User:Aido2002/Archives1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is an archive page. To start a new discussion topic, please click here.

Contents

[edit] Image:Ipodcolorpic.jpg

Why upload Image:IPodColorPic.jpg as fair use when we already have a perfectly good free picture of the iPod? Edward 22:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WABC-TV logo

I removed your entry of a logo for WABC-TV since there is already one on the upper right hand corner of the article. I also see that you placed it in a questionable spot in the article. Please check for these things if you want to contribute in this manner. ErikNY 21:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Aido2002/Archives1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I request that IP Adress 167.206.185.194 is unblocked. It's a school. I am not the one blocked, but I attend the blocked school, and are representing it to request its unblock. There are people who will do this, but, for the most part, we should not be blocked.

Well why should the other editors of wikipedia bear the burden of putting up with and cleaning up after the vandalism? If you want to help, then help prevent the vandalism in the first place, talk to the system admin for the computers in the school and see if they are willing to work out who is responsible for the vandalism and deal with them. No vandalism = no blocks. --pgk(talk) 16:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
New messages usually go at the bottom of a talk page. You don't answer my question, which is worse blocking a few editors or making the 1000's of other editors suffer from the actions of the others who vandalise? You also don't answer if you are willing to help yourself by seeing the system admin is willing to deal with those doing the vandalism. --pgk(talk) 21:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah so me the unpaid volunteer admin (like all the other admins) should put up with the vandalism. Great. What can the network admin do? He can look at the logs of the network access, look at the times of the vandalism, put the two together and you know who is responsible. How your school then deals with idiots is up to them. To answer your other question, no the software doesn't have a facility to do that, there is a long standing request for the feature, but no ETA as to when/how it might be implemented. --pgk(talk) 22:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:UBX is a good intro to userboxes. It has a pretty comprehensive list of userboxes and ways of presenting them on your page.--Aleron235 22:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I cannot accept your offer, I don't represent all admins and I can't instruct them to behave a certain way. We can't leave pages vandalised waiting for someone to come along at some point to revert it, that doesn't work. If I unblock then more vandalism and it'll get blocked again, the only way to ensure you get uninteruppted editting from school is to stop the vandalism occurring in the first place. --pgk(talk) 06:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not annoyed with you and didn't see it as an argument, believe it or not I am actually trying to help. More vandalism occurs and the IP will get blocked again, the only way to prevent the disruption of that cycle is to get the vandalism stopped. Despite what you seem to think admins roles are on wikipedia it's not to spend all their time removing vandalism. Part of the role is to protect the integrity of the project, any vandalism no matter how briefly visible damages that integrity (e.g. it could be the first thing a new visitor sees). So ideally we'd prevent it occuring in the first place. Trouble is that admins only have a very blunt tool to stop it happening, blocking those who do it. For shared IPs it is far preferable to get those who "own" the address to deal with it further upstream. --pgk(talk) 20:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AT&T Split

Thank you for reminding me about the talk page...I believe I know how to get that moved, using a little cut/paste. Also, the reason I changed Pre-2005 AT&T to AT&T Corporation is because it seems more professional looking, not that Pre-2005 AT&T is bad. However, I am suggesting possibly that the AT&T issue should be dealt with in the manner that the CBS Corporation/Viacom split was dealt with: change Pre-2005 AT&T to AT&T (1885-2005) and change AT&T Inc. to AT&T (2005-present). KansasCity 22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got the solution. Just like the current CBS Corporation, the article regarding the current AT&T will be titled "AT&T"; the article regarding AT&T pre-merger will be titled "AT&T (1885-2005), a la pre-split Viacom (1971-2005). Just as in the case of CBS Corp. and Viacom, a disclaimer will be placed at the top of the AT&T page directing users whom want to see information regarding the original AT&T to the AT&T (1885-2005) page. KansasCity 22:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New SBC article

I'm sorry about cutting and pasting, but it is impossible to move an article to a page when it already exists. "SBC Communications" already existed, and I couldn't move the material from "SBC (1984-2005)" to SBC Communications without copying/pasting.

I'll seek higher authority regarding the title of the SBC page. I just don't see the need for (1984-2005). KansasCity 20:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Please Assist...

The matter has been dealt with, by a different administrator. — FireFox usertalk 20:30, 05 June '06

[edit] RFA

If you remove a vote from your RFA again you will be blocked. You have no right to remove anybodies votes. Spaming Rfas is frowned upon by many editors and if you had read the guide to RFAs you would know that. --pgk(talk) 20:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As warned above, you have been blocked for tampering with votes at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aido2002. I would recommend withdrawing the RFA and re-applying in a few months. — Jun. 5, '06 [21:02] <freak|talk>

[edit] Your RfA

Hi Aido. I am dropping you a note to inform you that I have closed your request for adminship early. At the time of closure the vote was (1/12/0) - although the support vote would not have counted under closer circumstances. My reason for doing this was that the request was beginning to resemble something of a pile-on - which would only have worsened given your low edit count, your removal of votes, and current block. Given your actions this time round, you may find it difficult to be promoted in the future. However, you may be able to succeed in a request if you work hard, and within the rules, over the next few months. Good luck, and I hope to see you around. Rje 14:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The page history reveals that you removed the comment made by Pgk several times, which is why you were blocked (although it could perhaps have been explained more clearly to you). Irrespective of your opinions on another user's comments, it is very bad form to remove their comments - even anonymous votes on RfA can only be striked-out. As for Pgk's blocks: these all seem to be in order - the usernames he blocked are all either linked to known vandals, personal attacks, or are gobbledegook. I also very much doubt that Pgk and Freakofnature are sockpuppets of each other, although I cannot prove that (Freakofnature's user page is fine by the way, anothing goes really as long as doesn't offend anyone). Obviously these are only my opinions, if you wish to pursue the matter the place to do so is at WP:RFC/ADMIN; it is far better in my opinion to be open about questioning the actions of another user, as opposed to asking individuals to look into them. I hope all of this is of some use to you, see you around. Rje 21:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/i/d/User%7EAido2002_Archives1_de49.html"