User talk:Guanaco/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Deleting Image:Gaussian-pdf.png

I put Image:Gaussian-pdf.png up for WP:IFD since I obsoleted it with Image:Normal distribtion pdf.png. Cburnett 03:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Archive page move

Thanks--you caught the mis-spelling before I did--must have been within seconds. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Guanabot

Hi, your bot was vandalazing contents of the aspartame table, changing [NH3+][C@@H](CC([O-])=O)C(N[C@@H](CC1=CC=CC=C1)C(OC)=O)=O into [NH3+][C@@H](CC([O-])=O)C(N[C@@H](CC1=CC=CC=C1)C(OC)="O)="O. Cacycle 23:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look at the code before running it again. Guanaco 23:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I disabled the code that inserts quotes, since it really isn't necessary. That fixed the problem. Guanaco 23:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Guanabot on nn:

Guanabot created a bit of havoc on the page nn:Eple -- please review its user discussion page on Nynorsk Wikipedia (esp. concerning the skanwiki section, which Guanabot emptied) and after-edits on the article nn:Eple before continuing any work on nn:. Also, please provide a link from Guanabot on nn: to a user page (like, e.g., this one) where you can be reached if other problems arise. Thanks :-) -- Olve 03:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks, Guanaco, for your confidence in me. Your support vote on my adminship nomination is appreciated. — mark ✎ 22:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia

Evening. I noticed from User:Mike Garcia's userpage that you were one of two users to whom he was entrusted as attempts were made to rehabilitate him into the community following his ban. As this is so, and as he constitutes an exception to normal procedure I thought I should alert you first that in the past week the AMA has received two requests for assistance regarding him: the first regarding the Ned's Atomic Dustbin page, and the second regarding the a pair of System of a Down albums. I referred the user to you regarding the former case, with the hope that you might be able to intervene and settle the matter such that dispute resolution was not necessary. I will do the same for the latter; however, if another request for assistance comes in I'll have to ask for an injunction from the ArbCom. Please get back to me as soon as possible on this matter. Wally 23:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Garcia appears to be making trouble yet again, this time on the page for Mezmerize, where he is presently on a temporary ban for violating the three-revert rule in an edit war with an anonymous user over chart positions of that album (the anonymous user is also on a temporary ban for violating the 3RR rule as well). Garcia's position appears to be that the only valid source for chart info is allmusic.com, where you need to be a member to see that information (so nobody else can check its validity). The other user was posting information taken directly from billboard.com (where current charts, or at least the top portions thereof, can be viewed without being a subscriber). I know of no Wikipedia rule that says that allmusic.com is the only official source, but Garcia is acting like such a rule exists, and carrying on in a highly obnoxious and arrogant manner against all who take opposing views. I have to say that the experiment of rehabilitating Mr. Garcia seems to have failed, and a lifetime ban may be in order. *Dan* 15:19, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Fictional Character edit

Just reverted your edit to Fictional Character & wanted to explain why. Any person in a fictional work acts as a fictional character, even if they are a real person (see the talk page for a previous discussion of this). I also reverted "any person in one or more works of fiction" to "any person in a work of fiction" since they mean the same thing and the second is more crisp. As a general rule, I try to avoid putting too many technicalities into the openings of articles as they can lead to sentences growing out of control (imagine: A fictional character any person, animal, robot, or other conscious entity existing in a play, story, poem, movie or other work of fiction...). Anyway, I forgot to put this in the edit summary and wanted to explain! Tom

User:Michael/Dispute

I'm cleaning out Wikipedia:Cleanup/Leftovers, and I noticed a few articles that transclude this page. I'm changing it to make the nature of the factual dispute clearer, as I understand it. If you can shed any light on these three pages or know if they can be declared resolved, any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! -- Beland 20:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Red link recovery project

Howdy, Topbanana here, back after an extended absence. I've decided to round up a few of my more useful reports into a project with the goal of converting as many "red links" (links to non-existant articles) into "blue links" (links to real articles). As you've been active in fixing similar things in the past, I thought I'd let you know in case you're interested in joining up. If not, I won't be offended - we've all got lots todo here :) - TB 11:37, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Monty Hall images

Hi - About a year ago (!) you did some stuff with the first image in the Monty Hall problem article. I nominated the article for FAC status and along the way swapped out an image used later in the article for two images based on the one you tweaked. Can I talk you into looking at the two new images and tweaking them in similar fashion? In particular, I couldn't figure out how to preserve the transparency with the image editor I was using (and one of them should probably be cropped a bit as well). The article made it to featured status without this, but I'd appreciate it if you could do this. Thanks -- Rick Block (talk) July 8, 2005 04:19 (UTC)

Expanding and improving the Pokémon articles

I saw your name on the WikiProject Pokédex rollcall. The Pokémon Adoption Center is improving, expanding, cleaning up, and reorganizing the Pokémon-related articles, and I wanted to invite you back to help. Some of the Pokémon species stubs still need to be adopted, and we're still building consensus on how to structure tools like categories and lists, designing new infoboxes, and writing a new Pokémon article style guide. If you're interested, take a look at our new Wikiportal, and come and contribute to the discussion at WP:PAC. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 23:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Guanabot

Welcome back. If you need any assistance bringing your bot into active status, please let me know. If your bot is inactive, please move your bot into the correct section at Wikipedia:Bots. Thanks! --AllyUnion (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Be bold!

I, V. Molotov, hereby give you this barnstar for being bold!

Image:Barnstar.png

Take care, Molotov (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Guanaco 23:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

TLAs

A proposal has been made at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move TLAs from AAA to DZZ and other related pages to Wikipedia namespace. Please visit Talk:TLAs from AAA to DZZ for the related discussion. -- Francs2000 | http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new Talk 00:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Science pearls

Hi,

Please notice the above project. As a wikipedian interested in physics, you might be especially interested in List of publications in physics

I’ll appreciate any help. Thank, APH 09:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia RfAr

I'm not entirely happy with the way Mike Garcia has been acting lately, and I'm afraid your mentorship hasn't been sufficient to stop the less than pleasant parts of his behaviour. I've requested arbitration on him here, your views on the matter would be welcomed. --fvw* 01:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Executed murderers

Your bot just put Thomas Bushell in Category:Executed murderers, but he was not a murderer. It was no big deal to fix, but I thought I'd give you this feedback so you can improve it if you want to. Snottygobble | Talk 04:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Oops, that was a mistake on my part and not a flaw in the bot. Thanks for pointing it out. Guanaco 04:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality Article

I just wanted to tell you that it may be polite/nice/adviseable to outline your changes in the discussion pages. It's not immediately obvious that you've moved article information to new articles and some people may interpret your mass removal of information to be threatening. Especially the guys I'm currently debating with in the talk section. I don't disagree with the edits you've made, but fill everyone else in on the method to the madness. Thanks. --Waterspyder 22:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing Islam template

Prompt attention beyond the call of duty! Huzzah for you!! Zora 01:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I just happened to notice the extra /span tag at the top of Sharia in passing. Thanks. :) Guanaco 01:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Kerry Template

This template is a bit large, so can you it smaller. First try to make it span the whole page legnth so it doesn't seem so intrusive. Other than that, I like it, Wikipedia is losing credibility to vandal crap, so its about time we stiffen up a little. I already follow a two stikes vandal rule. You might be interested in the George Bush talk page; we are deciding what to do about it incessent vandalism. Thank you.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I've increased the template width to 95%. Feel free to make any changes you deem appropriate. Guanaco 00:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Admin nomination

Unfortunately your nomination for adminship was not successful. Wikipedia uses UTC, so it has now expired. I hope that you will consider standing again in future and will continue your excellent contributions to Wikipedia. Warofdreams talk 01:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the original ending date was incorrect. Snowspinner set the nomination to end only 6 days after he had created the page. I was using the time I signed the nomination plus 7 days. Guanaco 01:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, your nomination has now expired. The instructions for nominees request that you alter the expiration date to seven days after you have accepted the nomination, and I was assuming that you had followed these. Warofdreams talk 23:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    I had assumed Snowspinner had as well, but he must have miscounted. Guanaco 03:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

WoW picture

I have a few reasons why I removed the WoW image from the WoW pages, some of which I believe that other people would tend to agree with:

  1. It increases server load...especially in the case of the WoW template where probably over a hundred user pages reference the template.
  2. It doesn't necessarily add anything useful to the pages.
  3. It acts as a sort of "trophy" for WoW...we don't want to encourage this action, we want to document and categorize it.

I feel these reasons stand well enough...what do you think? Adam Rock 18:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with some of these points, but if we waste time arguing about this, Willy on Wheels has won. I'm not going to bother adding the image again. Guanaco 21:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured article for December 25th

I noticed you have listed yourself in Category:Atheist Wikipedians. That said, you will probably be interested in my suggested featured article for December 25th: Omnipotence paradox. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 08:16

Thanks!

:) Exploding Boy 17:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't eat shellfish.

I have tried to eat shellfish when I was a kid, but that was enough to put me off them for life. I do enjoy battered squid rings however. - (Aidan Work 02:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC))

Shame on you!

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

—Leviticus 11:10-11
Your squid rings are every bit as abominable as the "sin" of homosexuality. Guanaco 03:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No way, homosexuality is far more abominable than eating battered squid rings.The Book of Leviticus says,'Man shalt not lieth with mankind as with womankind,for that is an abomination.Whoever does so shall be put to death'. - (Aidan Work 04:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC))

"As with womankind"? That generally means vaginal sex, and generally a man does not possess a vagina. Guanaco 22:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

ref_label

My change forces jumping to old revisions? Only if you're viewing the old revision. If you're viewing the current revision, it should jump to the current version. The current revision ID of this Talk page is 64460165. (SEWilco 15:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC))

The ID of the first revision was 30019872. (SEWilco 15:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC))

Your change sometimes caused it to jump to old revisions from the current version of Westboro Baptist Church. I'm going to test it some more in my sandbox and try to find the cause of the problem. Your change should work properly. Guanaco 15:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe there is a caching issue, or the browser sees a difference between the URLs without oldid=CURRENTID and a URL with no "oldid=" (so maybe you're seeing the same version under two names?). (SEWilco 03:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC))
It doesn't matter now. I fixed it to use a wikilink, and there is a new {{{AUTOINCREMENT}}} extension that will soon work on Template:Ref so the link styles will match. Guanaco 03:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Duh. ref_label doesn't require {{ref}}'s external-link-numbering trick, so indeed ref_label does not need external link formatting. I think it inherited it as a copy of ref. I'll make a new version for the ns= and page= abilities. (SEWilco 05:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC))
I wonder if there were situations, such as a 'diff' flavor, where there were two "oldid=" parameters present due to interaction between generated and inserted URLs. Maybe that was causing the elusive effect which you noticed. (SEWilco 05:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC))
I was reading the current revision without the oldid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church). It took me to a truly old revision. Guanaco 16:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Where is AUTOINCREMENT described? I've suggested a method which is related to concepts suggested by such a name. (SEWilco 05:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC))
I don't believe it is described anywhere, but it is fairly straightforward. I asked for it on IRC, and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason quickly created the extension and updated CVS with it. It will be available the next time someone synchronizes Wikimedia's software. Guanaco 16:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Anything like what I mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%C3%86var_Arnfj%C3%B6r%C3%B0_Bjarmason#MediaWiki_Footnotes_support (SEWilco 04:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC))
It's exactly like that. —Guanaco 04:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


Why purple??

