text:
User talk:Woohookitty/Archive4
- 1 Happy New Year
- 2 Hank Williams dips into the surreal
- 3 Purpose of RFArb
- 4 Unprotecting Islamist Terrorism
- 5 Sockpuppeting - DisposableAccount , Paulcardan, Llbb, Bbll
- 6 Injunction Cleanup
- 7 Charmed
- 8 ...
- 9 Could you find a better place for this than my talk page please
- 10 thank you
- 11 Gatti RFAr
- 12 Death of the Virgin (Caravaggio)
- 13 Charmed
- 14 Note
- 15 Could you do me a favor?
- 16 A port in the storm
- 17 So you're suggesting...
- 18 Louis Braille
- 20 Oh no, not again!
- 21 Woohoo, would you be interested in going on record regarding ...
- 22 Benjamin Gatti
- 23 Baseball on Wikicities
- 24 wow
- 25 Troll was here
- 26 quick note
- 27 help with old username
- 28 Wow.
- 29 Can re protect Palesatinian exodus ? thanks.
- 30 I'm doing well ;-)
- 31 Maureen McCormick
- 32 Thanks
- 33 Spum
- 34 List of sexual slurs
- 35 Re: Um
- 36 Thanks
- 37 Thanks
- 38 Re: Question
- 39 hey there
- 40 Actually....
- 42 Thank you
- 43 The New Name For...
- 44 Hmmm
- 45 Willmcw
- 46 Hosni Mubarak
- 47 Hi
- 48 Return of the Son of List of Sexual Slurs
- 49 Hmm...
- 50 Latin spelling
- 51 Dalla group
- 52 you wrote:
- 53 Oops
- 54 How's Things?
- 55 Pissboy world cup
- 56 'Natural Cures' article
- 57 Cleaning up articles
- 58 Heyyyyyyyy....
- 59 Nationalities
- 60 Image:Motorbike2.jpg
- 61 maleness
- 62 Subwayjack
- 63 Thanks
- 64 Mediation
- 65 Wikipedia
- 66 Range Block vs. Semi-protect
- 67 Deleted page recreation
- 68 RFC user? Help?
- 69 SponeBob vandal
- 70 Zen-Master
- 71 John Kerry protection
- 72 Hello Buddy
- 73 "Supercunt" vandal
- 74 Perl script to separate red and blue links for WP:MEA
- 75 Talk on my page... well may mention your name.
- 76 Thank You
- 77 Advice on unprotection
- 78 Eastern front world war 2
- 79 Protecting the featured article
- 80 Brady
- 81 Advice
- 82 Chris Evans Page
- 83 vandals, etc.
- 85 New User-name
- 86 Computer science
- 87 Barnstar
- 88 Gibraltarian
- 89 J.Spudeman
- 90 Seth Ravin
- 91 Valerie Plame
- 92 Laziness
- 93 RfA Thanks
- 94 RfPP
- 95 Flamer Alert
- 96 :-)
- 97 Re: Belarusian Language
- 98 John Lott
- 99 Re semi-protection request for Cannabis
- 100 Sources
- 101 Hugs
- 102 Correction Requested
- 103 Fantasy football
- 104 This is interesting...
- 105 Semiprotection?
- 106 A rough week
- 107 Pat (again)
- 108 Poker WikiProject
- 109 Comments to Chesschamp21
- 110 An Esperanzial note
- 112 List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes
- 113 RE:My RFA
- 114 Thought you'd appreciate...
- 115 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian
- 116 WikiProject Poker
- 117 Muslim drawlings
- 118 Unprotection
- 119 Hi there
- 120 reply
- 121 Cleanup taskforce
- 122 RfA Thanks!
- 123 George Reeves
- 124 anons
- 125 move request
- 126 Babe Ruth
- 127 S-Protect on Ted Kennedy article
- 128 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti
- 129 Answer to question
- 130 Costa Rica presidential elections, 2006
- 131 Neuro-linguistic programming
- 132 Bosnian Genocide
- 133 Thanks once again
- 134 Protection no longer needed
- 135 Subwayjack
- 136 Squiggyfm (talk · contribs)
- 137 Hmm...
- 138 SuperDeng's comments
- 140 Wikipedia is interesting but highly susceptable to abuse
- 141 Anselm of Canterbury
- 142 Re: Thank you
- 143 Cleanup Taskforce
- 144 This will give you a laugh
- 145 John F. Kennedy assassination
- 146 Kurdish people
- 147 Another Esperanzial note...
- 148 Gastrich RFAr
- 149 Gilbert Baker
- 150 Kurdish people
- 151 monastic, not monestic
- 152 Moving sections to wikisource
- 153 Calvin and Hobbes - reversion request
- 154 Help!
- 155 Semi-protection removal?
- 156 I appreciate the warning
- 157 Yikes!
- 158 thank you
- 159 Script
- 160 Nazism in relation to other concepts
- 161 Bush Template and Mark's response to your request
- 162 List of monarchs of Kush
- 163 My signature
- 164 Cleanup Taskforce
- 165 EffK's talk page
- 166 Thank You
- 167 protection of Australian football articles
- 168 User Acuman is trying to Frame Me or Start Problems
- 169 New Formalism
- 170 Request for admin help for ゲームマスター
- 171 Belarusian Language
- 172 History of Gibraltar still semiprotected
- 173 Kaiser Permanente
- 174 afd question
- 175 RfPE
- 176 New Bogdanoff sock puppet
- 177 Triumph of the Will
- 178 Unblock request: User talk:184.108.40.206
- 180 Protection of Acharya S
- 181 Very long protection periods
Happy New Year[edit]
Go out and enjoy it. WP will still be here when you get back. novacatz 07:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- What you aren't doing protection stuff anymore? So who am I going to rely on to be a fellow nazi against those who over-use semi??? :) :) :) Anywayz, hope you reconsider your position -- but if you decide to end looking at protection stuff then I respect that. Hope you find something in WP that keeps your interest. Take care, novacatz 07:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I know Wikipedia can be frustrating as hell sometimes, with some individuals finding any old excuse to knock professionalism and high standards. I have been so close to quitting a couple of times but am hanging in there (just). Please don't leave. We need people like you to try to pull WP up to acceptable standards. Don't let the all too common crap pushers drive you away. There are a host of top class contributors on the brink of leaving in frustration. If we go, all our work in trying to uphold standards will have been in vain and the lunatics really will have taken over the assylum. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 12:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hear hear! Besides which, if you leave, who'll be my wikibuddy? (Nothing like an appeal to emotion ;) ) · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 05:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Hank Williams dips into the surreal[edit]
Thanks for your previous comment on my semi-protection of Hank Williams. The issue with the vandal has now taken a surreal turn--the guy posted on the article's talk page that he witnessed these events and that I'm part of the conspiracy to cover up the facts he keeps inserting into the article (he also made a comment that I'm a "very stupid hillbilly indeed" but I can't help but laugh at that). Anyway, could you please advise me what to do. This is no longer a clear-cut vandalism case but instead a case of no original research. Since the user can't be blocked b/c he keeps using sock puppets, how do you suggest dealing with this? I have no desire to keep reverting the page several times a day, which is what previous experience with this user suggests will happen when the page is unprotected. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Purpose of RFArb[edit]
Just out of interest I was wondering what you hope to achieve out of the RFArb against Benjamin Gatti? --Chazz88 22:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Slightly edited: Chazz88 22:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Unprotecting Islamist Terrorism[edit]
The article was protected because the likes of our racist crowd including Yuber, Farhansher, and LeeHunter think they "own" it and continually delete sourced material they think reflects badly on Islam. You've just reopened the problem.
Sockpuppeting - DisposableAccount , Paulcardan, Llbb, Bbll[edit]
The technical evidence indicates that User:DisposableAccount, User:Paulcardan, User:Llbb, and User:Bbll are all the same editor. I've blocked Llbb and Bbll, but I wasn't sure which of the other two to block, since DisposableAccount is the older one, but Paulcardan appears to be the real one. They should both be blocked, one permanently, and one temporarily to discourage sockpuppeting; I leave it to you as to which. Also, I've permanently blocked User:Marx marvelous; though the technical evidence tying it to the others isn't strong, it's still obviously a sockpuppet created for the purpose of policy violation. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I blocked User:DisposableAccount. --JWSchmidt 01:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense, the account was disposable. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Can you please go to User_talk:Jayjg and read my response? As I said on User_talk:JWSchmidt if we accept this definition of sockpuppetry then User:Memenen (i.e. the administrator User:JWSchmidt) is also a sockpuppet. Paulcardan 06:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Injunction Cleanup[edit]
I'll do it tommorrow. Its 5AM and I'm about to goto bed. --05:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The article you put the speedy tag on is an episode of the show Charmed. firstname.lastname@example.com is posting a whole slew of badly written episode summaries. I'm just slapping the wikify tag on. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- And actually, we've discovered that they are ALL copyvios from http://charmed.tktv.net/ I get to delete all of them. oh goodie. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- - thanks for the info, appreciated, they were complete out of context, looked like gibberish. --Oscarthecat 15:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw it. I moved it. Just creates extra work, but whatever. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 17:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you find a better place for this than my talk page please[edit]
- It would've been nice if you would've asked me for my opinion directly. I'm a he. I wouldn't call myself the main complainant. I am just the most vocal one. I didn't get involved in this until a month or so into it. As for the motion you put up, the arbcom is taking it's time on this one. So putting another motion up isn't necessary. You'd be delaying the delay. :) Just not point to it. Again, if you are going to get involved in this, I have no qualms, but I'd appreciate it if you ask my opinion directly, Chazz, as opposed to acting Ben, who is just a bit biased. And yes I am biased on the topic of him, but still. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thank you[edit]
thank you for showing me where the Wikinternet:Introduction template for pages 2 and 3 were. You rock ! I'm also starting a wiki site, it's dedicated to everything that has to do with internet, including sites that aren't allowed on wikipedia. It's http://wikinternet.org Not trying to spam you, just a heads up ! Sniggity 03:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Gatti RFAr[edit]
Huh. I thought I had added 35 of his diffs. Did I not do it properly, or is it just the choice of his diffs you think was poor? Basically, I'm just trying to get the ArbCom to do something about his persistent and unrepentent disruption and wikilawyering. The Literate Engineer 03:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I just recently proposed a general probation as a remedy. I haven't ever read or edited any nuclear power articles, so I don't have any comment specific to your proposal - not that I'm inclined to think it's inappropriate! Anyway, I have a headache, it's 1:30, and using dial-up on my aunt's laptop is kinda tedious, so... goodnight. The Literate Engineer 08:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Death of the Virgin (Caravaggio)[edit]
I don't think it's a good idea to move the entry Death of the Virgin (Caravaggio) to Death of the Virgin - there are literally hundreds of paintings with this title, and Caravaggio's was just one of them. Can you move it back? PiCo 04:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :) PiCo
Thanks for the thanks! Erm ... 'cept it wasn't me. I was still adding the finishing touches to Andrew Ziolkowski and Gabrielle Harrison at the time. Sorry :-) fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey I added some FoF proposals to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Workshop. Take a look if you want. Or don't if you're still taking a destressing break :). (Though I saw you on RFPP today!) Good night, Dmcdevit·t 09:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, thought about trying to frame a gaming FoF too, but the evidence wasn't framed in a way that I could find the diffs much more searching, maybe later. I reverted Gibraltarian on a few talk pages, and the short block is good I think. I really have to figure out how to do range blocks... Going to bed now, though :) Dmcdevit·t 09:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you do me a favor?[edit]
Take a look at this: [1] and his contribs: Special:Contributions/188.8.131.52. Here's the link for you: Special:Blockip. ;) Blackcap (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
A port in the storm[edit]
· Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 22:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
So you're suggesting...[edit]
To never try to teach a pig to play the violin, it only bores the pig and frustrates you? - brenneman(t)(c) 01:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Was this intended for me? - brenneman(t)(c) 01:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wait, I think it was. No, I just saw the badly formed RfC and was trying to smooth the waters. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Louis Braille[edit]
The article has been improving greatly since being featured at Google. It seems to me to be a mistake to protect it. Since the semiprotection would have screened out IPs, which were the most troublesome, I wonder if you wouldn't reconsider your complete protection. - Nunh-huh 09:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand protection "in case" people have dormant accounts. If they do, and use them for vandalism, we are better off finding out and blocking those accounts. I don't see any evidence that such accounts have been used on Louis Braille, which has now - because of the protection - become "forked", with a version or two on the talk page that will have to be reconciled once edits are permitted. Nunh-huh 09:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reconsidering. I'll keep an eye out for vandals. - Nunh-huh 09:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks good, but there's one point I'd like to clarify... the two pages (UBOR and UP) are actually the same. UBOR was moved to UP because someone thought that was a better name. Then someone else (BG or SEWilco, not sure) did a rather sloppy cut/paste job to "undo" the move, thus creating two identical (and divergent) discussions and confusing everyone. That's what I've (hopefully) fixed. The current version of UP (that BG objects to) is in fact a rewrite of the original UBOR containing rights that are actually supported by consensus. Yours, Radiant_>|< 10:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, there wa no discussion about that. Just a bunch of revert warring by BG and company, who accuse the other party of "redirect vandalism" when they in fact moved the page to another title. Radiant_>|< 10:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh no, not again![edit]
Pedelec. Enough said. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Don't forget Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FTimeline_of_motorized_bicycle_history · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 23:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well if you two or three have issues with my conduct, then what are you waiting for to raise the user-rfc? --CylePat 23:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Woohoo, would you be interested in going on record regarding ...[edit]
... my alleged "harrassment" of you cited on this RfC? (hey, maybe this message is another harrassment!) or any other comment on the merit of Karma's charges? r b-j 05:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Benjamin Gatti[edit]
Thanks for your input. However I would rather see him get a fresh start. Probation depends on administrators taking an interest in what he is doing. If he continues to act out in a serious way you should be able to interest administrators in what he is doing. If not, it is probably not that serious. General probation is designed to deal with those who "think they did nothing wrong". Simple probation allows any administrator to ban a user from an article for a year. Fred Bauder 12:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Our remedies often do not work in the sense that the person straightens up. They do work in the sense that they can be blocked if they don't. Fred Bauder 12:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Baseball on Wikicities[edit]
Hello Woohookitty, Googie Man here and I want to ask you something as a fellow baseball fan on Wikipedian. Jimbo and Angela have made a new webstie called Wikicities. This link in particular will take you to the baseball Wikicity. As you'll see it's similar to Wikipedia, but my hope is this will allow baseball fans to do more and different things, like reporting on games, in depth statistics, create mulitple pages for pictures, and whatever else baseball fans care to create. You've done great work on Wikipedia and I was hoping you could help get this baseball Wikicity off the ground. Please let me know what you think either at my talk page, or you can email me at firstname.lastname@example.com. Thanks! Googie Man(Talk), 14:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC).
