User talk:RasputinAXP/Archive04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

[edit] Spinebuster (band)

Your logic behind deleting a lengthy article detailing the history of a well-known band in the thriving Glasgow metal scene is pretty questionable.

Admittedly, I am a member of this band, a quick glance at my username makes this fairly obvious, but I did not write the article - it was submitted and brought to my attention by someone else. I watched it on the "Articles For Approval" page for a while, and it looked as though it was one of the masses of overlooked articles receiving neither a thumbs up or a thumb down, so I copy and pasted it up myself immediately under a registered username.

I was going to use this as a starting point to write a good few articles about the growing music scene here in Scotland, which is poorly represented on Wikipedia, but if they're going to just get erased for no good reason every time then it's obviously not worth the hassle. Harsh quick decision-making like yours surely must be very stifling to the growth of Wikipedia.

I didn't delete the article, I merely tagged it for deletion based on the fact that I couldn't find any reliable sources on the band and it didn't make any assertion of notability.  RasputinAXP  c 01:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This has all happened before

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Norcross

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Long Island Project (2006)

-- Fan1967 15:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh. Well that's interesting. That turns it into a Speedy for recreation of previously deleted material.  RasputinAXP  c 00:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the behavior of the author in the last round, it looks awfully familiar, even though it was supposedly a totally different person. Warnings removed, pages blanked, obscene rants left on people's user pages. Sound like anyone you've encountered lately? Fan1967 02:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed and I wasn't even keeping tabs on the user. The odd ranting on my talk page (see above) I'm used to from people who're upset about AfDs. Crazy stuff, though. Thanks for the heads up.  RasputinAXP  c 03:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correction?

BoojiBoy was referring to the Kitchener Rangers on my talk page, not the New York Rangers, unless you are a fan of the Kitchener Rangers. I see that your from New Jersey, so it would make a little more sense that you'd be a New York Rangers fan. I am a Kitchener Rangers fan, but in the NHL I'm not like you, I'm a proud resident of LeafNation. I just would hate to have my allegiances to be misappropriated. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 03:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaha, I misread it, sorry :) I can respect the Leafs. I'm just wishing my Rangers didn't fall off the face of the earth the last few games. I blame it on Weekes, as usual.  RasputinAXP  c 03:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey don't worry about it, they're playing either the Devils or Flyers in the playoffs (the two teams I loathe), so I'll be rooting for them to win. They're better than both those teams anyways. Tough luck with those seven playoffless seasons though, it must feel nice to be back in. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 01:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's like a breath of fresh air, I'll tell you that. I never expected Jagr to take off like he did.  RasputinAXP  c 02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal

Despite your spite for the article and for its creator, I would expect a little more respect from you on my talk page. Do not vandalize my talk page again. Leave a comment, but if I decide to delete it, DO NOT put it back up! Katherine 17:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Blanking warnings from your talk page is a form of vandalism, as is reposting deleted material.  RasputinAXP  c 17:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is MY talk page, I will edit it accordingly. Calling me on vandalism on my own page is entirely groundless. Katherine 17:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:VANDALISM#Types_of_vandalism: Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism.  RasputinAXP  c 17:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The tags were two months ago, and no longer are of consequence. I removed them a long time ago, only now when I vote in favor of an article you want to get rid of do you make a deal out of it... Katherine 17:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

When your first edit in two months is to vote in favor of an article that has been deleted once and is going to be deleted again, many editors check out your talk page. To find a recreation of material that had already been deleted was interesting enough. Finding out you'd been warned for vandalism just as your "roomie" has was even more interesting, and doesn't make it any lessaggravating that you're trying to hide that you were a vandal.

If you've turned over a new leaf, more power to you. Making personal attacks isn't the wisest course. We're more than happy to have good, constructive, verifiable edits. By the way, why are you trying to revoke copyright on images you don't own?  RasputinAXP  c 17:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination

Here we go.

Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 03:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Now you have to answer the questions posted, and then post that page on the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship page. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 17:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Done and posted. Here goes nothing. Or everything.  RasputinAXP  c 19:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added an optional question (#5) to your RfA. Thanks in advance for your response. --TantalumTelluride 23:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've responded. Thanks very much!  RasputinAXP  c 00:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to become an admin, it would be strongly appreciated if you would set up your signature so it met WP:SIG. In particular, the presence of a picture in your signature is a violation of WP:SIG. JoshuaZ 13:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Noted.  RasputinAXP  c 15:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: pics in signatures make a massive drain on the image server and also slow down loading of talk pages for those not on fast connections. JoshuaZ 15:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to feel WP:SIG should be moved to a policy as opposed to a guideline.  RasputinAXP  c 15:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged Hate Mail