Template talk:Islam-stub AnonMoos 17:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

My failed RFA :)

Dear Guanaco,

I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. Even though it failed with a with the final tally of 55/22/6, I want to thank you anyways. I don't want to be one a admin anymore until I reach 10,000 edits now that it's over with. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 02:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Image:Bush_approval_ratings_line_graph.png

Image updated and upgraded. --tomf688{talk} 05:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Image:Natalee_Holloway_yearbook_photo.jpg

The photo was released by the Twitty family for purposes of publicity. The previously-used license template may have misstated the realm of public domain (See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/August 2005#Template:PD-awio) but I believe this would still be covered, as with other publicity photos, by the doctrine of fair use. --Dystopos 17:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I've changed the tag to {{publicity}}. —Guanaco 18:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Guanaco/archive3! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Enlarge
MERRY CHRISTMAS, Guanaco/archive3! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

those editors

Hi, I just noticed that both of the entries being debated were placed there by you. Perhaps I should have discussed things with you before taking action, but the realization came late. I hope you will not mind too much the comments I made regarding singling out such editors. I think we can all carry on our work as well, if not better, without roiling the waters needlessly. Have a great New Years'! Haiduc 15:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

McPaper

The redirect that you created from McPaper is listed under redirects for deletion. Please vote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#December_29 here--Akako|☎ 20:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:User rc

Why do you want it changed? You don't even use it. Please discuss it on the talk page or bring it up for deletion if you have a problem with it. It's the older of the two and more people use it. --Elliskev 02:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

About Guanabot in :es

Hola Guanaco:

Felices fiestas de final de año. Le envío este mensaje debido a que el bot Guanabot, ha hecho tres contribuciones insatisfactorias en la Wikipedia en español (es.wikipedia), teniendo un pequeño bug en su ejecución, colocando un especio en blanco en los paréntesis (), generando una enlace como sigue:

es.wikipedia.org Wikipedia en español

(español)

Además notamos que no poseía un flag autorizado en nuestra wikipedia.

Esperamos su pronta respuesta. Saludos

Superzerocool 05:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (sysop en es.)

Sorry, for the language, but I don't write in English.
Thanks for the note. The issue seems minor (three bad edits out of hundreds of null edits), but I'll see if I can find the problem. Also, the bot shouldn't have a flag at this time because it only makes null edits. —Guanaco 16:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I understand, well if you came to es.wiki, you have a nice welcome. Bye Superzerocool 04:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Change to userpage

➨ ❝REDVERS❞ awards this Working Person's Barnstar to Guanaco for correcting links to duplicate images to refine our service and improve Wikipedia for everybody.
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ awards this Working Person's Barnstar to Guanaco for correcting links to duplicate images to refine our service and improve Wikipedia for everybody.

Hi Guanaco! Thanks for changing my userpage to alter an image from one format to another (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Redvers&curid=1253507&diff=33278557&oldid=32774335 this diff). You didn't say why in your edit summary, or mention it on my talk page. Either would have been common courtesy. I'm not offended at all, but I'd be interested in the reasoning for the change. Would you let me know? Thanks! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! And thanks for the hard work in improving things for everyone! People like you are unsung heroes on Wikipedia. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I feel more like a well-sung anti-hero, but thanks anyway! —Guanaco 21:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Guanabot

Hi, I noticed your Guanabot changed the flag image on User:Hyacinth's page from PNG to SVG. I don't think it's appropriate for a bot to make edits like this to user pages, even if this is a relatively neutral change.

Also I think that the technical motivation behind these changes is questionable. PNG is an older and better-supported format than SVG, and the flag image has no curves that would render better when scaled in SVG. I say keep PNG for this image. NTK 01:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed the above dialogue and also your intention to eliminate the PNG version of this image and potentially other PNG images. I would like to reiterate my concern. From the SVG page: "The use of SVG on the web is in its infancy. There is a great deal of inertia from the long-time use of completely raster formats and Macromedia Flash, but also browser support is patchy, with users of most browsers having to install a plugin." While PNG is newer than GIF, basic PNG support has been around for a long time, and as the PNG article says, only users of very old browsers cannot view them. I think replacing PNG with SVG, especially where there is little technical advantage, is ill-advised and premature when the result is that a large proportion of users will get broken images. Is this something you are doing unilaterally or has there been discussion about this somewhere? NTK 01:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The relevant discussions are on Commons. The MediaWiki software renders any SVG files as PNGs of the correct size, so there is no compatibility issue here. Why is it not appropriate for a bot to edit user pages? —Guanaco 04:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Didn't realize this bit of MW cleverness. In that case there is no reason not to replace with SVG. However I do think if you are going to have a bot edit a user page even for a mechanical reason like this, the appropriate thing would be to have the bot also leave an explanation on the the user_talk page or at least put a link to such an explanation in the summary more than "png->svg". Anyway, kudos on the maintenance. NTK 03:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to use more detailed edit summaries in the future. —Guanaco 03:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Your bot is incompatible with our project. (de.wikibooks.org) It is unable to detect that some links to other languages are already present by inclusion of templates. As long as this bot is not able to detect this, and we have to revert changes of the Bot, your bot is not welcome. b:de:Benutzer:ThePacker
I'll comment de.wikibooks out of the list of projects to edit. —Guanaco 01:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

LGBT interest userbox

Hi! After participating in some discussion about userboxes, I've decided to create a userbox specifically for people who are interested in LGBT issues. I like this userbox a lot because it doesn't force people to take a stand on LGBT-related political issues or declare a particular identity, but just expresses a common interest in editing LGBT-related articles on Wikipedia. I saw your name on the list of people who are interested in this kind of thing at the LGBT notice board, and saw when I visited your userpage that you are pretty comfortable with userboxes, so I thought I'd let you know about this one in case you want to list it on your user page. I am hoping that people will see it, click the link to the notice board, and become more involved in editing LGBT-related articles on Wikipedia. The userbox is at Template:User LGBT interest. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 06:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church

Thanks for the Sp-sprotected template!

Much improvement over that ugly huge box that used to be on the GW Bush article. Thanks for being bold and just implementing it. Shanes 04:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Bot request

Hello, I was wondering where do I put requests for your bot to do stuff at? Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 08:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This page will work, or you can use Wikipedia:Bot requests for open requests. —Guanaco 15:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, because I saw your bot in action replacing the various Canadian flag images with the SVG Image. I really like to do that myself, but until I figure out how I can get it to work, I am trying to find bots that are doing similar work. I will find all of the images that need to replaced first before I file my request. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 18:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Committee

Hello! I'm Redwolf24 and I'll be the first to welcome you to the medcom :)

I have to rearrange some of the cases now cause of the overflow, but when I'm done you can pick from the available cases. Or I can assign you one, as I normally do to the first available mediator.

Add yourself to the mailing list at WP:ML and Improv or I or Anthere will confirm you.

Redwolf24 (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Guanaco. Thanks for your even-handed and sensible moderation at the NAMBLA page. It's very much appreciated. Cheers Natgoo 23:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress

You're welcome. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Why did you change the infobox pope layout to one that has a consensus behind it to one that has none? I've reverted. The page is the way it is because there is an overwhelming consensus to have that information, in that order and structure. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus, but discussing this isn't worth the trouble. Anything Catholic-related on Wikipedia is too heavily guarded for my tastes. —Guanaco 02:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Bot edits

Hello, I was wondering if 68.102.184.79 is actually your bot not signed in. The edits appear very similar. If sometimes editing while signed out is a bug that you can't figure out how to fix (I've seen this happen), perhaps you should add your name to the edit summary. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 04:41, Jan. 23, 2006

That is my bot. I'll see if I can find the problem. —Guanaco 04:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

template Infobox President

Hi. I have reverted your edit on template:Infobox President. There is no buggy html on the html produced by MediaWiki because we use HTML Tidy which strips illeagal attributes like classXXX from the html (please have a look at the actually produced html source). Actually it is much better to have only "hiddenStructure" instead of random class names like "hiddenStructureThe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" (or whatever). Please also have a look on the doc at User:Adrian Buehlmann/work/Conditional expressions with CSS. Thank you for your careful consideration. There is also a discussion of that CSS hack at MediaWiki talk:Common.css and WP:AUM (warning: long stuff). --Adrian Buehlmann 09:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

the B in the LGBT community

Hello. We are wondering why you removed three Bisexual organizations from the Category "LGBT organizations"?

While we are aware that the inclusion of bisexual people in the queer community is a delicate (& to some controversial subject) we are not sure why their should be a problem with including them in their own community. However, the same three organizations were also removed from the Category "Bisexual community".

We are actually trying to build that Category up into a robust and useful one. We know we are new to Wikipedia, but we are truly confused about this. Are we violating a rule we are not aware of here?

Thank you CyntWorkStuff 20:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The articles were moved into Category:Bisexual organizations. This is a subcategory of both Category:LGBT organizations and Category:Bisexual community, so keeping all three categories would be redundant. —Guanaco 21:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh thank you we did not know that -- so how do we add some more subcategories?CyntWorkStuff
Edit the subcategory page and include a link to the category ([[Category:Bisexual community]] for example). —Guanaco 21:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Please Take This Case

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation&action=purge#phpBB_entry_dispute —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.30.121.23 (talk • contribs).

Stevertigo will take it. —Guanaco 19:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

False statement on User page

Hey, you just removed my last line of defense against ceaseless, silly arguments on Wikipedia! -- Simonides 04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on the RFR poll

Hi, Guanaco, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.

Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Trolling poll

You reverted my edit to Wikipedia:Blocking policy with the following summary: "rv - The trolling poll doesn't reflect current opinions". Two queries. First of all, could you explain why you feel that this does not reflect current consensus? Secondly, what do you think does? Has it been superceded by a second poll? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The number of active Wikipedia users has been increasing rapidly. As of February 2006, the active user base is several times larger than it was in August 2004. Many of the voters in the old poll have left, and numerous others have joined Wikipedia. Over the past 18 months or so, users have become more supportive of legalistic process and a "tough on crime" attitude in dealing with "trolls", "vandals" and similar users.
I don't know of a new poll that has superceded it. —Guanaco 04:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lock-icon.png

Alright.. this is long and sordid, and generally involves Cantus (talk • contribs) being weird. Some time ago he uploaded Image:Lock-icon.jpg under the GFDL. It got deleted when it was moved to commons (see the deletion entries http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Image%3ALock-icon.jpg here). It seems it was commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Image%3ALock-icon.jpg deleted from commons as a copyright violation (Cantus, a short while ago, was going around claiming it wasn't a GFDL image (see Template talk:Protected#Change_icon). He's never offered up any explanation for this. Please don't encourage his activities by helping him along... I have reverted your edit to Image:Lock-icon.png, and also reverted Image:Lock-icon.jpg. He can't upload something as GFDL and then change his mind (unless he's saying he lied originally, and in that case, I think a block is in order for deceiving us in the first place). </rant> —Locke Cole • t • c 06:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I was the first person to suspect that this was a copyright violation about a year ago. Cantus first claimed that it was a photograph that he created, but it didn't look photorealistic, so I questioned his claim. Without explanation, he changed the image page to describe it as a drawing. Unable to offer any proof at that point, I dropped the issue.
It now seems that Cantus is implicitly admitting that he was not telling the truth in the first place. I have had several bad experiences with Cantus in the past, including the arbitration case Cantus vs. Guanaco. He is evasive at best and openly hostile at worst. However, a block would be merely punitive, especially considering the amount of time that has passed. —Guanaco 06:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You might want to consider openclipart.org/clipart//signs_and_symbols/padlock_aj_ashton_01.svg as a free alternative. It's SVG, too, so it will scale to any size. If you'd like I can easily make a version with a red X superimposed. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I've uploaded it as Image:Padlock.svg. —Guanaco 06:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'd just gotten used to this icon image (it's used everywhere, even in some MediaWiki messages!). =) Bleh.. that's a nice image though, a lot nicer than some other free images I've seen. Go ahead and upload it and make the switch if you like (from the sounds of Guanaco's response, the image really is a copyvio from the sounds of it so we'll need to switch anyways). It's just annoying that he lied about it for what.. almost two years? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
True about the block. I'm just hoping he's not uploading other copyvio images as GFDL... and I'll go revert myself on those images now as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Coroner