- (Sorry, Woohoo, for interjecting on your talk page.) Wow. I was the one who actually created that. I had forgotten about that, though I had told a few people, and it never got off the ground. I'm glad to see that people are actually paying attention! Play ball. —BorgHunter (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
i guess desperate times call for desperate measures, but hey, i don't judge ;) --kizzle 16:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Troll was here[edit]
Some guy threatened to sue you with his only edit. See NohFsffu888 (talk · contribs) and unblock if you feel this was too heavy-handed. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:12, Jan. 5, 2006
- I have an image downloaded from somewhere, but it'd probably be a copyvio if i posted it, but the caption says: "If people you don't even know HATE you, you MUST be the shit!" :) --kizzle 21:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Also see VufS_sst555 (talk · contribs)--184.108.40.206 14:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
quick note[edit]
Mike, With much hesitation, I have decided to introduce the rather unflattering email - not because I care, or was offended, but because I want the Arbitration to be level handed, and to avoid choosing content (by sanctioning editors) on the basis on the popularity of the facts involved. Please do not take it personally, you realize I have asked several times not to engage in a mudsling, but to prevent (or expose) a one-sided outcome, it is fair and necessary. Benjamin Gatti 23:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Emails are confidential and aren't admissable as part of arbcom. Ask them if you'd like to verify this, but I promise it won't be accepted, and all you'll have done is engender more ill will. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 23:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Here's the thing, I feel that the Arbcom has had the opportunity to avoid a mudbath (by changing the name to Price and dealing with the issue of including the government study over Simesa's objection based on original research and some kiddie power point. As they have not, my next move must be to show some balance of "incivility" - and to appeal to treat the holders of all views equally, which if they do not, and decide to punish one view-holder, but not the populist view-holder equally then they expose themselves as partisans. Benjamin Gatti 23:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- No offense intended, but it really doesn't matter. You can talk all you like, but arbcom doesn't admit emails as evidence in an arbcom case. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 23:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Here's the thing, I feel that the Arbcom has had the opportunity to avoid a mudbath (by changing the name to Price and dealing with the issue of including the government study over Simesa's objection based on original research and some kiddie power point. As they have not, my next move must be to show some balance of "incivility" - and to appeal to treat the holders of all views equally, which if they do not, and decide to punish one view-holder, but not the populist view-holder equally then they expose themselves as partisans. Benjamin Gatti 23:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have checked with two of the ArbCom and it appears that these e-mails will be admitted. --- Responses to Chazz's Benjamin Gatti Arbitration Comment Page. Signed by Chazz @ 00:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Addendum:' Ben is a party to the e-mails in question and his consent will suffice. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 01:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Great! So then I can include my apology too. And please Ben. This is not against your will. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- There is nothing I would prefer more than to see a bilateral de-escalation of personal (and irrelevent) attacks. The option remains open. Have a look at Simesa's arguments for excluding a congressional record related to risk - follow it and you will find it is supported principally by a nuclear youth club power point presentation - not even peer-reviewed, then see if you continue to think that personal attacks are really the best way to exclude valid information. You've still got time. Benjamin Gatti 04:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't respond to threats. That's all this is. Come on Ben. You know the arbcom is not going to throw out the user conduct case because I swore in confidential emails to you. You are trying to use it as leverage and it isn't going to work. This is up to the arbcom now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- There is nothing I would prefer more than to see a bilateral de-escalation of personal (and irrelevent) attacks. The option remains open. Have a look at Simesa's arguments for excluding a congressional record related to risk - follow it and you will find it is supported principally by a nuclear youth club power point presentation - not even peer-reviewed, then see if you continue to think that personal attacks are really the best way to exclude valid information. You've still got time. Benjamin Gatti 04:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Great! So then I can include my apology too. And please Ben. This is not against your will. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
help with old username[edit]
i have an old username which i need to remove. i foolished used the same username i have used in employment and it is rather unique. my identity may be exposed and cause me trouble at work. is there any way to alter my old username or remove my old edits? this is fairly urgent.
thanks OnceUponATimeInChina 03:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks! The Literate Engineer 06:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Can re protect Palesatinian exodus ? thanks.[edit]
Zeq 08:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
can you ask Zero and Ian to use talk and respond to the lengthy explnation there ? Please re-protect. Zeq 11:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
You have protected the vesrion that Ian and Zero want to keep. So...
They never responded on talk to my explnation and now they don't have too - this is how they want the article and this is how it will stay until it is unprotected. They won the edit war. Zeq 12:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Keep following on it. Let's wait 3 days, howver the only insentive for them to cooerate is when the page is not as they want it (which is how it is now) Zeq 12:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Woohookitty, please don't take Zeq's claims at face value. In fact there is already about 20,000 words of discussion about this issue on the Talk page, and that does not include the archive. You can check for yourself whether we have "replied to his claims" or not. Since November he has been repeatedly deleting a large vital section of the article contrary to the wishes of most of the editors who are interested in the page. That's what the problem is. If you unprotect the page he will immediately delete it again. Cheers. --Zero 13:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not taking sides. Never do. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- This [2] is clearly false since there was never any consensus on this material. I have explained why it should not be there, offered to stay out of the article for two weeks to allow it to be made NPOV by the other side and when the time passed without change edited the article. The result was a revert war. Zeq 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- The thing is...and again not taking sides...that in edit wars, people usually see their side as "right" and the other side as "vandalism" or "stupidity", etc. The thing is, I don't know the whole story. But. Even if Zeq is a lonely voice on his point of view, he should still be taken into consideration. Consensus is what we thrive on here. It doesn't mean that people can be allowed to "hijack" discussions, but people need to be considered even if it's 10-1. It's one of our more important principles. Keep that in mind. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm doing well ;-)[edit]
Heh, hi there! The unbelievable has happened - i'm now actually friends with Viriditas. So much so, my daughter picked up on it before i did and made him a "name picture" (kids nowadays eh :-/). Well, anyway - sorry about all the past things that have happened!
Heh, it's pretty good - she did it in GIMP. I bet you're jealous now and want one eh? Well, she's dilligent (she's making one already) - yep, artistic i know, but, what are you going to do :-P Takes after her mum :-) Spum 14:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Maureen McCormick[edit]
Why did you remove the sprotection on this article? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually it is my fault, because I neglected to put it on the list of protected pages. I'll do that now. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
How about them apples? · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 17:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
List of sexual slurs[edit]
Do you agree with me and User:Splash merging out the content of this list into Sexual slang and making it a redirect? I am just so sick of these stupic nonsense, unencylopedic, unverifable, half-fabricated, BS, lists popping up and having to be removed only by AfD, nevermind policy, not to mentioned that trolling sockpuppets storm any AfD. We need a general consensus vote on these kind of issues to reinforce our current policy.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 20:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: Um[edit]
I am keeping PP up to date. You just beat me to it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- ok ok ok - that's cool - I was just a bit surprised that there was actually so many duds on the page -- expected one or two. Got five or six. novacatz 07:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- oh and BTW, welcome back. (Although, you weren't gone very long.) novacatz 07:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for your support on my request for adminiship, and also for deciding not to oppose when pgk and I made you wait! I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. --Alf melmac 09:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.The final outcome was (80/3/0), so I am now an administrator. I was flattered by the level of support and the comments, so I'm under real pressure not to disappoint, thus if you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as an admin then please leave me a note --pgk(talk) 10:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: Question[edit]
Ahem, oops. Must be some kind of edit conflict that happened, I just removed the entries that were unprotected by me and others, I even checked that with "show changes".. weird. Anyways, thanks for pointing and helping out! --Conti|✉ 13:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
hey there[edit]
I notice you watch the requests for page protects page. Could you please consider sprotecting reggaeton which is listed there? Thank you very much.--Urthogie 10:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Never mind, someone else did. Sorry for bothering ya :) --Urthogie 19:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Unless I misunderstand, according the Voting Instructions listed on the main voting page for the AC: "In order to vote, you must have an account registered on or before September 30, 2005 and 150 edits by the start of the election (January 9)." (not "1500" edits) as per your comment here hehe. --Naha|(talk) 18:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, would it be possible for you to see to this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Nixer. Thanks. Izehar 21:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you[edit]
Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs2000 22:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The New Name For...[edit]
I am now User:JzG - it's easier to type :-) I've also sdecided to accept a nomination for adminship: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JzG
Looks ugly. In order to be getting around the sprotection, it's possible that they are creating sleeper account to age. If it's one person, you can ask a CheckUser person to see if they can root out all the existing sleeper accounts (or open proxies) and block them. If that is unsuccessful, or it is multiple people, then I would definitely consider full vprotection if it continues. After all, we were at least able to suffer through it for all vprotections before. But there are some productive edits going on right now, so... Dmcdevit·t 00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. --Viriditas 09:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Hosni Mubarak[edit]
Please protect Hosni Mubarak, an anonymous claims that Mubarak who left the Copt Pope in jail for 3 years plus is pro Copt.--The Brain 14:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to help Woohookitty but you gave me a red to watch...can you look/try again please --Alf melmac 20:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Return of the Son of List of Sexual Slurs[edit]
Hi Woohookitty! Say, I saw that on August 23 2005 you were the closing administrator on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slurs. I absolutely in no wise would expect you to have done this labor-intensive level of research, but (just because I wanted to) I went over that vote, and in my opinion you might have been played. (Not for sure; several Keep votes were legitimate.) It's all here.
The reason I mention this is that the article is up for AfD again, and as the closing admin on the previous AfD, if you do see the point in what I'm saying (and/or the point on delayed application of keep-if-cleaned-up votes), you might want to weigh in on that, I'm sure anything you way would carry a lot of weight with the new closing admin. If not, no prob, sorry to bother you. Herostratus 20:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You're apparently a TOTAL lesbo. [3] · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, the end sentiment is, ironically, true. ;) · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Latin spelling[edit]
There is a problem on behalf of spelling the name of Kurdish langauge [ku: ] in the section "In other languages" in the articles in which it has been spelled in Arabic alphabet while Kurdish uses Latin alphabet. It must be Kurdî instead of کوردی.
