spite of prominent notices discouraging this. I'm totally sick of reverting them and am not far from giving up and leaving the Links section to degenerate into the unholy mess it was 9-12 months ago. Is there some way of putting a permanent block on a specific section within an article? If so, could you/someone consider this for the Links section of the Sudoku article? --angusj 09:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
You blocked 203.94.130.77 (a school). User talk:Cyril Washbrook is suffering collateral damage. Not sure that the block can lifted considering the vandalism, but I encouraged Cyril to contact his network admin.--Commander Keane 03:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to bring to your attention that the version of the page which you protected is the version that less reflects the guidelines and spirit of Wikipedia. The user who has been agressively defending the article, Nancetlv (talk · contribs), is a suspected sockpuppet of the author and subject of the article, Israelbeach (talk · contribs), who is currently under review for similar edit warring on Ra'anana. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israelbeach and/or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Woggly. I believe that DejahThoris deserves support for her efforts to bring the article in line with Wikipedia standards. As I am currently involved in dispute resolution with Israelbeach I will not unblock the page myself in order to revert it to the version that I strongly feel is better, Though it is in my power to do so. But I do ask you to reconsider this block. If I see that you are currently inactive I may leave a request for unprotection and a description of the matter at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection . --Woggly 06:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Update: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Users: Nancetlv and Bonnieisrael --Woggly 08:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Ed Poor. I'm the one Tim "blames" for getting him to create m:ParserFunctions by making all the Date math templates.
Could you take a look at Template talk:Ordinal date leap year? I think I've found a minor error that won't be noticeable until March 2008, but I like to plan ahead! ;-) --Uncle Ed 16:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
When you moved the speedy rename request for Category:American Dance Acts to WP:CfD , you used 3 = signs instead of 4, which made every other nomination on the page a subsection of your nomination. It has now been fixed. --Blainster 18:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Template:User antifa-01 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. PS: I know this a heated subject. I don't care either way on the subject. This was a technical nomination only. If you wish to have a go at somebody, please pick somebody else. If you wish to have a go at me, then fine but I won't respond. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 22:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Dude! Has the Davie Dodds talk page really been protected to prevent me from 'vandalising' it? You're not serious are you dude?--TheMadTim 03:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
This IP address is shared throughout the university. There are probably 2,000 college students coming to Wikipedia who just clicked on "you have a new message" who have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. If you have a specific grievance that you would like addressed please contact our network admin directly. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.203.190.88 (talk • contribs) .
I just had a look at his edit history and I see vandalism as far back as october 2005, with a strong streak since march. I think I'd go for at least a week now, and keep him in check afterwards. Circeus 01:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The email ticket system does have a pretty big impact on Wikipedia, though the edit counters don't show it. Just wanted to make sure you were aware of the above fact but then again, I know you're pretty conservative -- Tawker 02:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you place said block on my account, the whole thing on 5-7-06, and give the Toolbox links to Bishonen as well, and state that this account was terminated at User request ? Martial Law 07:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC) :)
Also can you make the Toolbox links part of the Welcome template as well ? Also, go ahead and make yourself a copy of the toolbox as well. Martial Law 07:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC) :)
Hi,
This is with ref to the articles St Hedda's, Egton Bridge, et. al. The pages were created without much content and evidently the author has been using templates to create the pages in bulk without substantial information about the topic. In the interim, I suggested in the user's talk page to list/tabulate them in the main page, if the user doesn't have significant information. The particular articles on individual parishes may be created if and when someone has enough information regarding the topic, rather than populating wikipedia in bulk without enough info. Thanks for taking up this matter with me. Cheers. - Chez (Discuss / Email) • 03:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This is to let you know that I just made a stupid block, but it's fine because yours will expire and kill mine. So, um... this note is to let you know that you don't need to let me know. Thanks. Mak (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi user:RyanGF3's posted lyrics from Love Song by AC/DC song on Love Song (AC/DC song). I deleted them as a copyvio. Is that the thing to do, or do I owe him an apology?User_talk:Dlohcierekim 04:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I do appreciate your work on the Big_Brother_(Czech_TV_series) page, but I googled the 4 contestants who were red links and got no hits. The Big Brother site linked also doesn't mention any of the listed constestants. I might suggest PRODding the page -- it strikes me as a likely hoax.
Cheers, Supermanhaiku 14:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC) 14:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I have archived the remainder and will restore the links post-deletion. Many thanks! Charles 20:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there a general vote taking place or just for admins?--Constanz - Talk 05:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Template:User Sock Puppet has the wrong DRV link. I would correct this, but am unable to do so, as the page is protected. --Constantine Evans 02:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the notices you inserted into the deleted templates because the edits you made resemble those made by MSK, and are likely to have the same vote-stacking result as those edits. Putting "come and vote here" notices on the userpages of userbox users can only distort the measure of consensus. --Tony Sidaway 03:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Stating that I am votestacking is not assuming good faith, period. I've recreated the DRV/U in progress notes to the Discussion pages of the affected templates as a regular message instead of being inline on the template. I still think that bringing the same box through the deletion process over and over again is a big waste of time, but something that affects the moral of many editors (perhaps having the boxes is affecting other editors to, it is quite a sticky situation). I support our policies, but the community has overwhelming cried out that CSD:T1 is not specific enough. There has got to be some way to get a community consensus on a userbox policy, any ideas how? — xaosflux Talk 03:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay...my bot no longer runs from the monobook...I have finally got around to making the bot request.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 03:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks so much for voting! Thanks so much for voting on my request for adminship. I have decided to withdraw my nomination as it seems that consensus will not be reached. If you voted in support, thanks for putting your trust in me to be a good admin. If you voted in opposition, thank you as well for your constructive criticism as it will only help me be a better Wikipedian and perhaps help if/when I apply for adminship again sometime in the future. |
Mahogany
I appreciated your question, and your comments. Thanks for your vote in my RfA; it didn't gain consensus but I'm glad I accepted the nomination. - Amgine 17:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Why are you going through and re-adding all of the non-encyclopedic divisive religion-based categories to userboxes? We need to get rid of these things, not add them! --Cyde Weys 00:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for taking our side in (at least some of) the userbox debates. It's good to have admins on both sides to make sure neither side outsteps its bounds. Also, just out of curiosity, how do you pronounce your username? Shousflux? Zhaousflux? Exousflux? TheJabberwʘck 02:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
some admin intervention needed, User:202.50.90.10 - I know it's a college in New Zealand, but this article is going to be trashed. --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 03:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
They appeared to be done and moved on, but, no problem at all. Thank you for asking! :) RadioKirk talk to me 03:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. It's my opinion that "this survived a TfD" is not a reason to undelete a speedy delete -- I view the criteria as somewhat disjoint. Inflammatory and divisive userboxes should be speedied, but it makes sense to send userboxes to TfDs if there is not consensus that they are inflammatory and/or divisive. That being said, I'm happy to watch the discussion on DRV and wait until that reaches a consensus before asking someone else to re-speedy it (or not, depending on what the consensus is). Nandesuka 14:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)