Thanks for the hard work on being a recent changes patroller. I guess http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coroner&diff=38718652&oldid=38718613 my edits to the article were mistaken as vandalism. I was merely changing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28China-related_articles%29#Characters Chinese characters to Unicode. 199.111.230.195 04:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from making these edits. That Manual of Style link states that the characters should be directly encoded in Unicode (e.g. "死因裁判官"). —Guanaco 04:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia:Unicode for more information. —Guanaco 04:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I regret to say that I do not see any reason for me to stop doing so. No offense but I don't see you very familiar with the matter. It's not a very good way to give examples when you merely copied and pasted Chinese characters. Although the codes look ugly they do look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedians/China#Converting_CJK_text_to_HTML_Unicode that way. In fact from that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28China-related_articles%29#Characters page I gave you, if you click "edit", you shall see some of those weird-looking codes. They will still turn to nice and fine Chinese characters once you click "Save page".
Here's another example: what you gave me, "死因裁判官", is not Unicode but "死因裁判官" is. See the difference? This is what the Manual of Style means by "characters should be directly encoded in Unicode". Perhaps you should see Wikipedia:Unicode for more information - it provides information that supports exactly what I did.
I'm trying to say in the nicest tone I can that please make sure what's going on before you revert people's edits, especially when there are Edit summaries. =) 199.111.230.195 05:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
"死因裁判官" is Unicode. "死因裁判官" are numerical HTML entities. "For older browsers, MediaWiki, the Wikipedia software, serves the wikitext in a safe mode upon editing. Unicode characters are represented in hexadecimal, looking like &#1234;" Wikipedia can handle Unicode characters. Converting them to HTML entities will just make editing more difficult for users who understand these CJK characters. —Guanaco 21:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles) uses Unicode characters directly in the wikicode. —Guanaco 21:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Must have been a terrible misunderstanding... I know nothing about encodings and have been following blindly the guidelines given. Don't worry I understand perfectly now. And I shall start the long journey reverting those &#12345's back to Chinese. You have a nice day =) 199.111.230.195 00:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Rainbow_Monkey.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Rainbow_Monkey.png. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo 18:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

You have returned from the green room. By now I guess you know what to do, and what not. ;-) -- Cecropia 05:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, welcome back, and all the best. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

CONGRATS!

As your nominator, let me be the first to say congrats on your adminship! Now, go get some champagne! Essjay Talk • Contact 05:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well. Had I noticed your nomination, I would certainly have supported you. I applaud your perseverance and dedication. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations! I'm glad that you're an administrator again! --Ixfd64 06:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive type of vandalism

I wonder if you have any insight on how technically to deal with something. I think semi-protection should be used massively more than it is; but that's probably not going to happen. Anyway, I mentioned this certain vandal that I seem to have attracted to my talk page via maintaining the Ward Churchill page. The thing that was most troublesome about the vandalism is that this person (under ever changing usernames, but often related names along the lines of "fighterforfreedom") would blank the page and replace it with, e.g. 14,000 copies of a picture of Bush.

The result, unfortunately, of this change is that I can never seem to load the diff to see specifically what the change is, presumably because the WP server times out before sending all that graphic data. Some other editors rolled back the vandalism of this type to my user page or user talk page, but I don't know if they had actually seen the diff, or just assumed the worst. The thing is that I can view the diff: "Vandal->Reversion" (because the page itself, below the diff, is reasonable); I just can't view the diff: "Good->Vandal".

I just found an example of the same thing on the Churchill page. A user, "Mr.trezon" (but it'll be a different name next time), made this change, with the edit history comment like "minor spelling fix" or something innocuous seeming. I simply could not load the diff to see if it really was a proper change or if it was vandalism. As it happened, the same username had made a comment on the talk page that made me fairly sure (overtly claiming to praise Churchill, but obviously meant sarcastically). So I rolled back to the last version, but with less than perfect confidence I was reverting an actual vandal. Once I made the reversion, I could look at the prior diff, which proved my guess correct. But I don't like reverting blindly.

Any thoughts? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If you go to the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters&action=edit directly, you can view the contents of the vandalized version without reverting or loading any images. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters&oldid=38964802&action=edit is 530 KB long, proving that it is vandalism intended to make your userpage difficult to load. —Guanaco 19:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice... this helps greatly. Looking at it per your suggestion, I realized it was much more than just 500 copies, it was more like 14,000 copies in the latest Ward Churchill vandalism. So the load problem isn't trying to load the images per se, but simply loading that much text. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Any user whose name closely resembles "Mr. Treason" should be blocked on sight, and all the user's edits should be reverted. Mr. Treason is banned. —Guanaco 19:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Bush

What, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&curid=3414021&diff=39235363&oldid=39235297 you don't think that he's the hottest man alive? ;D – ClockworkSoul 19:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

He's close to it, but ugh, no. —Guanaco 19:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Digital Signage

Thanks for your help reverting adspam in the External Links section of the article Digital Signage. It's nice to know that I am not alone when dealing with this anonymous IP (who has some snappy things to say, mind you) Kareeser|Talk! 21:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I was really losing faith in both the dispute resolution process and wikipedia as a whole. I feel like hopefully I can put this behind me and go back to making actual contributions. Thanks again. McNeight 22:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:test et al

Hi Guanaco, I noticed you changed Template:test et al to use {{qif}}. This was discussed recently on Template talk:test and there were good arguments against it based on new users seeing "qif" on their talk page. Did you see that discussion? —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-11 23:37Z

No, I didn't. I found this problem on my own, and I have been trying to find a solution, with no success. I will revert my changes for now. —Guanaco 23:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Guanaco. We had the {{qif}} discussion when I changed {{test1}} and it was decided, for the time being, that {{qif}} is confusing to newcomers and should be avoided Template talk:Test#New Text combining test and test-n Thanks. -- Avi 00:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

sorry

For some reason everything but the sections I was editing were deleted when I saved. (gay) 24.224.153.40 18:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the servers' fault. Hopefully the problem will be fixed soon so it doesn't happen again. —Guanaco 18:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Blanking User Talk

Why did you blank User talk:64.66.99.69? tv316 21:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The IP address is shared by thousands of students and teachers throughout Wichita, Kansas. Each message on that page is only relevant to one of those people. Keeping them is confusing to users at Wichita Public Schools, and the boilerplate warning at the top is counterproductive when dealing with a major shared IP address. —Guanaco 21:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've removed all the warnings from the page except the big one at the top and the warnings for edits that have taken place within the last little while. tv316 21:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User mountain dew

I would expect that you would be aware that removing tfd notices out of process is a pretty extreme offense no matter how ridiculous the nomination was. Please don't do it again. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 05:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The nomination was an obvious attempt to disrupt TfD, and the user responsible has been blocked. I have closed the page Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 16/Masses of userboxes. —Guanaco 05:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User:69.12.166.47

How do you know this is a Mike Garcia account? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at its contributions. In the article namespace, it has only edited rock-related music articles, and most of these are favorites of Mike Garcia or a confirmed Michael account. Its edits in other namespaces are Michael-like vandalism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hephaestos&diff=prev&oldid=37170248 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hephaestos&diff=prev&oldid=33293359, for example) If this is not Mike Garcia, it must be someone trying to impersonate him. —Guanaco 04:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
He sure doesn't seem to have reformed, after all, has he? User:Zoe|(talk) 05:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I've emailed Danny about this. Hopefully we won't have to resort to an unenforceable ban again. —Guanaco 05:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

203.186.238.128/25 range block

You originally indef blocked this as 203.186.238.0/24 for Squidward vandalism, I narrowed it down later to 203.186.238.128/25. However, it appears to be a Hong Kong ISP (see User talk:Rayleung2709).

I've reset the range block to expire in under 40 hours. The reason is because it seems to affect at least one genuine user, but also because each such address was only used to make one vandalism edit (or in a couple of cases two or three), whereas the open proxy IPs each made numerous vandalism edits... so even though numerically almost half the Squidward vandal IP addresses were in the 203.186.238.128/25 range, a much smaller fraction of the total vandalism edits (less than 10%) were made from this range. It would be nice to contact the ISP to ask them to warn their client (or secure their IPs against outside abuse), but I'd prefer to leave that up to someone who could actually speak in the name of Wikipedia, so I asked David Gerard if he wanted to get involved with that (I'm not sure if he does). -- Curps 01:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

T1

CSD T1 was established by Jimbo Wales, and re-established by him when someone removed it. It's not for negotiation, and certainly isn't for removal. -Splashtalk 17:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo needs to be willing to discuss policy if he is going to take an active role in writing it. A clear majority of people disagrees with him, so if he doesn't have time for a discussion, he should simply stay away from policy pages. If he doesn't want me to remove CSD-T1, which is constantly being used for abusive purposes, he can tell me himself. —Guanaco 17:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Illegal-Immigration-2 revert

Although I disagree with the speedy delete of that (and pretty much any) userbox, I want to know if what you did actually removed the article as a canditate for deletion or if it only removed the notice. If the latter is true, it should be reverted so that people know it is up for speedy deletion. I don't really know how it works, so if you do, can you tell me? Thanks. The Ungovernable Force 18:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

An article is only up for speedy deletion if it contains the speedy tag. Reverting the tag removes the listing. —Guanaco 01:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

your unblock bot doesn't work

It only works if the origional block was to "64.12.0.0/16", otherwise you'll have to unblock each ip by hand--205.188.116.11 22:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

(IP list blanked —Guanaco 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

not to mention, if you're not using a bot, and are actually doing it by hand, that would be pretty tedious--205.188.116.11 23:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocking the range for 1 second unblocks all IP addresses within that range. The 64.12.?.? block returned because Nlu remade it. —Guanaco 00:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I don't use a bot for blocking and unblocking. —Guanaco 03:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Your use of the rollback button

Hello there. The rollback button is reserved for vandalism. I contest strongly that tagging that template T1 is vandalism. What are you doing? Mackensen (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I undeleted Template:User admins ignoring policy (talk, links, edit) because a majority on Wikipedia:Deletion review voted for its undeletion. If you feel it should be deleted, please vote at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. —Guanaco 19:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Restoring

Thank you for restoring so many of the templates. You're one of the good admins. Kudos. Эйрон Кинни 22:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm just doing my job and clearing out the backlog at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates. —Guanaco 22:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

GWB

Hi, I noticed that you are one of the few ppl here that still respect the process. Could you take a look at the Deletion Review Page? Mark Sweep has unilaterally declared all GWB templates deleted and has blanked the discussion at DRV. He then proceeded to threaten all the users trying to revert him with blocking. I put this up at WP:ANB, but in their blind rage against userboxes they have ignored the principals of consensus and debate that wikipedia depends on and let his actions stand.--God of War 23:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If you copy and paste the discussions back onto the DRV page, I will see that they are not removed until they are properly closed. —Guanaco 23:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have restarted the DRV discussion on these. I am counting on your support. --God of War 23:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Well, thanks for giving it a try, anyway. -Seth Mahoney 05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Food Not Bombs Image