Thank you for your help.Diyako Talk + 21:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Dalla group[edit]
We are in the buliding stages of the article. We will show the significance of the club gradually but surely. As I had mentioned, We are group of friends who have lot of common interests business-wise. We are planning to start a small company of our own. To make it precise we are budding entrepreneurs. Does this satisfy the conditions ?
you wrote: [edit]
You are going to have to show the significance of the club very soon (in the next hour or so) or else the article will be speedied. A local group of friends is not notable. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
OK. I got it. You are doing a good work. Keep up the good work.
Actually no it doesn't. Now if you start a company and 2 years from now, you've become well known throughout your home country and are making millions, then it would be notable enough. :) But a group of friends looking to start a company? No. Here are some general guidelines for company notability. It has to be a pretty major company to be included in Wikipedia. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. I only count two accidental removals, but I must still be more careful with my paperwork. Yeah, I removed GWB...I thought it was still listed at the top and that yours was a duplicate listing for information-only about the unprotect. Oklahhoma Christian Uni I changed to full-protect and moved to the other section of the page. Anyway, I've slipped on my paperwork in a couple places recently, so I need to be more attentive.
On another note, from cleaning out CAT:SEMI, I get the impression that admins are often taking a protect-and-forget approach. I wonder if I should write a note on AN asking people to remember about their protects. -Splashtalk 13:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
How's Things?[edit]
How's things? I heard you were quitting admin soon and thought it'd be a nice break for you anyway. What's with everyone calling you a girl, by the way? Your name is MICHEAL isn't it? (I guess they are confused :-P) Well, anyway - i'll be doing a big batch of edits soon! Oh, also; you may want to archive your talk page :-P The magical Spum-dandy 16:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ahh, okay. Right, also - if i have some kind of policy i want to see people's reaction on, how would i go about it? I want to also perhaps create guidelines for those who are editing medical articles, because the amount of mistakes or mislead information i'm seeing is staggering; lots of people aren't really reading into the material they're using as a source. As an example; a lot of it is like this;
- "This is this, and that is thatand, Somebody [link] said this."
- It's annoying because it's just dumping quotes without actually informing people of anything. Similarly, people are linking things to blogs, which, if anything are deteremental to information flow - they're seriously full of opinion and misguided emotionally-based drivel - in my opinion, if anyone spends lots of time on a blog, then they are making it even easier to see past the bias that is already on there. Similarly, when people are editing articles, they're making the article with the name of the Social-type; e.g - Rickets is Osteomalacia (and, the article has a lot of misguided information on it).
The magical Spum-dandy 16:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[[|thumb|200px|right|You are awarded 200 MegaFonzies for being cool with Spum]]
Pissboy world cup[edit]
Thanks for deleting the above article in a timely manner. Those 2-3 that were protesting for its inclusion were really starting to make a fuss. There is one remaining issue though - I have reason to believe that they are going to attempt to post the article again. Would it be a good idea to block Pissboy world cup and Pissboy World Cup from being recreated? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
'Natural Cures' article[edit]
While I agree with the changes you're making, defending proponents of the book might not and may see your change as somewhat drastic. As to not appear biased, I suggest you provide the links to articles describing his arrests (shouldn't be too hard to find). As well, as to appear more neutral, Trudeau's conspiratorial rantings about how they're out to get him and how he apologizes for past transgressions should be taken into account (as I believe they are later in the article).
As you can see from my change, such... alterations must be made delicately and conservatively as to avoid an edit war. A lot of people seem to like to book judging by the sales, many are falling to the temptations of alternative med quackery. Speaking of which, I need to look up, there must be a quackwatch disection of that book, it's too popular not too.
Still, nice to see it's being monitored, kudos friend. Tyciol 09:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Cleaning up articles[edit]
Hi Michael, I noticed your ongoing work on the Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About article. Thank you very much for your work on this, I don't envy the task. Being the curious kind, I went and poked around a bit at your contribs; seeing how much work you've done on various other articles left me all the more grateful, both for this article and for all the others. So, here's a tulip for you for putting so much effort into the 'pedia :) Qirex 12:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the flowers! :) Yeah that book article is a mess. I'm actually removing most of it since I'm pretty certain it was written as a research paper. It should be mostly done in an hour or so. Won't be perfect but it won't be hideous either. :) Thanks for the compliment. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Now I have my very own Fonzie. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, hopefully you can find time to weigh in on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Proposal: it's time we put this one to bed. Mark1 18:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I was dealing with a something else, and came across this image which you uploaded. You asserted that it was PD, but I think it isn't as I've described on the image page. I'm not sure what happens to speedying such images, but you either need to make a fair-use claim, and then use the image, or delete it I think. (If you make a fair-use claim without using it, it is still a speedy, of course.) -Splashtalk 19:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- There can be no fair-use without use, so you'd also have to find an article in which you could claim fair use. Ideally, you use {{fair use in|article}}, and write a short justification for the fair use. An example of one that I wrote is at Image:Eric Thomas.jpg. An alternative school of thought says that, unless we are commenting on the image itself we have no fair use claim of the kind in that example, since the main purpose of fair-use is scholarly endeavour and critical analysis. If you cannot, or do not want to, write a proper fair-use claim, you can just use {{fair use}}, but that's discouraged. Of course, it would be possible to argue that there is no fair use claim on this kind of image, since we could fairly easily have a Wikipedian go and take a picture of such a bicycle themselves... -Splashtalk 21:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Just to clear things up. . .
Hi Cat. Just thought you might want to know about these userboxes, since some people don't seem to get it. Best regards, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we're all tired of reverting Subwayjack's edits; do you think opening a RfC or RfA for a permanent block would be more appropriate, rather than just a two week block? From past violations, I think we're all pretty sure he'll return to the Charles Whitman page.
I wasn't really happy opening my e-mail inbox this evening, either, to find a blatany racist note from him about me, Katefan0, and beastiality. Will a permanent block require going through an RfC? Thanks! -Rebelguys2 02:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- At least he's ... creative. He's been sending me hateful stuff too, if that makes you feel any better. He's blocked right now for 2 weeks; personally, I think that if he comes back and continues behaving this way I will consider blocking him indef and submitting it to the community for review. There is precedent for the community to indef block someone without going through arbcom, if the case is egregious enough, which this one might be -- depending on how he behaves when he returns. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 02:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for the work you've been doing on some poker articles today. Much appreciated! Essexmutant 11:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation --CyclePat 04:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if there is anyone awake who could check the IP address of these new user accounts that hit Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 05:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Range Block vs. Semi-protect[edit]
Regarding the article about Chaim Weizmann; Thank you, but I do not think I have the rights to do that. I didn't realize that putting the tag on top would automatically semi-protect; I thought it triggers a request. I am not an Admin; although I hope to be found acceptable to be voted in as one after I demonstrate suitable use to Wikipedia. In general, is there a better way to proceed? Also, is there a better way to communicate with someone than conversations on the Talk page? Thank you again. Avi 08:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. I see my misunderstanding. However, in that case, shouldn't I have been forbidden from placing that tag there? In the future, I'll use the the requests for page protection page, but am I allowed to put a tag up if the vandalism is getting hot-and-heavy? Thank you again. Avi 08:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Deleted page recreation[edit]
Hello, a certain article has been deleted and protected against recreation. The article's author wants to try expanding it, making it comply with MoS etc. The AfD was in favour of deleting it. Do you think I should unprotect it on the understanding that it will be substantially different from the deleted version and in compliance with the MoS? Izehar 19:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
RFC user? Help?[edit]
Can you imagine! I got a come and ask you for your help? I was wondering. There is a deletion nomination that is currently happening for the page Garneau User Group. It was made by user:Neutrality. And though I may currently be torn between some issues found at WP:N (reasons for not deleting this article), I must, on my first impression, agree that it makes sense to merge with the High school. I however am flabbergasted and disagreeing on the fundamental principal behind the nomination. The nominee has failed to follow procedure. I believe that there are other processes that could have been used. For example: Instead of going directly to a deletion he could have put a merger request or even an information validity... Secondly why is this article, "obscure?" (The thing is we really don't know). I've attempted to contact user:Neutrality on 2 occasions and he has totally ignored my requests. On both times he has even reverted his talk page. (For supporting evidence see section 1 of User:CyclePat\building a case for RFC). This issue is being discussed a little more in detail at talk:Garneau User Group however your feedback, and knowledge of wiki, would be appreciated. --CyclePat 05:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. I updated and added some comments on that deletion page. ;) --CyclePat 06:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- As somoeone that nominates an article for deletion I think, it's a pickle no matter how you look at it. (specially if it goes down to something outside the regular WP:DP such as WP:N. It's a tuffy but you should be able to at least reply to a comment on your user page. (I mean, he even reverted my edits so my questions wouldn't be there anymore!!!) I think that's just plain rude. Now, I understand you have to weight in, what would happen if he didn't do the delete. But think about it if he would have simply suggested merger! (And I see what you are making allusions too... did he know he could merge the article?) I still think he could have put something else up instead of wasting deletion policy time. (Had I though about it myself I would have merged... now, I'm debating on whether I should start moving the information to the High School's page or not. I think I know what's right... ;) Well I got a little merging to do. Thank you. --CyclePat 06:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ok! I'll sleep on that advice. Thank you. (it's almost 02h00 here, I'm off to sleeping land) Cheers. --CyclePat 06:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
SponeBob vandal[edit]
The fanfiction-adding one is back. Perhaps you should semi-protect his usual targets again? What should we do about him? ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 15:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
You wrote: "He still doesn't even quite understand why he was put on probation in the first place. Probation is just wasted on him".
