User talk:152.91.9.144

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Knocked up for AfD

Moved to Blue Dot

[edit] Messages

[edit] Odd usernames

There's been some buzz about that on IRC, and for the time being, User:Glen_S have decided to block them unless we get some sort of explanation as to what they're all about. Good point about their maybe being a set of classroom accounts. Either way, thanks for bringing that to my attention. Luna Santin 07:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anaheim pepper

I do know what I am doing. Hence the "hangon" If it's notable it'll be a keeper, if not, than it'll be deleted. Nothing wrong with tags. -WarthogDemon 00:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] redirects

I've replied on my talk page. --JianLi 06:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(I've replied here since I'm (oddly) blocked.) Well, I must admit that I cannot find fault with your reasoning! Redirects are cheap, and if one person (e.g. you) used it as a search term then others may as well. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
152.91.9.144 06:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure! :) --JianLi 01:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request

{{unblock|This is a rather extreme block. Trolling? See below..}}

Unblocked. As per your plausible explanation below, it seems Pschemp got the wrong guy here. Sorry for the inconvenience. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

04:42, 9 November 2006, Pschemp (Talk) blocked 152.91.9.144 (contribs) (expires 04:42, 16 November 2006, anon. only, account creation blocked) (trolling) log

To Whom It May Concern;
I can only presume that this is in response to this and this. I'd note that Pschemp failed to notify me of the block here, as well. Since when did asking a totally straightforward question on ANI amount to "trolling" for goodness sake? More to the point, the actual IP that had placed the initial questionable messages on the candidate's question page is not blocked while, after checking out his contributions and removing his spam links, I am? Does this actually make sense?
152.91.9.144 05:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template abuse (by me)

{helpme|Because this sends a message to the IRC channel.}
While I do understand that admins are very busy and all, it's very frustrating to just sit here. The Category: Requests for unblock doesn't appear to get much attention, so could someone please put a request for review of this block on the noticeboard for me? I know that this is not what the {{helpme}} template is for, hence this subsection title. Feel free to slap {{helpme-unblock}} on this page.
152.91.9.144 06:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The pain! Time simply crawls by when you're at the mercy of others. While it's one thing to intellectually understand that any system designed to increase the attention-getting ability of users blocked in error will be abused, it's another to feel it. I wonder if it's worth the trouble to register "152.91.9.144@hotmail.com" so that I can appeal to the mailing list? Probably not, and I'm certain I need to work on my patience anyway.
152.91.9.144 07:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, at least this has given me the time to browse Special:Newimages and see how utterly useless the vast majority of them are. User:EchoBand and User:Xdmann1988 stand out...
152.91.9.144 07:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Adrienne Foster is an attack page and should be speedily deleted, too. - 152.91.9.144 07:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, as least I've accomplished something in the last ninety minutes. - 152.91.9.144 08:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh

I suppose I'll come back tomorrow, then. - 152.91.9.144 09:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There were 6 reverts (not two) and policy states, temp. portection can be used in the case of "persistent edits by a banned user." Which is what happened there. If you don't like it because it discriminates against anons, get an account. Your comments were trollish, and the insinuations were not straightforward. I support the unblock because you don't seem to be the original abuser, however in the future you may want to get your facts straight before you comment. pschemp | talk 12:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied on User talk:Pschemp. - 152.91.9.14420:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ibrahim Odeh

This is in reference to That's why I can easily see and restore any deleted page.

This comment implies you're an admin, since only admins have that capability. If so, why are you editing anonymously? If not, why are you making this claim? --Calton | Talk 06:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, pretend the text reads "that's why it is possible to see and restore any deleted page."
152.91.9.144 21:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
My feelings aren't at issue, your statements are. Is ordinary English a problem for you? --Calton | Talk 00:24, 14 November 2006
Replied on User talk:Calton. - 152.91.9.144 05:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the source of your irritation is Being jerked around by the passive aggressive spouting smarmy nonsense does that to me -- especially when they don't actually answer questions put them and make up flimsy rationales. Sucks to be you, I guess. --Calton | Talk 05:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Replied on User talk:Calton. - 152.91.9.144 06:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You are not, however, welcome to do so in the manner you've chosen. You don't get a free pass on etiquette because I do not log in. You first. My reaction to your unpleasant passive-aggressive insults and projection has nothing to do with your IP status and everything to do with your actual unpleasant passive-aggressive insults and projection. Your technique of dodging issues certainly seems familiar, though. --Calton | Talk 06:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    Hmm okay then... You're clearly not going to respond to civil discourse (since you don't recognise it when it happens) and appear diminishingly unlikely to actually engage in it (based on your previous comments) so I'm simply going to ignore you. - 152.91.9.144 23:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    Copied to User talk:Calton. - 152.91.9.144 23:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You're clearly not going to respond to civil discourse (since you don't recognise it when it happens) The phrase "Pot calling the kettle black" comes immediately to mind. Hint: disguising your insults doesn't enable you to avoid being held responsible for them. Hint 2: pretending to standards you haven't the least intention of following yourself doesn't help your increasingly diminishing credibility -- as if deciding to dodge the simple question put to you for the fourth time didn't make that clear, already.
  • I'm simply going to ignore you. Hence, your constant notes to me. Got it. Perhaps you can concentrate on more pressing areas, such as, say, countries which are a complete figment of someone's imagination. I understand they're short-handed there. --Calton | Talk 23:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