I noticed you are the one who uploaded the Food Not Bombs logo into the encyclopedia and it is labeled as copywrited. About a month ago Doc deleted the picture from a subseted userbox I made, which is understandable (unlike most of the admin userbox deletions going on now) since I didn't have any idea about the problem with policy at the time. Basically, I'm wondering why it is copywrited because I seriously doubt that logo would be copywrited (just look at what FNB stands for and does). Could you help me understand why you labled it as copywrite, and if there is a way to make sure it really is. Thanks. The Ungovernable Force 08:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In the US, unless there is a specific indication that a work is not copyrighted, it usually is. In this case, if you can find the original author, they will probably say that it is in the public domain, but we need hard evidence of this for tagging it on Wikipedia. —Guanaco 20:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean the creator of that specific version (ie, from the webpage you got it) or of the logo itself? I can tell you that as a participant of Food Not Bombs anyone is allowed to use that. I don't even know who the original author of that logo is and I doubt anyone does. FNB is a highly decentralized organization, to the point that it really isn't even an organization. Good luck finding the creator (actually I would be the one doing it, but still). There isn't even an official website, so I couldn't just email Food Not Bombs and ask to use it. I do know that anyone can, it's just a matter of finding it somewhere in writing, which is hard since I tried. The Ungovernable Force 05:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I also tried to find something in writing. You would need authorization from the original author, or if the author is dead, the author's heir. For all practical purposes, the image is safe to use freely, but Wikipedia policy is strict about copyrights. (IANAL, don't sue me, and so on.) —Guanaco 05:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

I just want to tell you how much I appreciate your work in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates.
We need more of your kind!
Keep up the good work! --UVnet 15:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll try. With luck, I won't be desysopped again or banned for following deletion policy. —Guanaco 20:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Well your undeletion of {{User Unionist}} and {{User Irish Republican}} is exactly the sort of behaviour which got Ashibaka desysopped! It is unhelpful in the extreme; this sort of political cruft has no place in the Template namespace. Physchim62 (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
(Jimbocruft blanked. —Guanaco 21:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC))
I did not restore any one page five times, and Ashibaka's access will be restored in a few days. I am not concerned about this threat in the least. —Guanaco 21:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you should be far more concerned about it than you are. Little voices have told me that your sysophood is definitely at risk here. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The little voices are usually wrong. —Guanaco 03:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

{{polemical userboxes}}

Good move. Now if some other admin indeed deletes it, I'll have a good fun seeing it go through WP:DRV. Lol! Thank you! Misza13 (Talk) 23:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Cabal won't let it go this way. So I've put it on TfD per Sjakkalle's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Polemical_userboxes&action=history suggestion. Misza13 (Talk) 21:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

CSD?

Guanaco, User:Guanaco/Undeleted userbox watchlist is appearing in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Please review your page and any pages transcluded within it to remove what ever is listing it here to avoid confusion or accidental deletion. If you want this page deleted by someone else please blank it and put a CSD tempalte on it. Thanks, xaosflux Talk/CVU 02:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The page contains a template which previously contained a CSD tag. I made a null edit, removing it from the category. —Guanaco 02:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ambi is amazed

I'm amazed, Guanaco. I'd taken you on your word that you'd genuinely changed after the antics you pulled the first time around. I guess I was wrong to assume good faith, and to assume that you wouldn't just start the same old crap again within days of being re-sysopped. I guess it's time to rinse and repeat. Ambi 07:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have any specific examples of mistakes I have made, let me know. If this is about the userboxes I undeleted, my actions were supported by the community. —Guanaco 01:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
How about reverting Jimbo's edits on Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote? Raul654 03:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I have not used sysop powers on that page. Of course, I'm going to adhere to the 1RR. —Guanaco 03:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not an abuse of admin powers per se -- on the other hand, Jimbo closed the poll and you reverted to reopen it. If edit warring with Jimbo isn't a sign of bad judgement (the same bad judgement that got you desysopped once already) then I don't know what is. Raul654 03:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not edit warring with Jimbo. I came close to edit warring with you, but I stopped reverting because it would be futile; you can revert just as easily as I can. According to the arbitration ruling, I was desysopped for "consistently controversial" actions and miscounting reverts, not bad judgement. —Guanaco 03:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Template:User Jain

I saw that you have reverted Template:User Jain. Can you revert the rest of the religion templates? --208.59.132.30 23:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC) (I am DotShell)

Could you point me to a list? —Guanaco 23:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not have an exact list... Wait. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion. Almost all of those were deleted by Improv. That is the reason why I quit wikipedia. If you reverted them, I would join in again. --208.59.132.30 02:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll list all of them on WP:DRV/U. —Guanaco 02:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Block "Mcnees are gay"

Just letting you know that the IP was TPGs proxy at (203.26.24.212 name = proxy2.tpgi.com.au). Probably going to cause a headache for a lot of TPG users. If you can unblock the IP, that would be good. Alex Law 05:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The IP seems to have already been unblocked. —Guanaco 21:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

deletion

If you propose that an article be deleted, why don't you include a notice at the top of the article that has a link to the article's entry??? Michael Hardy 22:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that although you included the proposal for deletion at the top of omphalology, you did not actually list it among pages proposed for deletion. Therefore no one can vote on it. Consequently I removed your notice from the article. Michael Hardy 22:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not how proposals for deletion work. It is basically speedy deletion with a five-day delay. If you believe the page should not be deleted, remove the PROD tag and list it on AFD. —Guanaco 22:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


your unblock bot

still doesn't work, you can't unblock like that unless the origional block was in the same form--205.188.116.11 05:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok, I just read your ARCHIVE3, so one, I guess it isn't a bot, but two, it doesn't actually work, which is why I keep getting: "blocked because your ip has been recently used by User:THE_CITY_OF_WIKIPEDIAIAAI_SUCKSSSSSS_ITS_BOT_IS_CRAP", logically if I'm using an AOL and IP, and I'm getting autoblocks, then your method really does have no effect on AOL unblocks--205.188.116.11 05:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems to work on blocks explicitly targetting the IPs but not on autoblocks. —Guanaco 21:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Restore my page please

It seems Cyde deleted a userbox from my page and then hid the revisions from me. Just because a userbox was deleted in template space doesn't mean it can be deleted in user space. Can you please fix this for me? Link is User:God_of_War/Warboxen

LKML Vandalism

User:Aim Here is vandalizing the article again, page blanking, and removal of content. Warned already multiple times. Waya sahoni 08:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, User:waya sahoni is almost certainly a sock puppet of User:Gadugi, who is Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. Gadugi is permanently banned from wikipedia for disruptive behaviour and legal threats when editing the Merkey article. Currently waya's tactic is to try to move most of the article to LKML, despite the consensus view which is to leave the article where it is. I figure you need some background before getting involved in this can of worms. --Aim Here 12:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
User:waya sahoni has been warned repeatedly that he is evading his permanent block, and that any edits he makes can be reverted on sight. I and other editors of the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey are currently defending the LKML article, as well as the aforementioned article, against continued POV edits from Jeff. --MJ(☎|@|C) 16:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC).
Being someone who was permanently blocked is not grounds for mass reversion (unless there is an actual ban in place). Waya sahoni is still welcome to contribute as long as he does so productively. I have blocked him until 05:21, 1 March 2006 for violating 3RR on LKML. —Guanaco 21:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Well I certainly thought it was a full ban, so did Gadugi (talk • contribs) as well as several admins. I can't seem to find the record of the Arbcom proceedings to confirm it however. — MediaMangler 21:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
In several of his edits and those of his sockpuppets, User:Gadugi referred repeatedly to his ban and made claims that the banning policy was being violated. The more I search my memory, the more I become convinced that no actual ban was ever imposed, only an indefinite block. My recollection of Arbcom instituting a ban must be mistaken, since they surely would have archived such an action and it doesn't seem to be there. It is possible that I and others became confused by Gadugi's misuse of the term. — MediaMangler 21:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The ArbCom decision was to reject Gadugi's request for arbitration, due to his litigitious nature. I have taken the liberty of creating a archive page of that decision (based on the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=26667651 last version before the case was removed). As for wether Jeff was banned or merely blocked; he was making legal threats against WikiMedia (and followed scofacts.org/merkey.html through on them (items #31 and on) and I certainly had every reason to assume that Jeff Merkey, the person, has been banned for those reasons. If in doubt, consult User:Fvw or User:Mindspillage on their reasons. --MJ(☎|@|C) 22:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC).
There seems to have been another case: "67.177.35.25 vs. Fvw, Pgk, Exabit, Kebron, Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters, ...". But the only record I can find of that one is in the contribs of 67.177.35.25 (talk • contribs). — MediaMangler 22:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
That case was also rejected. I did find the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=25306752 last version before it was removed though. --MJ(☎|@|C) 22:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC).
More importantly, in the decision User:The Epopt states that Merkey is banned until all his barratrous threats are withdrawn, settled, or judged. --MJ(☎|@|C) 22:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC).
I created another archive page for that case. --MJ(☎|@|C) 22:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC).
Since Merkey claims the court has already awarded him damages of $22,000,160.00[1], I guess that means his litigation is over and his ban as well. (Just joking.) I'm sorry you got dragged into this Guanaco. As you can see, Mr. Merkey has a long and colorful history. So much history that senile geezers like me sometimes get confused on the details. Sorry we felt compelled to scribble so much of that history onto your talk page. — MediaMangler 23:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I am going to block any account that makes legal threats similar to those made by Jeff Merkey. I will also block any accounts created to stalk other users or that violate 3RR. —Guanaco 00:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Good. User:Kebron, another SCOX member, posted content to that article attempting to (inaccurately) expose my identity and subject me to danger in violation of WP:NPA. In the future any mention and implied comments I see which A) Characterize me as the subject of that article or B) attempt to expose my identity, or C) referring to me by the name of the subject of that article or D) making attacks and allegations of my sexual orientation to expose me to danger or social stygmitization, and I will take such actions as an attempt to violate WP:NPA policy and subject me to ridicule, danger, and wrongful association. Waya sahoni 05:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Noone goes to the trouble of writing hundres of posts protesting that one is not such and such member or not. If someone were to suggest that I were Jeff Merkey or PJ (even), I would simply let everyone know who I was, and that would be the end of the situation. There is a time and aplace for secrecy, of course... and this is not one of them. Docrailgun 09:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey WP:NPA violation by User:Vryl SCOX Member

User is attempting to expose another use to danger, social, and /or political attacks by falsely associating them with the subject of the article and attempting to reveal them. Also is a personal attack. Blatant WP:NPA. I have reverted once. Before I revert again, can you handle this one, or should I? Thanks. They are placing the content in the tag at the top of the page. SCOX traffic at Yahoo shows they are conducting most of their talking via instant messegner and not the talk pages of this site to coordinate their stalking and attacks. Waya sahoni 06:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Vryl is disregarding the discussion on this page and revert warring and vandalizing the talk page by removing project tags. I have warned him once and asked nicely once to stop -- he is ignoring the warnings. Probably SCOX role account Waya sahoni 06:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You are a strange fish, Jeff. What was with this?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey&oldid=41295696 Why isn't that vandalism? You pulled down all the embarrassing stuff about yourself, trashed the article, and put it unverified, flattering stuff. But you are not Jeff. Yeah, riiiiggght...