I partly agree and partly disagree with the first sentence. I am sure that he has an understanding of why he was put on probation. Maybe he understands it as a bad-faith action by the CABAL, or as the result of the arbitrators not understanding how important his reverts and comments are. As to the second sentence, he won't learn anything from probation, but it is not necessarily wasted. If he engages in uncivil conduct, can admins block him? If so, the probation is a useful way to free the arbitrators from having to consider the case yet again. Robert McClenon 16:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- I re-read the RfAr. You are correct. The remedy is not fashioned in the same way as personal attack parole, and ZenMaster was not placed on personal attack parole. I agree with you that the remedy has teeth, but really needs a good carnassial shear that can draw enough blood to stop the disruption. Robert McClenon 19:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Where is the evidence of any personal attacks or "disruption"? Pointing out censorship doesn't qualify. Though, I am interested in understanding your thinking, if you take issue with any of my edits my talk page is always open for discussion. zen master T 19:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Zen-master asks a valid question, which is what he is doing that I consider disruptive. The answer is asking a lot of negative questions about why Wikipedia processes are so imperfect without any constructive effort to improve them. The purpose of Wikipedia is to produce a product, an on-line encyclopedia. This makes it an electronic workplace. I work for a large company that produces information technology systems, which are products. If I were to say that the company's business processes were flawed, I would be asked to suggest how the business processes should be improved, and I would do that. I would hope that my comments would then be seriously considered, whether or not they were acted on. I don't see Zen-master doing that. He appears to be saying "Wikipedia processes suck." Maybe they do, but if so, either work on the product instead, or address how to make the processes stop sucking. Robert McClenon 20:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Using negative labels such as "disruptive" has often been used to thwart a serious consideration and investigation of criticism. Before a new course of action can be determined in many cases it's good to prove the existence of a problem. I just suggested on the Wikipedia Talk:Requests for arbitration page that everyone should be encouraged to archive subsections rather than delete to history. It seems Fred Bauder, a member of the arbitration commitee, has gotten into the (bad) habit of deleting to history rather than archiving [4] which is how I noticed the page wasn't being properly archived. It's separately interesting Fred deleted to history something that was "maybe not answered". zen master T 20:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please see WP:AN. Radiant_>|< 22:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, they're all at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zen-master. Also, checking the block log may enlighten you; he's had a couple for 3RR and NPA violations. HTH! Radiant_>|< 22:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
John Kerry protection[edit]
Hi Woohookitty. I'd just like to explain my removal of the {{protected}} tag on John Kerry yesterday. I saw the tag while checking a recent edit, and noticed the page was not protected at the time. Without checking the edit history to see who added the tag, I assumed it had been added by a new user who thought he/she could "protect" the page simply by adding the tag. If I'd known you had added the tag, and that you intended to protect the page, I wouldn't have removed the tag. I hope my edit didn't cause any problems for you. Thanks for taking action to stop the edit war. Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 20:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Buddy[edit]
--I (Woohookitty) really should check in on this place more often 21:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
"Supercunt" vandal[edit]
I'm completely flummoxed. This guy has got to be on an AOL proxy. I keep blocking him and he keeps on coming back. Any idea how to block the IP range? - Lucky 6.9 03:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that's right. Thanks. Trouble is, I can't access the IP since he's coming in via sockpuppet accounts. I left word on the admin noticeboard. You da bestest and you should know that we are thinking of replacing our dearly departed dog with a couple of kittens. Might just name one "Woohoo!" - Lucky 6.9 03:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't use IRC, but Kelly is one great user over here and I'll leave word with her if this clown doesn't go away. Regarding cat names: One will likely be named "Biscuit" since my wife always wanted a cat named Biscuit. I chose "Waffle" for the other just because I love that idiotic cartoon character by the same name on the Catscratch TV series. Kinda goes good with Biscuit, too. - Lucky 6.9 03:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
LOL! My dog, God bless her, was named...Lucky. Never admitted that my user name was partially inspired by a pooch! - Lucky 6.9 04:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Perl script to separate red and blue links for WP:MEA[edit]
I am currently looking for help (a perl script) to parse and separate red and blue links for various lists at Missing encyclopedic articles. I have made a request at Wikipedia:Computer_help_desk#New_cases, but it has languished for over a week. There was a script that does some of what we need it to do developed by Avar, but it only works on a few of the many lists we are currently working on. Specifically I'm looking for something that would separate and sort a list like this:
- Link 1 External search for link 1 Comment about link 1 with link to another article]
- Nested comment about link
- Second nested comment
- Nested comment about link
- Wrongly nested comment
- Link2 Notice space has been removed
- Link3] Malformed links with [malformed link
into a list like this
Red links
- Link2 Notice space has been removed
- Link3] Malformed links with [malformed link
- Link4 Renumbering because of space
Blue links
- Link 1 External search for link 1 Comment about link 1 with link to another article]
- Nested comment about link
- Second nested comment
WronglyFixed nested comment
- Nested comment about link
- Link 5
- Link 6
This is a worst case example. The current script works well, but it evaluates link by link, not line by line and so [comments] about the link would be removed.
See separting reds and blues for more comments.
Your help would be greatly appreciated. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Talk on my page... well may mention your name.[edit]
The talk on my user page mentions your name. But don't worry I don't think we have any issues, right? I'm not planning anything against you. I just wanted to check out your adminship votes. Actually I wanted to see Neutrality's votes... --CyclePat 04:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank You[edit]
Don't know if it is appropriate, but thank you. This (vis Reed College) was my first time having to do this, and I was surprised at how fast the action was. Thank you for what is obviously lots of work on WP. And no, I'm not trying to curry favor :-) -- Gnetwerker 06:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Advice on unprotection[edit]
I protected Louisiana_Baptist_University a while back and have discussed, and semi-strong armed a compromise of sorts on the article. Jason Gastrich kept his Notable Alumni list, and the .edu discussion was remained deleted (as I see it as inconsequential)... but on the flip side I kept the "Diploma mill (allegations)" (i added that) and "Dissertations" (with some tweaks by me) sections put in by WarriorScribe along with others which cause the edit warring in the first place. I have "resolved" the issue(s) which lead to the initial protection, but I'm confident edit warring will resume (albeit hopefully on sentences and tone, rather than entire sections) once I unprotect it. I'm under the impression now that I'm involved and have edited the article, I can no longer protect it. If so, apart from banning people in enforcement of the 3RR and requesting protection from another Admin... what can I do to maintain the integrity of the article and try to keep some constructive momentum? - RoyBoy 800 06:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Eastern front world war 2[edit]
- Many thanks for locking this article. I can't speak for other editors but there are at least three involved who have been trying to clean up after Deng. The pattern is pretty consistent. The notion that anything these editors have done is POV is without basis. DMorpheus 13:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Received your request to comment on this lock. I'll be happy to do so but the comment page was blank. I am new to this process - do I just start with my view of the issue or what? DMorpheus 14:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- User DengXiaoPing makes it impossible to edit the proposed page, just as he did the protected page, using the same tactics of identical reverts and personal attacks. I don't understand how we can progress under the cirucmstances. DMorpheus 17:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Once again I want to thank you for your help in bringing some order to the editing of the Eastern Front page. Unfortunately I see user dengxiaoping has again reverted the "proposed" page. In the last two months he has made nonsensical, identical edits and repeated personal attacks. He has called me and other editors Nazi supporters, holocaust-deniers and other things. It has simply become impossible to productively work on the page. Nothing has changed in his pattern; all we have gained is a locked article. I request he be blocked from touching this page. Thank you. DMorpheus 01:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Why did you lock the page and why did you lock it on the defective version the version you locked on is defective
The graphs are all bad they have been corrupted and look like shit
Alot of nummbers are diffrent and need to be cleaned up which i did If you are going to lock it atleast lock it with my edits were the text is connected and the page is curropted by one part saying one thing and another part saying another thing.
All my edits have been made with clear sources stated Ksenon never mentioned one source and I mention many, and if you are going to lock it atleast read through both version of my last edit and his last edit and if you have more time read through all of our edits and you will see that he actively removed all mentions of the fact that the Nazies used slave labour and miss treated the soviets but at the same time as he removed that he would keep the part that the soviets once the war shifted to german soil would miss treat the germans. And by doing so shifted the balance in the article to only showing negative parts of the soviets and not mentioning any negative things about the germans.
If you are going to lock the article atleast compare the last 2 diffrent version and please explain to me why my edits are wrong and how they are wrong.
Deng 19-01-06 13.15 CET
You havent read the whole part i only added that part in to counter the fact that he keept adding the fact that german wome got raiped i balanced it out by saying the germans did the exact same thing i use the exact same wording for both parts
Aslo why didnt you just change that part i will gladly remove that part if i can also remove the part that the soviets raiped german women
But you reverted back to his defective version where the graphs that I made have been curropted with his no intolerance of me useing diffrent couloyrs for diffrent countries and now it all looks like shit
You have only read the first lines and yet you edit the whole article if you state that the soviets repaied women then you must also state that the germans did the same thing and that they did it first because this is exactly what happened
Also you revert back your changes to a person just until recently would remove any mention of the fact that the germans used slave labour that they produced more raw materials and that they hade take a great bite out of soviet indusrilized parts
And by locking the page in the last edit made by the ksenon you are admiting that the halocaust never happned that the germans never used any slave labour and that the germans never commited an acts of atrocities and the graphs have been fucked
Deng 19-01-06 13.30 CET
You did alot of thing first a forme most I was the one who added the Soviet Casulties I was the one who made the graphs Iwas the one who looked them up And I was the one who wrote them down and stated sources
I clearly stated 8.7 million Soviet soldiers died in the war and 6 million got captured and out of those 6 million 4 million would die in captivity now he pervrted this into 8.7 million died and an aditional 4 million would die in captivity which is wrong because 8.7 million is the total nummber also he fucked with my graphs that i made
This is what i made
(million tonnes)
(million tonnes)
(thousand tonnes)
(million tonnes)
|Tanks and self-
propelled guns
This is what he peverted it to
(million tonnes)
(million tonnes)
(thousand tonnes)
(million tonnes)
|Tanks and self-
propelled guns
Ksenon would actively remove any what so ever mention of slave labour or the correct nummber of german casulties and more specifily AXIS casulties and would allways just remove massive parts of the article and what you have not done is to look on his disscusion page if you would have done that you would have seen that this is not the first time he does things like that and that he has done it in many articles
I am also the only one who as acctually done any reasearch in this mater ksenon is just a vandal look at his discussion page and you will see a patern.
if you would just look at his discussion page you would see that he has done things like this before removeing to much information on diffrent articles and other people have complained but i was the only one who actually made some resistance in his removeing what ever he saw fit
Deng 19-01-06 13.50 CET
I made a test page here Test eastern front maybe you will like how it looks better
Deng 19-01-06 16.10 CET
Maybe your neutral maybe you arent but why would you take the word of someone who has done the same thing before and the others that you mention there are only 2 and both of them deny the [holocaust] which i dont [User talk:Ksenon] has done the same thing on other pages as he is doing on the eastern front namely removeing to much information and by doing so giving an inacurrate story of how things are/were just look on his discussion also there are only 2 people who dont like the fact hat i add german losses and that i add industrail output and both of them deny that the holocaus happened and yet you want me to reach an agrment with them i think it would be much easier if you just asked me to negotiate peace in the middle east
Look at whom you are sideing with [User talk:Ksenon] he has done the same thing before on other pages but i was the only one who acctualy put a stop to his vandalism
Deng 19-01-06 16.50 CET
- Two? Now I am a holocaust denier? Seems that user:Ceejayoz, user:Andries, user:Kneson, user:Mzajac also reverted these POV edits. This has been going on forever [5]. Please read WP:NPOV and stop this ongoing edit war between you and the other editors.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 16:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
First of all you are not one of the two the two are ksenon and DMorpheus second of all who downgraded my ban from 31 houers to 90 min
Deng 19-01-06 19.55 CET
Deleteing half a page is vandalism, i think you missed the part that he deleted half the page
Deleteing half a page is vandalism atleast i think so maybe you do not but i do think that deleteing half a page is vandalism
Deng 27-01-06 02.35 CET
He is deleteing information and saying hey i will restore it later i think you dont understand what he is doing so i will give you an example
Lets say i go to the library and burn half the books there and say hey dont worry i will restore them later.
Now this is absolut destruction because if a person really wants to replace a big article with smaller ones that person would first create the smaller ones and Then and only then start removeing things from the bigger article.
But destroying the big article first and saying hey dont worry i will add the smaller ones later or someone else can do it is absolut destruction
And why do you allways keep on threatening me, i am not the one destroying information
How about i delete half the information in all wiki articles and say hey dont worry i will replace them later with smaller ones
First you make the smaller ones then and only then can you start removeing information
It is as clear as day that information will be lost forever if you start deleteing without haveing created the replacemnts
Deng 30-01-06 00.40 CET
Protecting the featured article[edit]
Oops, sorry. I hadn't realized the article was featured. I will check it first next time. Thanks. --BorgQueen 12:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Somebody unprotected Eve Plumb a couple of days ago. The vandal has been very persistant, and keeps coming back every couple of weeks for several months now, but if you want to unprotect, go ahead. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I was going to do that as well after I keep out the page -- I just need to find the nicest way to say "If you do a job, don't do it half way" to an admin..... novacatz 07:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, regarding [6] -- it isn't meant as criticism -- just a friendly note to everyone. Please don't take it so personally.
- That's ok. I was actually going to ask 'Do you ever sleep?' -- you seem to be ALWAYS able to answer all my requests all the time. Perhaps you should take a rest a bit and let another admin look after the ranch for a while. novacatz 07:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. I did actually ramp down my involvement a bit after you put the notice on the AN board just to see if people would follow the pointer. But coming back after a week or so -- it looks like nothing has changed :(( Need to find better ways to educate people. Take care, novacatz 07:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's ok. I was actually going to ask 'Do you ever sleep?' -- you seem to be ALWAYS able to answer all my requests all the time. Perhaps you should take a rest a bit and let another admin look after the ranch for a while. novacatz 07:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Chris Evans Page[edit]
Thanks for the info regarding protection. There was a spate of vadalism on Radio 1 DJ pages and I was just having a look through. Spotted all sorts of vadalism on the Chris Evans article and reverted it. I guess if it continues an admin will protect it. What do I do to flag an article up for protection by an admin then? MonkeyMumford 08:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
vandals, etc.[edit]
Sure, I've reverted vandalism a substantial number of times. The main difference between my methodology and anyone else's is that I revert vandalism as a consequence of editing articles, and watching them subsequently. We're not here to play cowboys and indians. Avriette 15:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- um, wtf? Avriette 15:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Just want to say I support your comments you removed from Avriette's talk page wholeheartedly, Whoohookitty. I don't get people who are against the CVU and RC Patrol. I don't think they have a very good idea of the number of times a minute (during peak hours) articles are completely deleted or vandalized in obvious and offensive ways. All well and good to say reverting should happen in the course of normal editing, but if pages such as Nigger were only reverted by good editors actually interested in the history of the term it would get cleaned up far less often than it's vandalized.