You don't even have an account; you can't speedy keep my AFD! BlueLotas 03:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanx

For the advice and I shall keep it in mind. Don't let anyone tell you that you don't count because you don't have a username. Jcam 04:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why no username?

You look like a decent contributor. So why don't you have a username? I'm not criticizing you, I just want to know what your reasoning is. -Ryanbomber 17:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Answered in more detail via e-mail, but also here for "posterity."
Wikipedia:Why create an account? isn't that compelling a document:
  • This IP already has several layers between me and it, so pseduo-anonimiminty doesn't bother me. I do not need a watchlist, "Favorites -> Add to Favorites" does me just fine. It is occasionally irritating not to be able to create new page, but I can handle that.
  • What that page doesn't mention is how poorly edits are viewed when they come from an IP address. Taking thirty seconds to knock off [[User:Joe Schmuckatelly]] and putting "." on the user page so it's not a red link seems to count for a lot, as opposed to consistant good edits.
152.91.9.144 23:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd recommend you take the thirty seconds if you are going to be opening AfDs - it's not really fair to expect somebody else to create the AfD discussion page for you (although I'm sure there are people who don't mind, I would have thought it was frustrating for you too). Cheers, Yomanganitalk 10:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll think about not opening XfD nominations, then. It's not much different then dropping a {{cleanup}} or {{fact}} tag, though, instead of just {{sofixit}}-ing yourself. As to my frustration, I'll admit it was irksome the firt time, but the second time I was used to it. If I do make any further pseudo-nominations, I'll try to use language that shows I don't expect anyone to do it for me. Thanks for stopping by. - 152.91.9.144 22:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

No prob.  :) Thanks for asking. - Lucky 6.9 00:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey...

I have to say, nicely spotted! Well done!  Glen  05:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... but .999 was the front-page article, after all! - 152.91.9.144 22:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My speedy closure

My first thought was to speedy redirect it and get it over with, but creating a redirect from Lives (Game Innovation) would fall under the "unlikely typo" CSD, as I couldn't possibly see anyone typing that into the search bar, it's just a too far-fetched name. -Obli (Talk)? 23:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my whinge was more for form than for results, if that makes any sense... Thanks for taking the time to reply.
152.91.9.144 00:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Life is full of disappointments

It's easier to make your own messages than remember all those freaken templates. Herostratus 05:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining problems

I get what you are saying, but by looking throughthat user's contributions it is a vandalism-only account. There is no point in trying to explain what is going on to them, as they are just trying to mess with you. I reported them for violation of the three revert rule, as well as the extreme vandalism. -- THLCCD 01:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pregnancy fetishism

I reverted your edits to this article. Removal of this much content requires discussion and consensus on the article's talk page first. Otherwise, it can be considered vandalism. Please talk about the ways you would like to improve the article at Talk:Pregnancy fetishism. Robotman1974 02:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Verification builds the encyclopedia. - 152.91.9.144 02:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted your edits a second time. Without any attempt at building a consensus among other editors, your personal decision to remove so much content from this article looks like vandalism to me. Please, list your concerns clearly on the article's talk page and wait for a consensus to emerge among editors. I suspect sources for much of the content you deleted will soon follow. If you can't get enough input in a reasonable amount of time, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment and ask for input from an outside source. Robotman1974 13:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no requirement for "consensus" to remove unsourced material, and the idea of a request for comment is, well, bizarre. - 152.91.9.144 00:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I have added the navigation template, category tags and japanese language link you deleted. Do not remove them again. I won't revert your other blankings, but I suspect someone else will. A great deal of what you removed seems valid to me, but you're right in saying it's not sourced. However, I still think you went about this the wrong way. I think that for changes this drastic it is best to notify other editors of your intent before you make them. Robotman1974 03:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In addition to the navigation template, category tags and japanese language link that I deleted in error, you've restored a huge swath of unsourced and highly biased material. I'd also suggest that statments like "Do not remove them again" are a waste of your time. Most editors do not respond well to authoritarian commands.
    152.91.9.144 02:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user:SPUI

:) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skulltag

Delete? But blanking the pages would be an easier and equally effective solution. Deletion of this page neither saves space nor more effectivly [sic] removes the material. --Calton | Talk 05:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donkey Kong Country Userbox

I have changed the colors of the userbox to match the ones used on the Donkey Kong Country box art. DKC SNES box art.