Vryl 07:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

See my page for definitve proof that Waya Sahoni is indeed Jeff Vernon Merkey. So, I am not "falsely associating" Jeff with Waya Sahoni. The term would be "correctly associating". So, what is the status of this blatant sock-puppeteering banned user? If he was banned as Gadugi, shouldn't he be banned as Waya Sahoni?

As for false allegations, Jeff, what the hell is the nonsense about Instant Messanger? Which "SCOX Traffic" shows this? Also, what the hell is a "SCOX Role Account". You keep saying that like it means something.

People interested in The SCO Group have a legitimate interest in the Jeff Merkey page on Wikipedia, as Jeff at various times inveigled himself into that dispute. They have a legitimate interest in seeing that it remains true to the facts and encyclopedic. Keeping an eye on that page cannot be equated with stalking or cyberstalking Jeff.

Vryl 11:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Waya sahoni

Sorry to see User:Waya sahoni has managed to get someone blocked for stalking. I am afraid that User:Why you so hawny? is correct that User:Waya sahoni is a sockpuppet of Gadugi (talk • contribs • email), although I do not approve of the way WYSH is going about it. Perhaps his chosen nom-de-guerre is childish, but I do advise you to review Waya's contributions, compare these to Gadugi's, and draw your own conclusions. Especially because makeing baseless accusations is Gadugi's specialization.

All WYSH did was revert a known sockpuppets edits, which is something I will also do, on sight. Also note that Waya sahoni went way beyond 3RR to keep his non-consensus version of the LKML article going, and WYSH was not the only opposing editor in that revert war. --MJ(☎|@|C) 16:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC).

I did not block this person, they did that all on their own. Why is it that Linux and SCOX folks always want to blame the world for their own actions? Linus takes IP from IBM and SCO sues Linux for theft of IP and it's SCO and Jeff Merkey's fault they stole other peoples property. Linux infringes 300+ patents and its the US Patent Office's fault for issuing software patents in the first place. Does Linus and his SCOX community own any of this? Hawny owns his own actions, as do we all. Waya sahoni 06:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

and -- congrats

Since I didn't say so explicitly, on your restored mop. You should write an essay on the last 18 months... +sj + 19:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality warning

That was a stroke of genius, and it made me chuckle a little. Thanks! -Seth Mahoney 03:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I also have User:Guanaco/is gay new and User:Guanaco/is gay edit for warning those people. —Guanaco 04:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I just wet myself. Thanks again - after two hours of Russian homework, I needed a good laugh. -Seth Mahoney 04:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm just trying to assume good faith without using teeth unnecessarily. —Guanaco 04:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, Andrew's sexuality is a hot topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dada&curid=8240&diff=41703424&oldid=41703391 -Seth Mahoney 04:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

My userpage

Thank you!!!--SMP - talk page (en) - talk page (ca) 13:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


User User:Why you so hawny? has reincarnated himself as sockpuppet User:Sue me Jeff

His new name is inappropriate. What a joke, I am still hurting from my sides laughing so hard when I saw it. He is back to his old tricks of stalking and user page vandalism and harassment. Waya sahoni 16:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What a blatant lie. My account is the first and only I have at WP. Its name may be deemed offensive only *if* Waya sahoni is actually the banned gadugi whose real name is Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. Otherwise, he should not worry about any Jeff, should he?
And if Waya sahoni and gadugi are one person, User:Waya sahoni should be banned per the peemament bar of User:Gadugi.
Please take note that Waya sahoni has continues a history of vandalization of Jeffrey Vernon Merkey page started by gadugi.
If and when Waya sahoni is banned my nym de guerre becomes unnecessary and will be discontinued whether you ban it or not. I do not want to create an account which may help Jeff Merkey learn my true identity because of his history of litigation against anyone who disagrees with him. Sue me Jeff 17:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
My first account Sue me Jeff has been banned because of its name, without any insight into my contributions. OK. Because the ban was not connected to my input, I believe I am free to contiunue demasking the new incarnation of Gadugi under my new nym de guerre. As you can see, I've chosen a non-offensive name this time. Friendly neighbour 17:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but this time it is a misnomer. No "friendly neighbour" exists only to stalk someone. I've blocked this one indefinitely as well. —Guanaco 19:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
What I don't understand is how the serial vandal and litigant Jeff Vernon Merkey is still allowed to post after being banned. There is now no doubt that Waya Sahoni is Jeff. See my user page (you tripped up again Jeff!). This is the Jeff Merkey that ranted about Wikipedia on his website Merkeylaw thusly:
"These websites are controlled and sponsored by Jimmy (JIMBO) Wales of the Wikimedia Foundation and Bomis.com, a porno distrbution business controlled by Jimbo Wales. Both websites are a front for a bogus 501-3(c) Charity (Wikimedia Foundation) which solicits moneys from the General Public to pay for its cost of operations and which is also used as a tax shield for Wales various business interests, including his porno distribution businesses. Wikipedia is an on line chat room frequented by sexual predators, and internet libelers and is used as a tool of libel by Wales and the Internet Community at large."
www.johncollins.org/ml/2005-12/30-20:01/index.html
I notice that Jeff/Waya has put a nice badge on your userpage, Guanaco.
Vryl 00:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Is the account User:Waya sahoni behaving inappropriately? If you post diffs of inappropriate edits by this account, I will block him. —Guanaco 00:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The easiest place to see Jeff's real purpose in being here is between my revert and the long list of his edits, completely trashing the page that had been worked on by lots of people for many, many months:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey&diff=41300793&oldid=41295696
Everything went, and only things flattering to Jeff remained. Now, when I reported this to AIV, people there chose to view it as a 'content dispute'. Aside from it being a Vanity Edit, I believe it is true vandalism, and blatant whitewashing of relevant, documented facts, of interest to many people for a variety of reasons. Jeff is a controversial, public figure. He should not be allowed to clean his own page of information just because he thinks it is embarrassing to him.
Vryl 00:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Waya is making valid contributions to Cherokee-related articles. Jeff's article can quickly be reverted, so I think blocking Waya at this time would do more harm than good. —Guanaco 00:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
So even though someone vandalizes a talk page, as long as he's made valid contributions somewhere else, it's alright? Please explain how *any Talk page* can be tag with a Wikiproject tag when the refering article is not also so tagged? As an administrator, don't you find that strange? While I believe Waya sahoni is a sock-puppet, the fact remains that the Talk page tag shouldn't be there and the continuing reverts of that tag by Waya sahoni is ultimately vandalism. --Jerry 03:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh well. You will see. I spose we have to leave it at that.
Also, now that he is definitively outed as Jeff, it is easy to see that he has been making false allegations against people who recognised him and saw straight thru his sock-puppet. See this page, my page, and others. Shouldn't he be warned against that kind of thing?
I quote from this page: "User is attempting to expose another use to danger, social, and /or political attacks by falsely associating them with the subject of the article and attempting to reveal them."
Vryl 01:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


I have several responses to this dialogue. The way I understand Guanaco's statements, he wants you to locate inappropriate edits made by me, Waya sahoni, not Jeff or Gadugi. In response to his requests, I see the normal banter proffered by this group of "editors" and I use the term loosely, personal attacks, sockpuppetry accusations, and SCOX style message board dialogue. I see no discussion of an intellectual nature relative to why that article should not be restructered, why it does or does not meet the appropriate standards -- only meaningless chatter. You need to provide the requested content. I am also sick and tired of being accussed of being Jeff. Please stop it now.

Also, here are the proposed changes to that article to bring it into compliance with Wikipedias quality standards:

Photographs of Jeff (if any can be found or perhaps we should email the subject of the article or post a message on his Gadugi talk page and ask him to post them on a website somewhere).
Move of LKML materials and matters to the LKML article, where it belongs. Primary and Secondary sources may not be used from weblogs, mailing lists, bulletin boards, or any other medium where anonymous posters place content which cannot be verified by based on the Policy and Gidelines of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. LKML is a public mailing list, and these sources can be used in the LKML article, since LKML was deemed notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. It's also appropriate since these are Linux controversies that originated there.
The ruling language fails as a secondary source for the same reason. It came from the Groklaw weblog and I cannot locate a PDF copy on any legal websites with the seal of the Court and a judges signature, as is typical with all public court documents. I also called the Court in Utah and they told me the case was settled nd sealed. Without a signed copy or a legal reference cititation where the ruling has been published, this content also fails verifibility.
Based upon this I plan to preserve all of the content and move it to LKML. These editors can leave a link in Jeff's article and move their LKML editorial there. The Court ruling material subjects both articles to {Afd} and {disputed} status.

Given these matters, I plan to move the LKML content to the LKML article without deletions and use Jeff's article to be about him and his life, not Linus Torvalds problems. These editors can continue editing that content from there. The simple fact here is that SCOX and Linux folks want to POV push their ownership of their own actions and controvesies into articles and the press as a "look there's Elvis" tactic to divert attention away from their ownership of these issues. This is creating (by design) a distorted picture of the facts. Linus took code from IBM which was alleged to be stolen from SCO. SCO sued IBM. Groklaw reports that Linux infringes 300+ patents. That's 300 more potential Linux lawsuits at some point. Linus and SCOX responds by saying the Patent Office should not issue patents due to Linux people stealing other peoples patents and intellectual property. LKML needs ownership of its content, just as Linux needs ownership of its issues to create a balanced and accurate picture. The article is POV pushed to keep out content which discusses Linux controversies. In that article, this content is wonderful and really enhances it and paints LKML as a colorful place indeed. The LKML article is seriously lacking on content as it stands.

These are the changes I intend to make to that article. Waya sahoni 03:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother Jeff... It will just be moved back. If not by someone else, then by me. Burr.. Saddle.. --Jerry 03:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

: If you vandalize the edits you may subjected to dispute resolution. That goes for your associates. Making statements you will revert edits for any reason indicates WP:OWN and possible stalking violations. You also referred to me as Jeff, for which you can be blocked for continued personal attacks WP:NPA. Waya sahoni 03:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Burr.. Saddle.. --Jerry 03:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Please stop making legalistic threats. Wikipedia is not a system of law. —Guanaco 03:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Welcome to Jeff's world.. Aren't you glad you got involved with him? --Jerry 03:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
That helps to clarify when that particular perception engages. Comments redacted. Waya sahoni 03:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Are the proposed edits allowed by Policy? Please advise, so I can proceed. I have other articles to complete as well. I want to close this one and move on to the others. This one is the hard one -- the others are easy -- no one fights with me on them. Waya sahoni 03:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no specific policy prohibiting those edits, but before making edits that are sure to be controversial, you should discuss the proposed changes and reach a consensus, or your edits may be reverted by another user. This content discussion can take place at Talk:Linux kernel mailing list. —Guanaco 03:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Ok, I think I know how to proceed with the edits now. Based upon "The Policy", I do not require concensus to remove materials which fail Wikipedia:Reliable sources the way it is currently worded. Comments Please?