I'm guessing Avriette doesn't have a very good idea of the scope of vandalisim on WP, and while people like WoW may have been spurred on by the fight against him, the vast majority of vandals are immature but casual browsers who do it once or twice and move on, and that's what CVU/RCP fights so well. - dharmabum (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I guess you're right there. I suspect that if the entire CVU/RCP took a week off they'd get a lot more concerned, especially when the featured article and main page filled up with penis pictures. ;) - dharmabum (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well hey, according to Avritte's latest post directed at me I'm a facist, so what do I know? ;) - dharmabum (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The page was protected EXACTLY in the vesrion Ian wanted it to be. He did a delibarate 3RR violation "just in time" prior to you protecting the page. He will now enjoy the benefit of that violation for a long time until ArbCom will make a rulling on the case (which so far seem to take forever)
I don't think he should enjoy the fruits of his violation. Either he is blocked until the page is unprotected or you undo his 4th revert before reprotecting. Zeq 17:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
New User-name[edit]
Hello Woohoo, it's me, Spum! I've registered a new username for a new start; don't worry, check the second page on my userpage for my transgression :-) Anyway, respondez vous! Cheers, bye! J.Spudeman 18:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC) [A.K.A Spum]
Computer science[edit]
Hi. I just looked at Dz's complaint about R Koot on Computer science which appears baseless. But... I notice that you've protected the page. I'm pretty sure you have protected the wrong version... would you consider removing the prot? William M. Connolley 18:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
- Hi, we are currently debating about the changes but Dz has been rather opinionated. So perhaps laying it all out in the open while leaving it protected, will prevent recursive edits. -- Evanx 06:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
WHK said to me: When we protect, we are not picking sides. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC). Fair enough. Also, I was wrong about the wrong version, too. William M. Connolley 11:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC).
- Of course it was m:The Wrong Version. Rob Church (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- How exactly do i add that kind of stuff as a signature? Eg; links and pics inside the signature? J.Spudeman 17:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that User talk:Gibraltarian seems to have become just a personal attack on you [7]. I've reverted it, but what's the policy on this sort of behaviour in future? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 23:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hi again. Can you please verify whether Calpe is yet another sockpuppet of Gibraltarian? Best regards --Ecemaml 20:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I left him a msg on his talk page. I'm not sure what happened, but IIRC, he does use two or more accounts (probably work and home) like most ppl. I'm surprised he didn't log on to irc and ask for an unblock. —Viriditas | Talk 04:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Seth Ravin[edit]
Umm, looks like the history undeletion of Seth Ravin was deleted. This is most unusual. Any reason why I shouldn't restore the history again? The result was very close and there was a lot of feeling that some of the material should really be in articles about various companies rather than a biography, so the material should probably be available. If not I can just userfy if you'd prefer.. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Valerie Plame[edit]
Is that an edit war, or just a 3RR violation? --SarekOfVulcan 08:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Whk, I just unprotected Plame Affair, as there was no discussion on the talk page for why it should be protected for any longer. I'm followning the guideline that protection in the case of an edit war should be for a cooling off period. If you think this is in error, please let me know on the discussion on this over at Talk:Plame Affair. --Zippy 06:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. Unprotects appear to be the last thing I do before I go to sleep, and I can't always be bothered to clean up the list afterwards. Which is no excuse, and I will be more thorough about it. -Splashtalk 21:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- :-P . Incidentally, I blocked a GibIP today...and then had to configure my email filters. -Splashtalk 21:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
RfA Thanks[edit]
Yeh, I think I need to do some thinking and get some discussion on how to restructure that page going forward - maybe part of the reason other people aren't helping/using it is the formatting seems to be a bit messy. Unfortunately I am going on vacation for two weeks (starting tommorow) so I probably won't be able to help out for a bit. Hope you don't burn out in the mean time. novacatz 06:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Flamer Alert[edit]
Gibraltarian has posted an RfAr against you from an anonymous IP address, and is claiming that you threatened him with violence. He made a similar post earlier, but it was speedy-deleted by one of the arbitrators. I thought you might want to know. Robert McClenon 14:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Aw, thank you. Didn't you mean to say "Woohoo Dmcdevit," not "Yay"? :) Well I've been slowly losing track of RFPP, but I guess now it'll be official. I (in)formally bequeath the duties unto you (and everyone else, it's a wiki after all). I believe Gibraltarian's about to close, if you are interested (has the votes needed). Dmcdevit·t 05:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: Belarusian Language[edit]
Although I do not mind the reopening of the article, I would like to be assured that the opposite confilicting parties will not return to their neo-vandalism ways, and that should they do so, I am afraid I would have to ask you to take more stricter sanctions against them. --Kuban kazak 13:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
John Lott[edit]
Which edits to John Lott do you believe are vandalism? Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yup, a pitiful one, but one none the less. No worries. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Re semi-protection request for Cannabis[edit]
Could you reply to my latest, please. I consider the request for SP on Cannabis still open. -SM 04:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you reply to my latest, please. -SM 13:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you help me with a simple question? Just for my information, because I really don't know, when editing a controversial topic, is it allowed to insert comments by critics based upon editorials? Or does that constitute NPOV violation? You can answer here, but to get an idea of what I mean you can look for more info at Talk:Samuel_Alito#Opponents_of_the_unitary_executive_theory and at Talk:Samuel_Alito#Requests for comment.--Nomen Nescio 07:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
You sound stressed. Relax. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Correction Requested[edit]
Sir, I have accepted my errors and apologized to KatefanO both directly and on WP. I have accepted the two week block and feel that it was justified. However, one point of contention is your references that I sent you "highly" threatening emails. You know this is untrue and I am requesting that you remove all references to the accusation or post the emails! I will consider this an issue between you and I, and hope for a cordial resolution. Thank you in advance!subwayjack 15:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)S
Fantasy football[edit]
Just curious, why was the Protected removed from fantasy football (American)? After doing so, three new links popped up, with users obviously promoting their own sites.
Ahh, thanks. Didn't know the tag itself didn't do anything - thanks for protecting it. --Blahblah44 06:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Another admin unprotected it, and as expected, two more links popped up. Any way we can do something about that?--Blahblah44 20:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
This is interesting...[edit]
Today Gibraltarian edited from the IP 188.8.131.52 (talk · contribs). This is outside his usual 224-231 range. Can you explain this? --TML1988 20:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, here's something more: when I did a whois lookup of 220.127.116.11 (any address between 232.0 and 255.255 will do), it turned up Gibraltar Nynex Communications, with an IP range of 126.96.36.199 to 126.96.36.199. However, if I attempt to lookup an address between 224.0 and 231.255, what turns up instead is Gibraltar Nynex Communications Ltd, with an IP range of 188.8.131.52 to 184.108.40.206. Could that provide some insight? --TML1988 17:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Woohookitty, I realize that semiprotection had been requested for Emma Watson, but no one had edited the article for over an hour now. Do you think that it's really necessary? I was considering protecting it right after the last vandalism but decided to see if it would continue, which it didn't, so I didn't protect the article then. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- But I don't think that there's any purpose in semiprotecting it right now; there's no vandalism. Semiprotection shouldn't be used proactively. If vandalism occurs again, I would fully support semiprotecting it, but I don't see the need right now. We should try and semiprotect as little as possible, and the policy states that it shouldn't be pre-emptive. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't criticizing; apologies if my words were unclear. I simply disagreed with the decision to semiprotect the article at the time - nothing more, nothing less. You're doing a great job keeping up with WP:RfPP (it's on my watchlist); keep up the good work! Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. I know that requests page such as WP:RfPP can be stressful, so take it easy. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
A rough week[edit]
Sorry that you're having a rough week. Sometimes it can be tough on RFP; I'm sure that you get people pushing and back forth on you from all sides. So... I would certainly say you deserve this:
Feel free to put it wherever you want. Cheers- Daniel Davis 03:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)
Pat (again)[edit]
Now adding the {disputed} tag to the Motorized Bicycle article because I unlinked a redlnk, removed a video of A power on demand, power-assisted bicycle, 2005 model, Velosport Blast (Prototype #2) from CyclePat's Electric Motor Assisted Bikes, which does not play on the Mac I'm using today, almost certainly violates WP:VAIN and if not that then WP:SPAM since there is no article for that manufacturer, but mainly of course because the article does not say what he wants it to say - he appeals to Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Motorized_bicycle.2C_Pedelec.2C_Electric_Bicycle.2C_Moped.2C_Motorcycle.2C_Timeline_of_motorized_bicycle_history but I see as yet absolutely no indication that there is any support for his request. He also left this [8] attack on my talk page. I am in danger of losing my temper. I have issued a civility warning on his talk page.
Apparently Pat thinks that failure to include the pictures, links or media he wants constitutes a dispute over factual accuracy. I don't hold out much hope he'll believe anyone else more readily than me but if you have a minute you might want to comment. Also, how does a RfM get crossed off due to lack of support, because it seems to me about time that one was. Thanks - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh FFS. Now he's accusing me of vandalism for removing the {dispute} and {npov} tags he keeps adding. Give me strength! - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- You might like to follow through on that protection, he's now tagged it as {uncited}. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Poker WikiProject[edit]
I've been thinking about setting up a poker WikiProject and am trying to find out if there's enough interest to make it worthwhile. Essexmutant said that you might be interested in joining in - please can you let me know if you are? Thanks, 24px CTOAGN (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Comments to Chesschamp21[edit]
Cease the personal attacks on Talk:Charles Whitman. No personal attacks are allowed on Wikipedia. Thank you. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Subwayjack's comments were more severe than yours. I really just want everyone to take a deep breath and calm down a bit. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand! How did you qualify my comments as worse than Chesschamp21's? Also, he doesn't have any history but speaks as if he has been here forever. It may seem like paranoia, but there is a strange absence of Sherurcij whenever Chesschamp is aboard. Possible sock puppet?
An Esperanzial note[edit]
As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.
In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)
Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Celestianpower háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.
I try. Gaaah!!!--Sean Black|Talk 22:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes[edit]
You asked to be notified when the future episode vandal strikes again. They did ( 126.96.36.199 (talk · contribs) ) and I have reverted the page. Turnstep 01:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
RE:My RFA[edit]
"You are far too impatient to be an admin. You seem to want to block people as soon as they vandalize."
I do not want to block people as soon at they vandalise. I would make sure that the person is warned after each time they vandalised. Test1, test2, test3, test4, block (if in 24h). However sometimes someone has vandalised 12+ times in 24h in this case I warn with test 3 (some times 4) next time I would block.
Blacklisting someone that I think will vandalise again with the bot I do but I do not use intel (or request a block) until the criteria above it met. However sometimes if someone requests a block I try to get admins attention for them. --Adam1213 Talk + 02:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Thought you'd appreciate...[edit]
[9]. :-) Dmcdevit·t 04:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was talking to Rob Church on IRC, and it sounds like this is just in the interim until there's a special page for it, possibly in as soon as a week. I guess nagging really does work sometines :) Be sure to thank him next time you see him! Dmcdevit·t 05:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, this is nice. No surprises on who leaves articles semi'd forever...Anyway, did you go through the list so that everything is tagged or unprotected? I think a not on the pages of the admins who left things untagged an uneditable for so long is a good idea. -Splashtalk 17:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Since you commented in this case, just to let you know that it's finished. I posted a summary on WP:AN or you can go for the full Dostoyevsky version in the link at the head of this section.