User:Graziano94

Yikes! A giant not-fair-use image on the IP talk page! - 152.91.9.144 23:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I will use the preview option instead next time I edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Graziano94 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teaching English in Italy

Please do not close AFD discussions. Only administrators can do so unless it's established that there's a consensus to keep the article. Non-administrators may not speedy close AFD discussions. The author's (bad) idea to merge the article is a clear violation of WP:POINT. His edits to Teaching English as a Foreign Language were reverted, and merging his newly created article into the latter is just an attempt to dodge the system. Not gonna work.--Húsönd 01:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do look more carefully, the "merge" was a suggestion by Princess Tiswas (talk • contribs) not the page's author. Don't confuse the contributor with the possible value of the contributions, by the way. This would serve as a useful redirect.
152.91.9.144 01:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've investigated a little bit more and I see that the merger was not the author's idea. Still, it's a bad move and a merger suggestion in no way overrides an AFD nomination.--Húsönd 01:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
When the nomination says "I want to merge this" then it's not an afd nomination, it's a merge nomination. When someone puts something that is not a deletion nomination on the AfD page, a "speedy close" is just housekeeping.
152.91.9.144 01:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Non-admins cannot speedy-close anything (unless the article has been deleted, and the AfD wasn't closed). See WP:DELPRO#Non-administrators closing discussions. Do not do it again, or it may be viewed as disruption. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh for goodness' sake. Can we try to apply a little common sense here? When the nomination says "redirect and merge" as this one does, it simply beggers belief that an issue is going to be made out of closing it. It's a de facto withdrawal of the nomination in the nomination. - 152.91.9.144 03:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
My apologies too...I shot over the mark, and my failure to assume good faith is quite clear. Sorry again (I was going to blank my comment and your response with the edit summary " retracting my comment (and 152.91.9.144's response) in light of new evidence by Husond. My apologies" but got edit-conflicted, so meh). Cheers, and sorry again, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 03:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and further, I noticed above that you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skulltag. Thanks for your support of deletion - that was a tricky debate, and you handled it quite well. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 03:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Bah... now I have no one to rant at! ^_^
    152.91.9.144 03:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I see. I got a bit mixed up with another AFD and did not get it so clear that the nominator wanted the article merged. My "per nom" referred exclusively to his statement "Very superficial article, unencyclopedic, seems to fall under WP:NOT". Rather unorthodox AFD nomination really. Anyway, once it's an AFD, AFD procedures should it follow. A consensus about what to do with the article shall arise. I apologize if I initially saw your AFD closing as bad faith by the way. Regards,--Húsönd 03:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Awww... you'll take the fun out of me being cranky if you're nice to me. I too apologise for any sparks I have thrown.
    152.91.9.144 03:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
That's okay, no harm was done anyway. Keep up the good work. :-) By the way, from your contributions I see that you've been working a lot to Wikipedia. Registering could prove useful... Regards--Húsönd 03:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Zaitchik

Thanks for noticing this. The history was that someone added a line into the AFD main page but did not create the subpage, resulting in a mess in the AFD main page. I was kinda in a hurry, so I merely added minimal content into afd subpage, but forgot to do extra 16 keystrokes to add "subst:afd". Shit happens. `'mikkanarxi 16:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My signature

Yeah I don't know how that could have happened, dude. But I fixed the signature, so it should be working now. αράχνη|μιλήστε|συνεισφορές| 16:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not reshuffle the sections on administrative noticeboards...

...otherwise you may be blocked. Thank you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please reconsider your warning

Cross-posted from Samsara talk.