Also, on the previous issue you raised regarding dispute resolution, I am a little confused. Perhaps you can explain. Stating dispute resolution is exactly what WP:NLT says to do in cases of WP:OWN -- I quote, Instead, first attempt to resolve disputes using the dispute resolution procedures. This will oftentimes lead to a solution without resorting to the blunt tool of the law. If the dispute resolution procedures do not resolve your problem then you can use the law in the knowledge that you have taken all reasonable steps to resolve the situation amicably. Perhaps it was the tone, and not the content. I think I have an idea, I'll fix the approach so this doesn't happen in the future. I can see why you would take it that way, but someone needs to update this policy to include "demands" for dispute resolution as a legalistic threat. It also needs to add this term, since it is not listed in the official policy so people don't make the same mistake again. Waya sahoni 03:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


There is a serious disconnect with reality here. What do you think he is going to say? It's Jeff Merkey here. He is capable of anything. Read the Merkeylaw.com mirrors to get a sense of him. -Vryl 04:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Respect for Process

Whatever happened to respect for process and consensus? Should a single administrator be unilaterlly deciding to ignore the results of two Arbcom cases? Does the ban pronounced against Mr. Merkey mean nothing at all? I can't believe that anyone who has looked at the evidence could doubt that Waya sahoni is Merkey. Surely you don't actually believe that a user in Texas would just happen to be sharing the same address range and even an email account with a banned user in Utah, whom he claimed :to know only slightly. When Waya sahoni first appeared, he became involved in a revert war with Bookofsecrets (talk • contribs) over Cherokee society. I helped defend his edits in that revert war because he was making useful contributions and he had promised not to involve himself in any dispute over the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article, even though I was fairly sure even then that he was Merkey (see Talk:Cherokee_society/Archive2#This_Page_is_Bunk). Perhaps that was my mistake and I should have pressed to have his ban enforced at that time. If so, then several others made the same mistake. How bad will his behavior have to become before his ban is enforced? — MediaMangler 04:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Couple of things:

  • Theres no ban
  • You can edit that material to your hearts content over at the LKML article.
  • I am not Jeff
  • The bad behavior is your own in stalking me on this site and attacking everything I do, and engaging in personal attacks.
  • Stop calling me Jeff.
  • Argue on an intellectual basis and not an emotional basis. an quit being a whiner.

Thanks. Waya sahoni 04:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jeff... Since you haven't reached a consensus with the other editors on the article or with the folks at Talk:Linux kernel mailing list, don't bother making the edits, because it will just be changed back.
  • I was a user here *long* before Waya sahoni so I would guess you are stalking me.
  • Burr.. Saddle.. --Jerry 04:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
YOU ARE JEFF VERNON MERKEY. Your use of the tjarcher@comcast.net email address proves it definitively, as does your fascination with editing the Jeff Vernon Merkey page, as do the IPs you post from, as does the language you use. No-one is fooled. Watching the JVM page, and pointing out the beyond-reasonable-doubt fact that Waya Sahoni is a Jeff Merkey sockpuppet does not equate to stalking or cyberstalking. Your wish to clean from the page the personally embarrassing true and relevant facts posted there is understandable, but not acceptable. -Vryl 04:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
From Arbcom case: "This case is rejected and Merkey is banned until all his barratrous threats are withdrawn, settled, or judged." Sure looks like you were banned to me. — MediaMangler 04:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Bookofsecrets has not edited Cherokee society, to which Waya has made significant contributions. Waya, do you plan to take legal action against Wikimedia or any Wikipedia editors? —Guanaco 04:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is one of the best things to hit the internet. Jimbo Wales is a saint, and a true internet pioneer.

Ha ha!
Quote Merkeylaw.com:
"These websites are controlled and sponsored by Jimmy (JIMBO) Wales of the Wikimedia Foundation and Bomis.com, a porno distrbution business controlled by Jimbo Wales. Both websites are a front for a bogus 501-3(c) Charity (Wikimedia Foundation) which solicits moneys from the General Public to pay for its cost of operations and which is also used as a tax shield for Wales various business interests, including his porno distribution businesses. Wikipedia is an on line chat room frequented by sexual predators, and internet libelers and is used as a tool of libel by Wales and the Internet Community at large."
www.johncollins.org/ml/2005-12/30-20:01/index.html
-Vryl 04:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I was asking Waya. —Guanaco 04:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Serious reality disconnect. Waya is Jeff. Jeff is a known, provable, serial liar. What do you expect him to say? Here, on this page, you have yet another example of Jeff reality. (Did I mention that Jeff is banned from the wiki?) -Vryl 04:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to enforce an Arbitration ban (especially one that may not apply) under any circumstances, but if the account Waya sahoni threatens Wikimedia or any users with legal action, I will block it. —Guanaco 04:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC).
Thank you. I have work to do. Time I got to it. Waya sahoni 04:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
And if you check the Arbcom ruling, you will find that Jeff withdrew his threats and The ARCOM also withdrew the threat of a ban. These people are quoting snippets out of context. These people will not stop here, but I'll leave that in your capable hands. Waya sahoni 04:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Ok. Thanx for not very much. Here is what will happen. Jeff will not leave the JVM pages alone. Nor will those who are interested in them being factual and relevant. Result: Continuing reverts. -Vryl 04:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


I have no intentions of ever taking legal action against Wikipedia or Wikimedia, other than perhaps the legal action of having transferring a very large grant and funding source to help them and setting up a foundation to raise money for them. I have no intetions of ever taking legal action against any editors of Wikipedia based on any matters pertaining to Wikipedia, Wikimedia, Jimbo Wales or anyone else. If one of them smashed into my car at a stoplight, or something, then I would probably call the police to make a traffic report if my insurance did not cover it, but that would not be wikipedia related. Waya sahoni 04:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I am satisfied with this statement. Waya is not going to be blocked for being Jeff or for legal threats. —Guanaco 04:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Please explain

How a talk page can be tagged as a Wikiproject and the upstream article is not tagged? Once again Waya sahoni is adding tags to a talk page without adding them to the appropriate article. When the tags are reverted, the usual threats are posted. I will revert one more time, and I expect Administrators to do their job. --Jerry 05:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You always tag only the talk page. Never tag an article with a Wikiproject notice. —Guanaco 05:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
And so.. Even though Waya sahoni has not gotten a consensus from the other editors, has not attempted to get a consensus from the other editors and then continues to apply the tag to the Talk page, that's alright. While the removal of that tag by the other editors who disagree with it's applicability is vandalism? Sheesh. Seems I've got a lot to learn about the Wikipedia processes. --Jerry 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Jerry please replace the tags. I mean really, I cannot even put tags in the talk page of the article without revert wars. Don't you think this is ridiculous and wasteful? And deliberate. Thanks. Waya sahoni 05:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll replace the tags again after the 3RR time period expires. The then next time they get removed, it really is vandalism, because it has been explained. Again, instead of spending the evening editing I have had to engage in endless personal attacks and defend myself from the SCOX message board and their POV pushing into that article and personal attacks. Thanks. Waya sahoni 05:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Bookofsecrets Editing of Cherokee society

Bookofsecrets (talk • contribs) is a self-confessed sockpuppet of Bumpusmills1 (talk • contribs), see User_talk:Bookofsecrets/Archive_5. He was using multiple sockpuppet accounts to revert Cherokee society before apologizing and abandoning that behavior. He has behaved impeccably since then, so I regret being forced to mention his sockpuppetry just to prove to you that a revert war had taken place on Cherokee society and that I had helped defend Merkey in that instance. — MediaMangler 05:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Vryl has placed a large section at Talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey violating WP:NPA

This is too much. Vryl has placed a large section claiming I am Jeff. This is intolerable. I want this content taken down and this user dealt with. This goes way over the line of attempting to expose a user (falsely I might add) and associating me with Jeff. And his "proof" are postings from the SCOX message board. ENOUGH!!! What more evidence do you need? These people are SCOX trolls here at Linus Torvalds bidding to harrass anyone who goes near this article -- they are not editors. Waya sahoni 06:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


The proof was the whois database Jeff. I am sure they keep backups, for legal reasons. The posting proves that that address was known to be used by you BEFORE you started using the Waya Sahoni sock-puppet. You tripped up.
You are lying. You use an SCOX post as evidence, written by who? I checked the domain and its registered to JEFF and it has an email address directed to JMERKEY@WOLFMOUNTAINGROUP.ORG and .COM. You have made an excellent argument for removal of the LKML content to the LKML article. Tommorrow, guess what -- I am moving the content to that article. Waya sahoni 06:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Nice work Jeff. The page from SCOX was October 2005. Now it has been changed (as I noted). Tell me, why in October 2005 were people quoting the Whois database as having tjarcher@comcast.net as the admin contact for wolfmountaingroup.org? What was their motivation?. Your Waya Sahoni sock-puppet did not exist then. If I have to, I will get a historical copy of the public Whois records for wolfmountaingroup.org domain. Do I need to go that far?
Go that far, by all means. You are lying and POV pushing. You lost your technical arguments now you resort to attacks and POV pushing. Waya sahoni 06:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Answer these questions, if you please:
1. Was the tjarcher@comcast.net email address used as the admin contact for wolfmountaingroup.org in October 2005?

I don't know that it was. WHOIS shows it was not. If all you have is an SCOX post from an anonymous user, you don;t have any evidence of this.

What was their motivation in October 2005? Waha Sahoni did not exist then. Can you explain that? You know it's true information, and I will prove that it's true information.
Anyway, lets just let lie there for a LITTLE while. I can't get to www.whois.sc at the moment, but they have historical records going back to 2001, apparantly. As soon as it's up and running again, I will run the query. I know you're Jeff, you, know you're Jeff, and sometime very soon, I will have even more proof that you are Jeff (not that we need any more, but just to ice the cake.)


See you then, Mr Merkey!--Vryl 07:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
See you then. Whatever you bring back will fail Wikipedia:Reliable sources because I believe most of it has been fabricated. I also read posts claiming everything from Toad Farms to marijuana fields owned by Jeff to a Rhodium Mine????????. I have a hard time believing anything you say after how you have treated me on this site, or any of your third party sites (which you probably control). Waya sahoni 07:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
What was the MOTIVATION to use the tjarcher@comcast.net email address in a post in October 2005. Waya Sahoni did not exist until January 2006. Occam's razor gives the simplest, most reliable answer. It was taken from the Whois database for wolfmountaingroup.org. (This can and will be verified from historical whois sources). Any other explanation, especially ones that do not deal with this point, are simply unbelieveable. tjarcher@comcast.net belongs to Jeff Vernon Merkey. Waya Sahoni uses this account also. Waya Sahoni is Jeff Vernon Merkey. --Vryl 08:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Why did you say to bookofsecrets to contact him on the tjarcher@comcast.net email address?

tjarcher@comcast.net is my email address -- Thomas Jerome Archer. About 60% of all Cherokee's from Oklahoma have a last name of Archer (derived from You Are Cherokee (ArCherokee) from the Dawes Rolls. Thomas is a common name also among Cherokee -- Thomas Jefferson, herro of blacks and Indians).

3. Why do you post from the small section of IPs that Jeff Merkey posts from

Jeff and Gadugi have never posted from those addresses. CheckUser verified this.

4. Why are you so interested in removing content from the JVM pages?

I am putting together his Cherokee Nation info (which I have already) and all his native projects and moving your POV smut where it belongs, to LKML. Since it is POV pushing, unverifiable, and relegates that artcle to B-CLass status forever (because the editors that wrote it are not really editors).