For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Poker[edit]
I had plenty of positive feedback, so I've set up a project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker. It's a bit bare at the moment, so please be bold and add anything that you think should be in there and put any suggestions on the talk page. Also, please add yourself to the table in the Participants section. Thanks, 24px CTOAGN (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Muslim drawlings[edit]
Are you an admin? If so, please help with the current controvery about the image. I belevieve that it is racist to muslims. Thanks! WikieZach 02:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Woohookitty, please review the policy on page protection. You are incorrect that "we do NOT protect pages linked from front page!!" The guideline is that we should only do so when necessary, when watchlisting the page, et cetera, is not enough. Numerous users agree that semiprotection is necessary for the Muhammad Drawings page. I hope that you will revert your removal of the semi-protection, especially as it was based on a misapprehension of policy. Thanks. Babajobu 07:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- It says that when a page is linked from the front page, "It is best not to protect pages in this case." It does not say that you must not, but that it is best not to. There is a difference. Babajobu 10:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- We don't semiprotect to stop revert wars, but only vandalism, that's true. But those who repeatedly claim (on AN/I or elsewhere) that "We do NOT semiprotect pages linked from the main page" are simply misreading the relevant part of the policy page. There is a world of difference between "It is best not to..." and "thou shalt not..." Babajobu 10:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Raul's userpage is not a policy document. And yeah, anyone who says that is forbidden to semiprotect pages linked from the main page is simply wrong, sorry. If a preponderence of people feel that this should be the policy, then they should amend the policy page to reflect their view. Babajobu 11:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- We don't semiprotect to stop revert wars, but only vandalism, that's true. But those who repeatedly claim (on AN/I or elsewhere) that "We do NOT semiprotect pages linked from the main page" are simply misreading the relevant part of the policy page. There is a world of difference between "It is best not to..." and "thou shalt not..." Babajobu 10:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi there[edit]
Please join the jcsm.org Jesus Christ Saves Ministries (JCSM) now!!
--Jaulern 10:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- zOMG, is this for real??? Babajobu 10:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to get into an edit war!!! I wasn't using weaselly words. It hasn't been fully analyzed, but certain christians based on the knowledge that is currently available have published information which at least has some truth. If you will re-instate it I would gladly, as I told SarekofVulcan, look for a scientific source. Chooserr 06:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but what you removed was true. It is the a theory established by christian groups based on the present evidence, and knowledge about these chemicals. It can turn out to be wrong, and it is quite possible that they are blowing things out of proportion, but ther isn't much contradictory to this, and the last link I gave talks about the scientific points, and one of the bonding chemicals. Look it over, it even talks about lab tests, and their results. Chooserr 07:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oh yeah I forgot to add that I found this link which has quite a bit of what has been published (in newspapers) about oxytocin (one of the bonding chemicals the Christian Organisations talk about) in the the last few years... Chooserr 07:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- There is also this which seems a reliable source...at least telling where these ideas are coming from if nothing else. Chooserr 07:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't see your comment. I think that the information should be provided from an objective view if possible, and that is what I'm trying to do. I have the information of what the chemical does in the internallink - it says the same thing is some ways as the external ones which provide further information - and it is not using any weaselly words. Also if it is presented in a formal tone acceptable of wikipedia with reasonable information the reader can make up his mind. You can reword it yourself if you want... Chooserr 07:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I do understand what you are saying, but I believe you are placing to much emphasis on "scientific journals" if there is enough scientific information for the user to decide - along with a theory of some sort it should be discussed. I haven't looked at the UFO page, but I believe it would say something about the theories involved without a scientific journal, and there are problably at least a thousand similar examples on wikipedia if you were to look for them. Chooserr 07:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Have you moved on, or are you still considering the evidence-stuff? Chooserr 07:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup taskforce[edit]
There is a new article that needs wikifying and NPOV on your desk. If you don't want it then please pass it along or let me know. Thank you. RJFJR 00:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
RfA Thanks![edit]
George Reeves[edit]
Unprotecting it, eh? Any bets on how long it will take before that lunatic sock-puppet from Croatia starts vandalizing the page? I'm betting 24 hours, tops. He messed with the talk page less than two days ago. >:( Wahkeenah 08:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, duh I no dat, on account of the gajillion {{tl:test}} messages Ive left. I just meant a registered personal upage... you know. I'm getting more coffee. :P KillerChihuahua?!? 15:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
move request[edit]
Would you consider moving Rubbergate to House banking scandal per Talk:Rubbergate? This would involve a deletion prior to move. The desired title is just a redirect, but it has more than one line in the edit history. Thanks. Derex 19:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Babe Ruth[edit]
I'm posting this message on you Talk Page either because you've contributed to the article Babe Ruth, or because you've edited other baseball or sports related articles. I've recently completed a revision of this article at Babe Ruth/rewrite. If you have the time, I'd appreciated it if you'd compare the articles and leave any feedback you might have on the rewrite discussion page. I'd like to reach a consensus before makeing major changes to the main article. Thanks for your help. --djrobgordon 20:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
S-Protect on Ted Kennedy article[edit]
The s-protect on the Ted Kennedy article was very much needed - and very much appreciated. Thank you! --AStanhope 04:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti[edit]
A final decision has been published in this case.
For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Answer to question[edit]
He has many times posted post in the middle of my posts and distrupted the contex of the posts makeing my original posts unreadable. So when i say stop posting in the middle of my posts i mean stop posting in the middle of my posts.
Deng 07-02-06 22.10 CET
It cant be ok because it is extremly hard to see what is what, he has posted in the middle of my posts so many times with so many diffrent things that even I find it hard to see what is what so it cant be ok. Just take a look for your self and see if you can follow the line and figure out who has written what.
Deng 07-02-06 22.15 CET
I dont believe when you say that you have no problems figuering out what is what because i am haveing major truble and i wrote alot of it!
And all of this could have been avoided if he would have just posted after my posts not inside them. But if that is ok then I will also post in the middle of his posts with a question ofcurse. I will do exactly to him as he has done to me.
Deng 07-02-06 22.25 CET
Costa Rica presidential elections, 2006[edit]
Thanks, just went to unprotect and found you already had... --pgk(talk) 21:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Neuro-linguistic programming[edit]
You are a mentor! Please familiarize yourself with the case and conflict. I've posted notices to the article's talk page and AN. You may want to introduce yourself to all the parties (though that's a lot). Again, thank you. Dmcdevit·t 10:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- My condolances and best wishes for your success. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Now that the mentors have been listed, I am taking that article off my watch list unless otherwise requested. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Mediator section[edit]
It's locked, so I can't add it in, but I wanted to mention that if you look in the archives, Headly Down DID accept my mediation. It's the entry that starts off "Hmm. Well your cred seems to check out...". As a neutral party, I'm not making any judgements here, but I do feel it important to mention that Headly did accept my mediation. If I can offer my advice: In my time dealing with that thread, I found out that the sides are so firmly entrenched that neither one wants to accept anything by the other side as acceptable. Further, some of the participants (most notably the NLP opponents) deem any mediator or administrator's pointing out policy violations such as personal attacks to be "biased". I strongly believe that a heavy hand is going to be needed to solve this issue, or at least some big gun administrator powers that I didn't have access to (nor would have right to use as a mediator due to conflict of interest.) Cheers, I'll be monitoring the thread myself. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Bosnian Genocide[edit]
Is there a specific reason Bosnian Genocide was unprotected. Since none of the disputes have been resolved, you're just inviting further edit/revert wars.Zvonko 21:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you read over the discussion page but none of the disputed issues have been resolved. I don't think unprotestion was a wise decision.Zvonko 21:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks once again[edit]
Good work on the poker-stub sorting mate. Appreciate the help as always. Essexmutant 14:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Protection no longer needed[edit]
The consensus on Cartesian materialism is that the protection is no longer needed. There is no reason to think that the edit war will resume once protection is lifted. Alienus 17:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. Alienus 22:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I received an email from Subwayjack asking me to look into his block. From my brief examination of his edit history, I see that he has been quite controversial and has violated Wikipedia policy. But he has expressed a desire to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. Perhaps a shorter block and some form of dispute resolution are in order. I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks. —Wayward Talk 22:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Squiggyfm (talk · contribs)[edit]
Potentially explosive sock, reaching the point where it might become really hard to deal with, either that or it'll become bored and start making legal threats, like it's past incarnations did--220.127.116.11 04:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Who's that handsome man? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 14:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed! :)--Sean Black (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Do you want your picture on Wikipedia:Facebook? --TML1988 06:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
SuperDeng's comments[edit]
If you allow any person to change things on the eastern front page just because they are your friends and then after the changes still keep the page locked I will report you for favourism. Who are you to say ok you can post but you cant. Either everyone is affected by the locking of the page or none is affected, allowing some people to post and some not to post is favourism.
Deng 11-02-06 12.00 CET
First of all it is absolut fact and your constant threats of blocking me and actually doing so irritates me. what if i were to threaten you after every post would that make you happy? Just because you are an admin does not give you the right to threaten me every 15 min.
The exact friend is this person and this is what you wrote to your friend
I would suggest listing what you want on the talk page and adding the {{Editprotected}} tag. Someone will come by and make the changes you want. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
the friend is this person Constanz
Deng 11-02-06 12.15 CET
Just because your friend posses a high level of knowledge in the topic does not give you the right to favourise him.
Deng 11-02-06 12.35 CET
I didnt call anyone an idoit i said the statemnet was idotic[edit]
If someone tells something that is not true that is a lie. If you say a lie you are a lier.
And I brought up this before that that person attacked me, I just stated absolut facts the attack by that person were these.
"Obviously you have never been in the military. It's not like picking up a machinegun. Please tell me what good it is to capture an expensive howitzer only to find the crew destroyed the sights before running away. Please tell us how many hours of mainteance per day it takes to keep a tank battalion operational. I guess the effort both sides spent on providing ordnance units, recovery tractors, repair units, and so forth was wasted. You don't have the slightest notion what you are writing about."
You dont see them as attacks because you even added the " :: " next to them. But I see them as attacks so before you block me, know this.
-Equipment changed hands. -All the statements are bullshit not only did thousand of tanks change hands so did many pices of artilery. -Yes some guns did get tampered with but most didnt a good vast majority didnt.
The problem is unlocking the page. Nothing else matters. You do not actively take part in the disscussion as much as you could but yet you are the one who keeps the page locked. But that dosent matter what matters is that we have a page locked and a nice test page that could replace it. It would be so very simple if you would just go and study some world war 2 history compare the locked paged and the test pest and you yourself actively add to the suggestions to what is wrong with the test page so that the page would get unlocked.
(Deng 11:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC))
Well it would be better to strive for correctnes not agreement[edit]
That said and more importnaly, if you could use your Admin powers to find out who wrote the part of the eastern front in this article Red Army That would help alot. Because who ever it was and how many they were they or he/she really hit the nail on the head.
(Deng 12:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC))
Maybe later must eat now or will die, and dont you ever sleep if you are in america isnt it like late night early morning there.
(Deng 12:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC))
Possible sock puppet[edit]
I think it is possible that User:Victory Day is a sock puppet for User:SuperDeng. See the Eastern Front discussion page. DMorpheus 16:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- For some reason, I couldn't see User:Victory Day's contributions list so as to find out what this user has been dealing with. (?) Constanz - Talk 18:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Check the ip if we are not from the same country. Also check if the ip is from Dmorpheus country as an act to disscredit me.So that he could say ooo look at Deng he makes socks to rally his ideas. When in truth it is Dmorpheus who made it. Also it could just be someone who agrees with me.
(Deng 11:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC))
If there are only 8 people in wiki that can check the ip then contact these 8 people, if you can not contact them then give me the names and I will contact them. This clear and obvoius atempt by DMorpheus to miss credit me must be invastigated. And that this if anything is a clear personal attack.
Ask the 8 what country my ip is from and that users ip is from also ask what country DMorpheus ip is from if that user and DMorpheus ip is from the same country then it could very possibly be DMorpheus who created that account just for the reason to misscredit me.
(Deng 09:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC))
YOU ask for the IP check you made this comment
It's confusing. Apparently, User:Victory Army created user User:Victory Day and then created Victory Day's user page. So you have to look at Victory Army to see the contribs. More evidence it's Deng...plus the broken English. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC
You believe it is me but I know it is not me this is all bullshit and a clear attack on me!
You check the ip you ask them to check so that you will know that it is not me because if I check the ip If I ask you wont ofcurse believe me.
Also do not forget to ask for everyones ip not only mine and victory but everyone, andI ofcurse am also checking and will ofcurse ask them to check yours as well
And it is highly important to ask what country the ips of all involed are from.
(Deng 18:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC))
Well if you would just scroll up some on that page you would see that others have asked to check many users not just one
(Deng 21:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC))
Well the so called sock person has only posted in one article,also if they say no I can allways ask again and add information that they think is missing.