ANI is a fast-moving page, and sections often get overlooked. Moving them down is a fairly oncontroversial move, barring that P. is hell-bent on not having reasonable discussion of her blocking strategy. This has been (from my part) a civil discourse, so how exactly is it that refreshing a section causes a problem? - 152.91.9.144 23:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply is on my talk. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to "List of queercore bands"

Your recent edit to List of queercore bands (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 23:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Silly bot, kicks are for trids... Oh mighty silicon being, why did you revert my un-blanking of the page and not the vandalism I reverted? - 152.91.9.144 23:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Ben Eager

Loved the edit comment! DH85868993 07:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, at least I can laugh at my own pathetic humour that way, while removing someone else's.
152.91.9.144 07:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Sherwin

I removed the speedy deletion tag you added because there it was tagged with the rationale "Per decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Vayne" which is not a valid Speedy deletion criteria. This has to go through AfD unless a valid Speedy rationale is asserted.--Isotope23 14:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • OK I see what you did. You could request an admin to look at it but my guess is that they wouldn't execute a delete on it because it wasn't explicitly stated it was a mass nomination. You could try a PROD, but it appears there is a dedicated group of people watching the article, so your best bet is an AfD with a solid explanation of how Sherwin doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria.
'88 eh? That is back when they were worth seeing. Was that the Hairway to Steven tour? I've seen them 3 times, but the earliest time was '91 or '92...--Isotope23 00:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The dozens

I just removed a warning I placed in errror. Sorry, it's been a vandal-happy night and your edit added "your mom" to an article (appropriately, who knew?) Please accept my apologies -- I did not re-revert, as there was a subsequent edit. Dina 02:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries. By the time I looked here, the warning had already gone. ^_^
152.91.9.144 02:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good job on getting rid of that list. I used to clean it up from time to time but gave up when more and more and more and more just kept getting added. Yay unto the Chicken 03:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Closing XfDs

Ah thanks for letting me know! Will do. Gzkn 06:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Quick question: what should I write there? "The result was speedy delete by Eagle 101"? Is there some usual format of doing so? Gzkn 06:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Gzkn 07:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Mackensen (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Double thanks.  :) - Lucky 6.9 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Group-Office

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group-Office (second nomination)

I'm stunned by this close. We often here how it is "not a vote" but in this case there were several clear arguments for lack of notability and all the arguments for notability were strongly repudiated. What happened to "it's about the arguments, not the nose-count?" and all of that?
152.91.9.144 07:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That reads on the second pass as way more strident than I intended. Can I re-do that as "Hi, this close seems to have been done more on numbers than arguments, can you re-examine it?" I think I'm wearing my cranky pants today, sorry. - 152.91.9.144 07:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I can assure you I don't close debates by the numbers (like here, or maybe here). The main thing I notice is that there really wasn't much argument raised at all in that AfD, it was mainly a bunch of people talking about verifiability or notability ("it is notable!" "no, I haven't heard about it, it can't be notable!") without actually referencing any real material (except for you). The closer can't draw out arguments where there aren't any, if you know what I mean.
I'd suggest you either wait until this is sorted out and renominate it then, or just renominate it now but focus on showing how the existing sources given (from the looks of things they were brought in during the DRV) don't shape up, for example:
  1. that this isn't a source, it's just a list of links to and quotes from other material put out that week;
  2. how this may not be reliable because it's user-submitted and there's no evidence of fact-checking, peer review etc;
  3. how the only other sources are by the makers of the software themselves, or are primary sources (the SourceForge links) used to support OR.
If you have any problems doing this because you're an anon, you can contact me again and I can give you a hand. --bainer (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erroneous warning

Thank you for experimenting with the page List of queercore bands on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- lucasbfr talk 03:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

hehe. Ok I got a starting headache right now. I might have done something wrong... But I can't see which edit I reverted. So I'll assume there was a mistake somewhere (even if I clearly remember your talk page and wonder what the hell it was). Sorry about the edit I reverted (or not) and about the warning I am removing right now (since there is no associated revert). I think I have misclicked on your name while reverting someone else's edit (the poor soul will miss his warning). Vandalism was crazy a few minutes ago. Sorry again :) -- lucasbfr talk 03:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok I re read myself and I defenitely am going to bed :D... My english is worse than ever... -- lucasbfr talk 03:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
hehe. I see you even provided an edit summary. So I definitely think I reverted someone else's edit and warned you for that. Don't even dare not vandalizing Wikipedia again! Happy editing ;). Just out of curiosity, I see you edit a lot. Why don't you get a username? -- lucasbfr talk 03:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Username

Hehe that's so true. Myself, I often double check IP edits when I go very fast on (or even hide) logged user. The problem of not being logged in is that to my experience, more than 90% of vandalism is done by IPs. So for a "borderline edit" or when there is a lot of vandalism, you can get caught in cross fire (even if tonight that wouldn't have changed anything to be frank. I still don't get how I misclicked :D). Well, happy editing! -- lucasbfr talk 03:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/5/2/User_talk%7E152.91.9.144.html"