--Vryl 06:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Waya sahoni 06:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What is this paranoid conspiracy thing about Linus? Anyone care to call that a FALSE ALLEGATON? --Vryl 06:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I have read Linus posts to Jeff in that article, and his emails on LKML talking about Jeff and Wikipedia. I think the record is clear. I also just found Peter Anvin's posts (Linus right hand liuetenant) and what they discuss about Jeff. Waya sahoni 06:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

ARBCOM Imposed no Ban on Jeff

Also from the ARBCOM, - Exabit has pointed out to me (thanks, Exabit!) that Merkey has withdrawn his legal threats, leaving only his threat (vide supra) of "going to the press with this." None the less, since we arbiters are entirely unable to help Merkey defend himself and his family against the alleged death threats he has allegedly received, I strongly encourage him to contact law enforcement or hire an armed security force. My decision remains to reject this case. ➥the Epopt 14:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, the arbitor stated that Jeff should get armed guards to protect himself from the editors of this article. Waya sahoni 06:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocks

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_talk:Why_you_so_hawny.3F_and_User:Waya_sahoni. I have already indefinitely UsernameBlocked User:Why you so hawny?. I was wondering if you objected to me blocking the other sock. Superm401 - Talk 06:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I object to blocking Waya sahoni unless Waya makes new disruptive edits. —Guanaco 21:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
When does someone start to get disruptive? So far, Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article has been hit by numerous attempts to fill it with unverifiable vanity information, the talk page is now a chronicle of the waya sahoni vs the rest of the world grudge match, LKML is the subject of a wierd revert war, There's an RFC going on, which Merkey *will* ignore because he's losing, there's a huge pile of Merkey related wibble on the Administrator's noticeboard and the user talk pages of almost everyone who's been anywhere near the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article is filled with Jeffspew about the article, the blockings, the allegations of sockpuppetry, the counterallegations of 'role accounts', you name it. Everybody involved has far better things to do than clean up after Jeff Merkey and this crusade of his against the internet that, for some reason, doesn't see Jeff the way he sees himself. Since you're opposed to blocking him, do you have any other suggestions as to how to stop Jeff/waya becoming an enormous waste of everyone's time and effort? --Aim Here 22:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It isn't only Waya who is wasting time. —Guanaco 22:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
RFC moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. --cesarb 17:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

At what point do the rules for subverting a block get applied?

The evidence that Waya sahoni is actually Jeffrey Vernon merkey seems very strong. User Gadugi (Jeff Merkey) was indefinitely blocked. Waya Sahoni is an apparent attempt to circumvent that block. When do these rules get applied?Vigilant 07:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Users are allowed to circumvent blocks if they do not continue the behavior that got them blocked in the first place. For example, a vandal can return to Wikipedia with a new account if he uses it to create useful articles. —Guanaco 21:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

When you violate 3RR, you will certainly be blocked. I know. :-) Waya sahoni 08:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the welcome Guanaco!

Really appreciate the links!

TroyVaughn 01:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Mahavatar Babaji

Please see discussion on why we keep on reverting it to older versions. We are not vandalizing the article.

No To Frauds 08 March 2006 (UTC)

MarkSweep

Thankyou for reverting th damage to my user page from MarkSweep.

My personal feeling is that while userboxes may/may-not be a problem, categories are a diffeerent thing.

I feel that (self-)categorising of users is important, in that it allows potential biases to be explicitly exposed for discussion and consideration. I have written and edited a number of articles on Christian groups, and feel it is improtant to put myself outthere as non-christian.

The other issue with categories is that they allow meta-communities to form, potential small scale project recruiting to happen etc.

Alex Law 00:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I came here for the same reason. Thank you for reverting Mark's vandalism of my userpage. Looks like I'll have to pay closer attention to it in the future. MiraLuka 02:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to add my thanks for fixing my warboxen userpage. Keep up the good work.--God Ω War 02:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Another thanks for rv'ing the "work" of MarkSweeps... only now he reverted it back. Any idea what we can do to desysop him or something similar? --SuperNova 03:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Currently, only Jimbo Wales and the arbitration committee can desysop people. I don't think Jimbo is going to intervene, and the generally corrupt arbcom would probably end up desysopping me if we requested arbitration. Also, he could still revert using other methods if he lost sysop status. —Guanaco 03:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Generally, the best way to have someone de-sysoped is to file a successful arbitration case which demonstrates abuse of power. If the arbitrators agree that a sysop has abused his or her power to such an extent as to call into question his or fitness to serve, he or she may either be de-sysoped on the spot or forced to submit themselves to WP:RFA. The latter generally proves a difficult hurdle. Best, Mackensen (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks here too for the same reasons noted by Alex Law (above). MarkSweep's admin actions have caused me to reconsider my level of participation. Rklawton 04:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is a myth, a useful one, but still very much in the same closet as the Easter Bunny. Explicitly exposing ones biases is a way of doing that. Not just individually, but collectively. If the editors of a particular article are all Republicans or Wiccans or D&D Chaotic Neutral, that potentially says something about the POV being expressed. Likewise if an article about a politically controversial evangelist is edited by both a Wiccan and a member of a church the evangelist was affilaited withit says something very different about the POV.
Much of the Anthropology community have given up trying to claim "objectivity" and have instead begun to adopt the idea of disclosure.
If MarkSweep was just fiddling away UserBoxes, in line with the Word of Jim, then that would be a different kettle of fish, but erasing categories as well is pushing the point.

Wow, just saw you efforts, and dropped by to thank you! I'm going to snag your T1 userbox now. StrangerInParadise 20:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Checkout Special:Contributions/MarkSweep, he is at it again (emptying and deleting categories). He needs to be blocked for much longer! StrangerInParadise 20:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How about setting up a userbox called "my user page was vandalized by Mark Sweep on" :-) --Leifern 21:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Template: User review

Please see CSD criterion T1. I'm not making any judgement of its rightness or wrongness. I do think it's arguable though. The template is not designed to help build an encyclopaedia.

Why encourage organised shitstirring, Guanaco? Selina can link her trollboard from her userpage. I don't have any problem with that. I was linking it from mine until recently. But templates are supposed to be a way to help edit the encyclopaedia. I don't really support the MarkSweeps and other crusaders, but I can understand their POV. How does it help that people whose purpose is destructive can round up other destructive trolls, using Wikipedia's own mechanism? How does it help to have people promote anger, "anti-ness", bitterness? Grace Note 02:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review is a valid forum for discussing Wikipedia. I use it, and I don't vandalize or troll. I use it to help the encyclopedia. Pushing contributors around by deleting userboxes only tears Wikipedia apart by driving users away. —Guanaco 02:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the last part, Guanaco. Understanding Mark's position is not the same as endorsing it. I don't think userboxes add much but I don't think the hysterical crusade against them is adding much either. I do not share your belief that WR is a valid forum for discussing WP, but I am not assuming that you don't think that: for some people with an axe to grind, just about any forum would do. I certainly am not suggesting that its users are necessarily vandals or trolls or are using it to do that. However, it is clearly divisive: several of its members attack Wikipedia editors (including me, although of course I don't mind it, I'm a big boy and dish it out too off wiki) and some urge the destruction of Wikipedia. Some have posted quite offensive stuff about people here. Now that's not going to endear them to editors here, is it? And proudly boasting about it and linking to the forum in which they do it are hardly going to make everyone feel all gooey. But it's not the worst thing in the world, I agree. I think that if everyone involved subst'd it and there was no way to use it to create a "gang", it would be just another small bad thing that Wikipedia could tolerate easily enough. Grace Note 03:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Guanaco, once something is at deletion review, it should remain deleted until people decide to restore it. I don't have strong feelings about the userbox myself, except that I don't want to see anyone use it for linkspam, but I do think the deletion-review process should be allowed to proceed. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Un-semi-protect

Since you took the semiprotection off my talk page, will you at least be sure to watchlist it? I get a whole lot of vandalism from anon and brand new sockpuppet accounts. Very often this exact same really problem vandalism of adding many thousands of copies of an image (usuablly of George Bush). What makes it particularly problematic is that I cannot ever load the diff even, since the page size of the vandalized version is far too large for WP servers to deliver before timing out. I'm still gotten some of that same thing from accounts that exist for the few days needed to avoid semiprotection, but not quite as much.

Of course, better still would be putting the semiprotection back on... the people I need to chat with have been on WP at least a couple days, and have usernames. But since you sort of invite a problem for me, I beseech you to monitor it :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

I'd like your thoughts on a brainstorm I've tried to articulate here: User:Leifern/Adminwatch idea. And feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 16:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Admin alert re cat/tmpl deletions

Action at WP:AN/I#User:MarkSweep

FYI,

StrangerInParadise 00:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Regional Userboxes

I saw that the DRV had been closed on these boxes here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates/Archive#Wikipedia:Userboxes.2FRegional_Politics. It seems to have been closed as a Keep. However, I seem to be missing something as this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Userboxes/Regional_Politics&oldid=38295467 shows hundreds of red links. Can you tell me what i am missing here?--God Ω War 01:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that they were abusively deleted out of process. I'll investigate it further and undelete them if this is the case. —Guanaco 02:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive edit warring

You and MarkSweep are engaged in a destructive edit war on several Userbox templates. I find both of your actions to be disruptive, and am blocking you both for 12 hours. Please discontinue edit warring with each other, find somewhere to discuss your differences, and make some attempt to achieve consensus. Thank you. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have undone this block. It seems like punishment to me, as there is no ongoing disputed behavior here. Whether the reverts were disruptive or not is apparently debatable, but they're over now. Friday (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

reverts

Guanaco, I've left a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MarkSweep#regarding_the_reverts similar message on Mark's page. You may have seen me bitching on IRC, even.

I wanted to tell you that I mostly agree with the things you've done today. However, I disagree with the way you've done them. When Tony Sidaway says "fuck process," we rightly tell him that this is not an appropriate way for a member of our community (including admins) to act.

Some of your edits today were done without mentioning on the talk page what you were doing or why you were doing it. While we are all pretty busy, and sometimes this seems like a pain in the ass, it's important. Especially on some articles, like the db-divisive and db-inflammatory templates, where people will no doubt be watching them, waiting for a change they don't like.

We're trying to get to a consensus on the proposed userbox policy poll. By doing what you did today, and Mark responding the way he did, the two of you jeopardized the process of... well, healing the sort of community lacerations we have here.

I don't want to get involved in the conflict. I'm really not a party to it, except in a very tangential, accidental sense. I just want to try to get to the point where we can agree on a few precepts, and move forward with amendments.

We have to do this through consensus and compromise, and that means doing things slowly, tediously, and with lots of talking. But afterwards, because we will have agreed on where we need to be, we will have more time to edit our encyclopedia. And that's why we're all here.

Thanks for your time, Guanaco. I wouldn't have blocked either you or Mark. I prefer to talk things out. Hopefully the block won't make you bitter, or anything, and we can get back to Business As Usual in eleven hours and change.

... aa:talk 07:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try focusing more on work in the article space, and I will discuss my changes to pages like {{db-divisive}}. I agree this needs to be discussed, but in a partial blanking situation, it is easy for content or categories to be lost permanently. Once categories are removed, they can be difficult to restore if they are buried under other edits. If there is ever a general agreement to remove user categories, it can be done quickly with no collateral damage. On the other hand, if the agreement is to keep the categories, they may be buried in page histories where content is often lost forever. I think MarkSweep has calmed down, so I don't imagine there will be any further need to rollback in the near future. —Guanaco 15:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding. When I looked at what he had been up to, I, too, realized it was going to be incredibly hard to go and un-do what he had done. I personally don't understand the "salt the earth" mentality some people have had recently. I, too, look forward to a time when we can just work on the encyclopedia. Cheers, ... aa:talk 19:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

categories and userboxes

I'm somewhat neutral on the userboxes debate, I'm not a fan on bumper stickers. However, MarkSweep has done himself and his cause no good by extending the deletion war to user categories. I'm not sure what the solution is, perhaps move a lot of Category:Bigendian Users to Category:Users/Bigendian style category names would help?