Do you really think I would just give up and take it up the ass when someone is trying to misscredit me.
And the fact that Ksenon and DMorpheus are being quiet now could be that I am very close in discovering that the so called sock (we know nothing yet) is from the same country and perhaps even same city as one of them.
(Deng 21:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC))
Broken english, go here ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanks_%281919-1939%29&oldid=40928499
And see the edits made to the Soviet Unnion by DMorpheus
Just because it had poor english does not mean it is me in any way what so ever BUT if one thinks that since it is bad spelling it must be me well then one could even see it fiting with the plot idea, ooo look bad spelling must be deng
And dosent that mean I have as much evidence that it is someone else as you do that it is me?
Or do you dissagree with my line of thought?
(Deng 01:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC))
It dosent matter how many supporters there are out there I have the truth on my side with undissputable facts and that is all that matters. A million people could say that 1+1=3 but that dosent make it right.
(Deng 11:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC))
Well the most intressting part is ofcurse that everything I say is verifiable and that there has hardly been any what so ever effort in proveing the sources wrong but instead they just say that it is wrong or dont even reply and therefore since they dont say anything or dont reply well then ofcurse they have to be right.
Or could it be that they cant respond to the sources and therefore try and move the point of view from sources to anything else. For example this sockpuppet issue.
(Deng 11:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC))
Your statments are wrong
First of all there is no "I am write everyone else is wrong" attitdue there is only Deng gives sources the rest pull facts out of thin air and the thin air facts and sources are worth the same
And ksenon is a vandal and that word isnt even mine it took it from another poster on his talk page long long ago because if you do an in depth search of what ksenon has done you will see that he has gone around in diffrent articles deleteing stuff left and right so that the articles fits his views
If you go back on the eastern front history you will see that he would often delete alot of things just because it didnt fit with his views
Do an indepth search and you will see
And to say that my sources are equally worth what other people just claim with no sources what so ever is just plain wrong.
(Deng 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC))
Ofcurse i am cooperateing with others, when the traffic slowed down who made the proposition to just focus on the problem and stop drifting?
But I can never accept anyone who just says this is wrong that is right without haveing any sources what so ever.
Yes, we take the mentorship to apply to all pages you feel are reasonably related. While the mentorship remedy (apparently) didn't use the "or a related page" wording, the probation remedy you're enforcing does. Also, a point on mentorship: While it would be great if you all got invovled in some mediation and helped this out, that's not exactly what we envisioned. This conflict has already seen failed mediations, so it went to arbitation. If you see the need to protect the article, it's probably better to just ban the offenders from the article. Edit wars and protection were what happened before arbitration. Now they need to either develop a steep learning curve or find a new hobby. Dmcdevit·t 05:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is interesting but highly susceptable to abuse[edit]
A few people can manipulate this Wikipedia project to control particular areas to say whatever they want, but not on the basis of reasoned debate, but because of persistency. This a type of persistency is usually associated with an interest in the subject matter over and above an intellectual interest.
The anonymous input is an open door to abusive practices. Vested interests in a subject matter can turn the matter over to staff persons who as part of their job manipulate the internet web sites relating to the subject matter of economic or political importance to them.
Wikipedia is just another site that is highly susceptable to such manipulation. Everyone should be able to participate; but where there is a vested interest that is affected, that vested interest will dominate the subject, not out of reasoned debate, but out of persistence.
126.96.36.199 10:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Anselm of Canterbury[edit]
Thank you. I would appreciate it if it could be unprotected in 48 to 72 hours, after the two edit warriors come off of block. It is just an edit war between gay activists and orthodox Catholics, both of whom are polite but stubborn. Robert McClenon 11:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Re: Thank you[edit]
Hey there, no problem -- I'm just trying to do my bit to keep wp clean and accessible to everyone :) I am on vacation for the moment and work is looking busy for the next week or so -- but when I am back I will help you (and Splash) keep that page clean. Take care, novacatz 13:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup Taskforce[edit]
I added Person Centred Planning to your desk. RJFJR 18:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
This will give you a laugh[edit]
User talk:JzG#Vadalism (sic), part of Pat's latest crusade to have a referenced source for every fact on the project, including, apparently, the existence of a 2006 Winter Olympics :-D Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oh fuck me, he's only gone and nominated the medal tables from every single Olympic games since 1872 for deletion as uncited! You couldn't make it up. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympic games medal count Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Feel free to perform a speedy keep early closure on that. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think somebody has been doing a little wiki stalking on me. --CyclePat 20:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Are you telling me woohookitty, that it is okay to remove the deletion at the top of a page? I though it was explicitelly indicated to leave it there? I though violating and removing such things that conform to wiki policy was vandalism. Perhaps you can enlighten me? --CyclePat 20:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- The difference between reading someone else message on his talk page (with no links or references to the subject). And actually looking for the links, then, going to the other users page, and then following through with every comment that was stated inbetween us... and simply posting underneath a comment on your user page, I think is quite clear. --CyclePat 20:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Respect for wiki rules applies for everyone. If an administrator violates a rule that applies to regular people, I don't think that absolves him of the fact. --CyclePat 20:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Does that mean I am Wikistalking all the hundreds of users whose Talk pages are on my watchlist? Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Removing that tag was a disruption against wiki process. The definition of vandalism in it's strict sense. So technically next time you have an argument against the deletion of an article follow procedures and discuss the issue in the article deletion discussion. For the early clossing: I fail to see what the concensus was. It really didn't seem clear to me what we had decided. Find more sources? Wikisource? Leave as is? Not only that was that, but some people seemed to be confused as to wheter it was the template we were keep... (ohh hold! on! Jenifer Hail just got Gold for Canada... Got a stand for the anthem) ....<humm> .... <singing along!> ....<OH! Canada... We stand on guard for thee.... ... < all done> Okay... I thought a deletion process is supposed to go for 5 days. We may close early if there is consencus on what to do. But in this case it wasn't obvious. If it wasn't clear we shouldn't have closed it early. [10].
- We also would need to put the template that this article was nominated for deletion. --CyclePat 21:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- The only disruption was caused by you nominating this stuff in the first place. All you've done is waste a lot of people's time; personally I think you deserve to be blocked a few hours for your own disruption, not to mention violating 3RR. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- We also would need to put the template that this article was nominated for deletion. --CyclePat 21:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Removing that tag was a disruption against wiki process. The definition of vandalism in it's strict sense. So technically next time you have an argument against the deletion of an article follow procedures and discuss the issue in the article deletion discussion. For the early clossing: I fail to see what the concensus was. It really didn't seem clear to me what we had decided. Find more sources? Wikisource? Leave as is? Not only that was that, but some people seemed to be confused as to wheter it was the template we were keep... (ohh hold! on! Jenifer Hail just got Gold for Canada... Got a stand for the anthem) ....<humm> .... <singing along!> ....<OH! Canada... We stand on guard for thee.... ... < all done> Okay... I thought a deletion process is supposed to go for 5 days. We may close early if there is consencus on what to do. But in this case it wasn't obvious. If it wasn't clear we shouldn't have closed it early. [10].
John F. Kennedy assassination[edit]
Thanks for putting a freeze on the John F. Kennedy assassination page. However I wish you had frozen this version as opposed to this version I invite you to compare versions and tell me which one would have a better shot at being a featured page. This is my long term goal. BTW, do you think Kennedy autopsy photos belong on Wikipedia? I've endured some blistering abuse on the talk page by some editors that wish I would go away. But I still believe in NPOV, and trying to write a better article. Mytwocents 05:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Kurdish people[edit]
Hi I just wanted to add following demographic figures regarding Kurdish diaspora in the Infobox of page Kurdish people, based on page Demographics of Kurdish people page.
0,5 - 0,6 million [11]
1,1 million [12]
Thank you for your help.
Diyako Talk + 22:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Another Esperanzial note...[edit]
Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".
The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.
Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Celestianpower háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)
Gastrich RFAr[edit]
Yes, please, all assistance gratefully received. Arbcome looks like accepting the case. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Gilbert Baker[edit]
Thanks. AriGold 19:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Kurdish people[edit]
Could you unprotect the page? There wasn't really much of an edit war. Most of the disputes have already been dicussed in the talk page. AucamanTalk 20:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- There was no reason for full protection. And yes, the page's being vandalized (one of the users is already blocked...the other was warned). AucamanTalk 14:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood the situation we had. User:Jalalarbil was never involved in vandalism. I reverted vandalism by User:Manik666 and User:188.8.131.52. User:184.108.40.206 has already been blocked and User:Manik666 was warned about his edit. I wanted semi-protection to prevent users like User:18.104.22.168 from vandalizing the page. But some of the disputes are still unresolved, so it's probably better to keep the page full-protected. Thanks. AucamanTalk 06:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
monastic, not monestic[edit]
In re [this edit]: If "monestary" were the right spelling, then people would also write "monestic" instead of "monastic". Michael Hardy 00:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Moving sections to wikisource[edit]
Hey there again. I'm editing a page, and a lot of the information is stories told by the person. Should i move these to wikisource, then add the wikisource infobox at the bottom? Cheers The magical Spum-dandy 13:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Calvin and Hobbes - reversion request[edit]
Hello. Thank you for protecting this page. However, when I went to check it, I saw that Oscar went and changed all of the in-line citations to footnotes. While that was discussed on the talk page; before any changes were made, I wikied all of the in-line citations to allow for quick linking to the reference section, yet maintain the in-line format, which is preferable, especially following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes#Converting_citation_styles. Now that it is protected, can you please revert the article back to this version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvin_and_Hobbes&oldid=39799418? Thank you. -- Avi 15:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
PS. I will request this from another admin in case you are not on, I hope you do not mind. Thank you. -- Avi 15:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- We're actually not supposed to revert or edit a page once the page is protected unless it's for vandalism and I don't think that can be considered vandalism given that Oscar isn't a vandal as far as I can see. Like we say when we protect...we are not taking sides. Here is the policy. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand that, Woohoo, howvever, Oscar himself agrees to it. Please see here Talk:Calvin_and_Hobbes#Footnotes. It was a misunderstanding, not an edit war :-) -- Avi 15:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Woohookitty :) -- Avi
Copy of what I posted to Katefan)'s discussion:
Something very funny is going on with American Civil Rights Movement (1896-1954), and American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) -- user Mitchumch on February 4-6 added "key event" info to those articles, at least one line of which was bogus -- that editor is no longer on Wikipedia, for some reason (I posted to his discussion page before, which is no longer there). Also, on February 1 user Mrpresident2006 completely rewrote Montgomery Improvement Association, which is referenced by Mitchumch's entries -- editor Mrpresident2006 has no entries on his home page or discussion page.
I have had discussions on the talk page with Mitchumch, asking for sources for his posts that weren't backed by Wikipedia articles. He agreed to come up with them.
Ben knows I put together Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement. User Mitchumch e-mailed me, but I insisted on replying only on his discussion page. Now Mitchumch has disappeared. Could well be Ben. Simesa 02:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protection removal?[edit]
You took off the semi-protection from Ward Churchill w/o any comment. I think doing so, at the least, warrants an edit history comment; and probably some discussion on the talk page. Unfortunately, once it comes off, we get stuff like [13] in pretty short order. Always from anons or brand new users, and at least on a daily basis. I really think the article is a heck of a lot better with the semi-protection on it. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I see why one minor vandalism in 42 hours would warrant reprotecting this article. I suspect if you plot article size vs. vandalisms per hour or number of edits in the edit history of an article vs. vandalisms per hour that 1 vandalism per 42 hours for this article would not stand out in anyway, and in fact would likely be on the low side. I would point out that as of this moment, only 39 articles on Wikipedia are semi-protected, so I think this should be fairly rarely applied and only with good evidence to support the need for protection, and not just to satisfy the desire of editors that would prefer to control who edits the article. I think we should try it without the semi-protection for a while to see if it is really needed. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 04:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- The vandalism occured (as always) much sooner after unprotection. Frankly, if you look through the history of this article, I am pretty confident that there is not one single meritorious edit ever done by an anonymous or brand-new user to this artilce (i.e. someone joining solely to edit this one article, which we've seen a bunch of; usually they get banned in pretty short order). I'm not talking about matters where I may disagree with some POV issue with something a regular editor did, but simply the insertion of outright swearing, or vandalism like this insertion of 16,000 copies of an image of GW Bush: [14]].