I find categories useful (even whimsical ones) in form communities within wikipedia, in seeking others with similar interests (including looking for people to check my work for NPOV on controversial issues) and, with userboxes as well, for understanding the biases my fellow editors bring to articles.

Anthropology and Sociology are abandoning the myth of objectivity in favour of the idea of disclosure, surely following their lead will make Wikipedia a better resource.

Alex Law 15:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but the problem with this is the inevitable possibility of Category:Users/Jimbo is Stalin. The deeper argument is whether users should be allowed to make inane content in particular areas of the encyclopedia. I don't see any clear way to compromise between either side. ... aa:talk 05:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
A "Jimbo is Stalin" template would be a personal attack. I'd delete it myself. —Guanaco 05:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm guilty of reductio ad absurdium. So let's say a Category:Users/Left wing. Or Category:Users/Gun owner. The problem is that categories can be used to represent the same things that userboxes are being used for presently. And one could go and put all kinds of pro-gun information on the gun category, etc. I just don't see a good place to draw the line. ANd I think that's what has everyone up in arms. Right? ... aa:talk 06:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see that users identifying themsleves, their biases and their affiliations as inane, nor that it does anything against the aims of Wikipedia, and in fact, by wearing ones potential biases on one's sleave, one invites closer scrutiny of one's writing by persons of opposing viewpoints. Sure, stupid children will get into he-said/she said edit wars, but that will always happen. Certainly, the user categories will need to be watched for unacceptable behaviour. But if my belonging to Category:Wiccan Wikipedians means that articles I right on Christaian cults get closer scrutiny and balancing contributions form people from the other side of the Abrahamic/Neopgan divide, then it is a good thing. Until those who are opposed to all userboxes and categories delete the big hot button ones like those relating to 9/11 and the USA's military adventurism in the middle east, and wear the flack that gets them, they are guilty of selective enforcement, which is the tool of Kings and Tyrants. Alex Law 15:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Immortal

Could you look into the deletion of this template for me? Moe ε 17:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I already put this up on DRV.--God Ω War 18:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Technical Solution

I have came up with a technical solution to the userbox problem that should make everyone happy. Please tell me what you think. Is this even possible?--God Ω War 22:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Re MarkSweep again

Please see my edit to the issue of MarkSweep subst'ing userboxes. There was also one template he blanked that wasn't mentioned and that was {{user review}}. The proof can be found in the edit history of my userboxes page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nathanrdotcom/Userboxes&diff=41865435&oldid=41856096. Thanks. - nathanrdotcom (Talk • Contribs) 01:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Waya_sahoni is most likely a sockpuppet

as shown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Waya_sahoni#Is_this_account_a_sockpuppet.3F here. If you have a moment, can you please look at it? I think you are blocking users on his behalf, when in fact, you should be blocking the other party. --BWD (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. It's all moot anyway. --BWD (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI

I've left a comment at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#T1 & Jimbo. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Be advised that I am in the process of filing a Request for Arbitration in relation to the edit war between Guanaco and MarkSweep. You are being named as an involved party. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I just want to offer my thanks, my support, and anything else I can possibly offer to you. Thanks for all of your help. If there is ever anything that I can do for you please don't hesitate to ask AdamJacobMuller 03:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hang in there

Things are shifting. Where'd your UB's go? StrangerInParadise 05:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted my user page to a November 2004 version. The userboxes will return when the wikistress meter shrinks. —Guanaco 05:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Make stress the other guy's problem. You should stand tall on this: as you are an admin, others will look to you to see whether you have userboxes still. It is easy to think that admins are united against this. BTW, check out WP:RFAR#Amicus curiae statement by StrangerInParadise, though I am quite proud of this,

Statement by User:MarkSweep
In the interest of full disclosure I should point out that I've been removing superfluous categories from templates since at least February 22 without any major complaints. If it hadn't been for StrangerInParadise (talk • contribs) and "his" Template:User pro-cannabis, which is a particularly egregious example of Wikipedia-external advocacy, all of this would have proceeded quietly....

"...and I'd have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids!" =)

StrangerInParadise 07:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

So if User pro-cannabis is so egregious, what was wrong with the Wiccan Wikipedians category? Which wasn't empty until MarkSweep emptied it. (OK, anyone? Please?) Alex Law 14:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

User:MarkSweep removing categories, again

Hi, Just thought you would want to know about this... User:MarkSweep is at it again and removed the categories from the following articles last night, I have reverted them all back to their prior state.

  1. Template:User creationist
  2. Template:User evolution
  3. Template:User cannabis
  4. Template:User pope
  5. Template:User humanist
  6. Template:User fsm2
  7. Template:User fsm
  8. Template:User spiritual humanist
  9. Template:User eastortho
  10. Template:User lennonist

AdamJacobMuller 14:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Instituto Balseiro

Why did you unprotect this article? It was protected yesterday due to constant vandalism by dinamic IPs adresses, see its history page. --OneEuropeanHeart 23:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It appeared that the IP addresses that vandalize the article could simply be blocked. In this case, since the IPs are dynamic, I will re-semi-protect the article to prevent the collateral damage that would be caused by blocking 200.43.201/24. —Guanaco 00:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Block

Wasn't me who requested that so not sure why the asking and response was done on my user page... –Adityanath 01:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If it wasn't you, I don't know who did it. I'll block the user again. —Guanaco 01:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
It was User:NoToFrauds. I'll watch that user. —Guanaco 01:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you also watch User:Hamsacharya dan (who is also User:128.195.111.122)? He and User:NoToFrauds seem to be in a bit of an edit war because the former is a religious fanatic who keeps trying to promote his guru at length in various related articles. So far he (Dan) has:

I'm losing patience with this guy and am going on vacation for a week tomorrow, so hopefully someone can get him to see what is wrong with his approach. I have kept modifying; but he does a lot of reverting...

Thanks! —Adityanath 13:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot

Thanks for the help there.--Jimbo Wales 03:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 16:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

CDBS

Hello. Recently, in the CDBS article, you changed [[dh_make]] to [[dh make]], when the correct name was dh_make. If you are doing this in an automated fasion, you may wish to disable automatically getting rid of underscores, as it is at times inappropriate. Where (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Image:Cyde.png This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought I opposed your nomination. —Guanaco 22:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
you did http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cyde&diff=42299434&oldid=42296820 AdamJacobMuller 04:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I opposed it as well and yet he put a userbox on my userpage as well as the talk page.--God Ω War 23:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • he put it on your userpage, and we made this guy an admin? AdamJacobMuller 04:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you are mistaken. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:God_of_War&action=history According to your userpage history, Cyde has never edited your userpage... Jude(talk,contribs) 06:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What in the world?

Guanaco, what's this all about? Surely you didn't create it yourself? Just curious. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Tawker asked me to copy/paste that from some page history I deleted from the recent featured articles. Tawkerbot2 will now revert the addition of most of those images to most articles. —Guanaco 18:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


Welcome to Esperanza!

Welcome, Guanaco/archive3, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. Redwolf24 runs the spam to keep members up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of KnowledgeOfSelf, JoanneB, FireFox and Titoxd. The next set of elections will be in February, and I would be glad to see you vote, or even consider running for a position.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Move protection

Why is my page move-protected?? --Sunfazer (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You asked for no page moves. If you didn't want that, I can remove the move protection. —Guanaco 23:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It was a test. Please remove the semi-protection and move protection. Also, in a few months time, will you support my RFA?? --[[User:Sunfazer|Sun [[User talk:Sunfazer|fazer]]]] 23:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I will. You've done some good work cleaning up vandalism (even earning a fan, see Category:Imposters of Sunfazer), and I see no reason to oppose. Editcountitis is notoriously resistant to typical anti-inflammatory treatments, so just make a few more edits and you should pass RFA. . —Guanaco 23:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that! I haven't spent as much time actually editing articles as I would like to, due to vandalism and stuff (judging by the Kate's Tool results!). Just leave messages on my talk page notifying me of any new AFDs and frequently vandalised pages and I will see to it as soon as I can! --Sunfazer [[User_talk:Sunfazer|(talk)]] 23:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
BTW, you do excellent work yourself!! --Sunfazer [[User_talk:Sunfazer|(talk)]] 23:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Waya_sahoni

I responded to you on this talk page. In short, I really hope you reconsider your reversal of the block on Waya_sahoni for the reasons outlined in my response. Thanks. --BWD (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes please! Restore the block. Please. Other than the sockpuppetry, he made massive legal theats, massive personal attacks, and massive copyvio, with complete indifference to good WP "citizenship". Any one of those are normally blocking actions. I've started to work on a couple of the Cherokee topics Waya sahoni has worked on... and while there is some good starting material, it will take many weeks of work to get any of it remotely close to WP:NPOV or WP:V, and none of that can happen while Waya sahoni is around to revert everyone else's improvements of articles he WP:OWN's. This is an absolute disaster to restore this account, I finally breathed a sigh of relief when I saw the block, as chance to work productively again without such constant disruptions and vitriol. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Guanaco: I would greatly appreciate it if you please reinstated the block made on User:Waya sahoni. I would have thought the comments that he made in response to the block on his talk page, User_talk:Waya sahoni (including legal threats) in addition to his combative editing on Cherokee related articles would have been sufficient cause not to do so. The RfAr has not even yet been accepted by the Arbitration Committee, and thus I do not see a necessity to unblock this user; he has in my view been actively disruptive. I might have perhaps appreciated it if you'd e-mailed me first, although I appreciate you informed me on your talk page it now places me in a position where I cannot reblock without wheel warring with you. Regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In particular, if http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWaya_sahoni&diff=44311382&oldid=44311124 this edit doesn't prove he should be blocked, I can't think what else would. Regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about wheel warring with me; I don't file arbitration complaints, and Waya sahoni has been causing problems. The legal threats are unacceptable, so I will block Waya sahoni for a week for that reason. You are welcome to extend it indefinitely if you want. —Guanaco 19:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist

Not wanting further to clutter the admins' noticeboard, I write briefly here to commend you for your http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=3263874&diff=44433512&oldid=44432956 recent http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=44432303&oldid=44425800 levelheadness apropos of the Karmafist blocks. Joe 01:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis

Why did you unblock user:JarlaxleArtemis? Has he notified anyone of his apology? Has he fulfilled the other requirements of his unbanning? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=43781497#JarlaxleArtemis -Will Beback 02:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

When I reviewed the block, the requirements appeared to be fulfilled. Neither Phroziac nor I could find the original tasks http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JarlaxleArtemis&diff=28095254&oldid=28094760 at that time. Phroziac's main reason for blocking was the failure to write an apology. I'll ask Jarlaxle to notify the users of the apology.
JarlaxleArtemis is listed at WP:MENTCOM#JarlaxleArtemis, satisfying the mentorship requirement. I don't frequent Encyclopedia Dramatica, so I don't know what he has done there. —Guanaco 04:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Injunction

Pursuant to your arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has passed an injunction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Guanaco%2C_MarkSweep%2C_et_al/Proposed_decision#Guanaco_restricted_from_admin_reversals For the duration of your case, you are prohibited from reversing any other admin's action. Raul654 07:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/u/a/User_talk%7EGuanaco_archive3_318c.html"