- I'm not sure whether Doug Bell knows the details of semi-protection. This newish capability simply prevents anonymous IPs or the very newest (I think a couple days) users from editing. Doug, as an established user, is perfectly able to edit when semi-protection is in place; as is anyone else who has pretty much done anything else on WP first. But then, I am of the strong opinion that many more articles should be semi-protected; basically the first whiff of vandalism (especially politicized stuff) or edit warring should prompt it. Making editors "prove themselves" by making a very small number of reasonable edits elsewhere, or simply registering beforehand, is a very small burden, IMO. But then, I know I'm in the minority with this opinion... well, at least it's not yet consensus. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the warning[edit]
I don't think I've so much tried to reason with him in my most recent communication, as just to make it very clear what the block is for. Thanks for the heads-up, though; I'll stop feeding him now. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Please blank the monobook for User:Voice of All(User:Voice of All/monobook.js). I accidentally put in a js script without a condition, which is effectively locking me out of Wiki! Thanks.-Voice of All
- Yeah...never make same-window page loading redirect without a condition, or you are skrewed. Well...at least now I know of a way to "block admins". I can make a better admin block script. I think I'll get to work on that ;).Voice_of_AllT|@|ESP 05:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thank you[edit]
Thanks for the protect of Safety, damn vandals! I agree, we should be able to ban those forums. Jesushaces 06:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Ever wish you could warn and revert vandals other bad edits after noticing one of them? Every wish you could add protect templates more easily? Why not copy my monobook! I promise it won't crash :).Voice_of_AllT|@|ESP 07:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Does your monobook.js effect you? Or do you use one with a different name? Either way...I suppose one for monobook would be messed up on something else (another skin).Voice_of_AllT|@|ESP 07:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Nazism in relation to other concepts[edit]
Hi, I don't think restoring the Nazism in relation to other concepts page to its old form makes any sense. All of the text was moved over time to other pages, where editing is taking place, in some cases for many weeks. One solution is to leave the Nazism in relation to other concepts page temporarily as a set of links sending folks to the pages that were on the Nazism in relation to other concepts (dismbiguation). Then after a some period delete it. People looking for entries on Nazism or Fascism can follow the links on the templates, as suggested in the discussion over deletion that took place. Please consider these as more useful options. Another option is to temporarily redirect to the Nazism page where there is a note directing people to the discussion on Nazism and socialism. There is only one editor who refuses to join in the editing on the other pages. I have invited that editor to join in the ongoing discussion at Fascism and ideology. --Cberlet 19:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Additional note. The actual discussion about Nazism and socialism is at Fascism_and_ideology#Fascism.2C_Nazism.2C_socialism.2C_collectivism.2C_and_corporatism. I have invited the unhappy to come to that page to discuss the issues. The rest of the text that used to be on Nazism in relation to other concepts is now divided up onto Fascism_and_ideology, Nazism and religion, and Nazism and race. --Cberlet 19:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I just restored the old page so it wasn't redirecting to a non existent page. That's all. Do whatever you want with it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hah! Easy for you to say. The page is protected. It was protected as a pointerpage redirect pending the outcome of the discussion at Fascism_and_ideology. The deletion discussion pointed out that the Nazism Template took care of matters. How about unprotecting it, redirecting it to Nazism, and then protecting it again. Then I will list it for deletion. Sorry for creating more work for admins., it was my mistake. Thanks.--Cberlet 20:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Bush Template and Mark's response to your request[edit]
Ya, so he just went ahead and deleted the thread. [[15]] cheers. Mike McGregor (Can) 02:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- No need to indulge the trolls. This has been through every forum already, and unprotection is not the right venue. The issue of Bush templates was discussed on the admin board. The Bush templates are gone and no amount of whining or discussion will bring them back. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
List of monarchs of Kush[edit]
I think it can be unprotected now. Do you mind? If so... I'll re-protect it. Not trying to step on your toes; I was just hasty. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
My signature[edit]
Thanks! I like it too. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 08:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup Taskforce[edit]
I added Skull and Bones to your desk. This one may now be controversial. It wasn't much last time I'd looked at it (approximately a stub) but now it looks big. You can look at it and decide to pass. Putting note on the cleanup taskforce page on status would be appreciated. RJFJR 17:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
EffK's talk page[edit]
Hi, Woohookitty, I probably should have informed you of this out of courtesy, since you were the protecting admin, but I took pity on EffK last week and asked Str1977 would he object if I unprotected EffK's talk page as a sort of last chance, with a warning that if he launches into more personal attacks, it will be reprotected. I just felt it would be frustrating for him to have all means of communication cut off. Although he has made some pretty offensive personal attacks against Str1977 in the past ("brother of the murderer", "shocking", "sinister", "dangerously immoral" etc.), he seems to be motivated by a sincere belief that the Vatican is taking over the world, and that Str1977 is a Vatican agent. Anyway, Str1977 said he was more than happy to give EffK another chance, so I gave him a warning, and unprotected the page. It seems to have been fairly successful so far. Str1977 welcomed him back kindly, and answered a few questions. I'll keep an eye on the situation. I hope you don't mind, but I know that you only protected it because of a request Str1977 made at WP:RFPP rather than from your own decision that this page needed to be protected. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 20:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. Coming to your page to write this message inspired me to change my signature, based on one I see two messages above. Hope you like it. AnnH ♫ 20:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank You[edit]
I would like to thank you for helping my when I asked for semi-protection on the page of the anime character Yzak Joule. Unfortunately the same vandalism edits are occuring yet again so if this keeps up I may have to ask for semi-protection. One other interesting thing is that I tried to take this problem to the discussion page but that person just deleted what I wrote so it looks like this silly little edit war will not end anytime soon. --Adv193
protection of Australian football articles[edit]
G'day Woohookitty,
haven't seen you on IRC for a while? Anyway, I want to thank you for protecting Australian national football team and Australian national soccer team. I've been asked to do it myself, but I probably count as "involved" on this discussion. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, could you please delete this blank category. Category:Soccer_in_Australia it is long out of date and it only used by Aussie Rules vandals. All of the Australian Football categories are under Category:Football_in_Australia and if you look at the category, you'll see why. Sorry you had to get involved in this tedious argument. thanks. --Debunct 11:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
User Acuman is trying to Frame Me or Start Problems[edit]
He is making accusations and writting them on my discussion page. He plays games as others have said in the discussions he pretends to compormise and lets things die down then reverts articles or has his way with them. This is underhanded and I have pointed it out.
He is making very bad accusations. I was not attacking anyone. He is twisting words and I NEVER USED PROFANITY. HE IS MAKING PROBLEMS.
He has given links saying I used profanity: they is not to Profanity. I merely states that certain individuals use POV, are biased, and manipulate words....where did I make a PERSONAL ATTACK. I WAS ALWAYS CIVIL.
I simply stated what I observed and now he is turning it around on me when people complain about him! 220.127.116.11 07:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
New Formalism[edit]
Thanks for pointing out how to request protection for pages ... don't know how I missed it now, maybe the wiki equivalent of snowblindness. I don't really know what's going on at New Formalism — I've made a few attempts at adding properly researched material, but they seem to get reverted by one or another brand-new user and labelled as vandalism. Ho hummm. I might leave it for now. Anyhow, thanks again for the clarification about the protection mechanism. — Stumps 12:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Request for admin help for ゲームマスター[edit]
I need some help on a pesky user... no not me. I have nominated an article for deletion. He has removed it from the deletion process. I'm a little confused. Isn't it supposed to stay there and follow through the proper process? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FLog%2F2006_February_24&diff=41023748&oldid=41022172 Thank you for you help woohookitty--188.8.131.52 16:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- This link goes to the discusion of deletion. This user is a percistant little one. I just noticed the article was deleted. So... I guess the only thing would be to warn the user if this is or was vandalism!!! Flag the bugger. b.t.w. here is the link to the delete discusion. Thank you. --CyclePat 16:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- should I put the afd announcement back on the page or let it be since the article is deleted? --CyclePat 16:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Belarusian Language[edit]
Rydel has once again began his crusade of reverts and despite you locking that article for a month, despite my countless calls for some form of consesion Rydel's utter unwillingness to cooperate leaves me no choice but to ask you to once again become involved in the dispute. --Kuban Cossack 22:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
History of Gibraltar still semiprotected[edit]
You removed the SP notice 13 days ago, but when I edit something, I noticed it says "Note: This page has been protected so that only established users can edit it." at the top. Is contacting you the appropriate procedure? TransUtopian 23:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Kaiser Permanente[edit]
Hi Woohookitty - Is this page protection to force me into mediation? I think it's fair for me to only agree to that if the panel is even. The people who called for the mediation were the ones who skipped over the painstaking Talk Page process worked out yesterday. If you're saying the page can only be unprotected through mediation, that's throwing a bone to the people who chose not to work it out on the Talk page. --Pansophia 07:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Arg! I just noticed the protection request. It's from a Kaiser employee who's been trying to work the system to protect his POV! I have no particular objections to the version protected (other than the Kaiser logo), but it completely depresses me that people keep falling for him representing himself as the force for neutrality. --Pansophia 07:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the unprotect. In all honesty, there will probably be some wrangling over that page since there is no consensus in sight, but I will reconsider participating in mediation because of this. Sorry you get caught in all the bad stuff! --Pansophia 08:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
afd question[edit]
Ok so I have a question here, and I want a second opinion before I submit this as an AfD
The Drowned Baby Timeline appears to me to be non-notable fan-fiction. It's admittably fan-created alternate history by User:Johnny Pez. A google search of Drowned Baby Time Line and Drowned Baby Timeline both come up with a handful of hits, however two of those hits are the wikipedia and answers.com wiki entries, and the remainder appear to be either blog entries, submissions to short story database, and a link to a Flickr.com photo archive [16], [17]. Now I'm of the belief that while the article appears to be well written, it's non-notable. I don't want to generate any ill-will, however, and I wanted a second opinion before I submit to AfD. Do you think this should be submitted for deletion? Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 14:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the protected edit section's wording. Also see the talk page. Thanks.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 06:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
New Bogdanoff sock puppet[edit]
sorry to bother you again, but there seems to be a new Bogdanoff sock-puppet trying to bias the content of Bogdanov affair. His name is Mortens (talk|contribs). He made a first attempt yesterday, that I modified to keep things correct, then he made a second attempt today. I leave this to your appreciation, but I am 99% sure he is a sock puppet who created an account only for this article. Maybe I have some responsability as I edited part of the article recently after someone requested to clean the external links part. I think I did things honestly (I actually added some pro-Bogdanov fan sites), but I may have awaken the brothers again. Regards, Alain Riazuelo 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Triumph of the Will[edit]
Hehe. :) I don't mind having to sprotect the featured article in instances like that, but it had to stay for a short time, given that it is linked from the main page... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Unblock request: User talk:126.96.36.199[edit]
Hi, A request on behalf of User talk:Beneaththelandslide. He's been caught by an IP block on User talk:126.96.36.199. It's a shared IP and the block's been in place for a few hours now, so the vandal has moved on. Can I trouble you to unblock? Thanks, Ben Aveling 11:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- In fairness to User:Rx StrangeLove it didn't say that when he did the block. :-) Thanks, Ben Aveling 11:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Please read this. Jdavidb, katefan0, Ral315 and I are mentors on that article. There has been discussion on a workshop page we set up. That page is not to be unprotected until we decide it's to be unprotected. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Why have you protected it when you have a free hand to block anyone who plays silly buggers? How is anybody supposed to edit an article that is protected for months at a time? --Tony Sidaway 02:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- While I'm at it, are there any other pages that you will reprotect should I choose to unprotect them? Is there an injunction in the case of The Skeptic's Annotated Bible ? --Tony Sidaway 03:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Protection of Acharya S[edit]
Hi, what was the reason of protecting it again, right after Tony Sidaway unprotected it? There hasn't been any edits after the unprotection. --Ragib 03:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Very long protection periods[edit]
Looking at the older page protections, I see that many of them are yours. What do you think is going to happen if you let people edit these articles after so many weeks?
- 18 Feb
- 19 Feb
- 20 Feb
- 21 Feb
- 22 Feb
The reason I think this is important is because when you protect a page, nobody can edit it at all. And if that goes on for weeks, those who could be improving it go away and do something else. --Tony Sidaway 03:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)