I've been thinking about my neutral vote in your RfA. I've seen you doing a lot of good work around here, but I was a little concerned about your signature and some of your answers to the standard RfA questions. Now, do you mind explaining why you have a Hate Mail section on your user page. The message in that section is only moderately uncivil, and one must expect some new users to be frustrated when their contributions are deleted or proposed for deletion. I'd be interested in knowing how you responded to that message (if you responded in any way besides posting it on your user page). I'm concerned that you might have a hard time dealing with vandals and authors of deleted articles if you become an admin. I'm also concerned about the fact that you posted the message publicly in the first place. Unless someone is seriously abusing Wikipedia's emailuser tool, their privacy should be respected. Email messages are not licensed under the GFDL, so you don't have the right to reproduce the exact text publicly. I'm sorry about all these questions. Thanks again for your time. --TantalumTelluride 19:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just addressed that on my RfA page. As I said there, my tongue is firmly in my cheek referring to it as hate mail and my only response was to post it to my user page. It rolls off my back.  RasputinAXP  c 19:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the response. I understand that you're very active in new-page patrolling, which undoubtedly leads to a lot of strange messages from frustrated and angry new editors. And no one can realistically expect you to reply to all of them and explain Wikipedia notability guidelines and deletion policy over and over again. Like I said before, I have seen you do a lot of respectable work around here, so I'm going to assume good faith and change my vote to support. After all, adminship is no big deal. Right? Good luck. --TantalumTelluride 02:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are destroying the soul of Wikipedia

It is clear that your goal is to delete as much as you can but think again are you the solution or the problem here? If I understand correctly the idea of Wiki there should be an openmind and articles that are not clear nonsens should have a chance to develop. --Swedenborg 06:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, my goal is to create an encyclopedia. Your articles were unverifiable mush, exactly as they were before. Wikipedia requires verifiability, which was sorely lacking in the article that you posted under three or four different titles. Your article would have a chance to develop if you could verify any part of it in a valid, reliable source.  RasputinAXP  c 13:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well you are wrong! The original article was on Wikipedia for many years and not written by me. I put it up for undelet but nothing happend. The article describes an real 3000 people network GRB and refers to scientifical reports, UN-documents and real websites. Yes I am new on Wikipedia so please tell me how I should do to get a serious work on an article of the Global Resource Bank Inititaive and Arthur Shaw (A real Dr, scientist and poet) --Swedenborg 07:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Count

Hi RasputinAXP,

I'm giving you your edit count, as I thought it might help you in your RfA. I used Flcelloguy's Tool (the others are out of whack), so the information is correct as of 08:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC).

And now (drum roll, please), your stats:

Statistics for: RasputinAXP
(Permissions: N/A)
- Total: 3462 -
Main: 1746
Talk: 235
User: 203
User talk: 354
Wikipedia: 804
Wikipedia talk: 59
Image: 45
Image talk: 1
Template: 13
Template talk: 1
Category: 1
-------------------
Total edits: 3462
Minor edits: 357
Edits with edit summary: 3391
Edits with manual edit summary: 3225
Percent minor edits: 10.31%  *
Percent edit summary use: 97.94%  *
Percent manual edit summary use: 93.15%  *
-------------------
* - percentages are rounded down to the nearest hundredth.
-------------------

--Primate^#101 08:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question concering www.moola.com

Normally I wouldn't ask this, but, since you're currently on RFA, I will. Why did you add a link to Moola.com to Money? (dif) The site appears to be entirely unrelated to money (except by its name) and appears to be some sort of online game show. If you were an anon I would characterize the addition as linkspam. I have since removed the link. BrokenSegue 21:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

*blink* I have no idea what that was. I'd have to figure that I had a bad cached copy of the article at the time. I'd been in the middle of reverting this diff, and judging from the timestamps it was early in the morning for me. I certainly didn't mean to re-add any linkspam. Sorry about that. RasputinAXP c 22:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please consider reading all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. Though everything you do, excluding image deletions and page history merges, is reversible, you should nevertheless be very careful with your sysop capabilities. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Good luck! — Dan | talk 21:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats from me as well. 51-7-2 out of 60 total votes, any NHL team would kill for that kind of record. I believe you'll use the tools to the best of your ability, and I hope you can help clean up our hockey resource. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! I am happy for you and good luck for the future! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hope you will use your new "power" wisely and dont let deleting others effords and initiativs to new articles a thrill... you have a responsability. think positive! --Swedenborg 12:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Belated congrats! Sorry if I did any damage with hate mail commentary on your RfA. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 07:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About my account...

Is there any way that you can change my password to some random number & letter sequence, because I'd rather continue on Wikipedia as an annonymous. DarknessProductionsInc 17:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have that power, but your account has so few edits that all you need to do is create another account. RasputinAXP c 17:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the emokid21ohio article

I don't know why it got erased and I was never told why. I just wanted to know why you felt that it should be deleted. (Human historian 01:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

It was a non-notable biography with no claim to notability. See WP:CSD. RasputinAXP c 02:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

How do I arrange to get a page protected from being edited new/unregistedred users like Xrta has with user talk:Xtra (I'm not an admin)?Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)

See Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy; Talk pages and user talk pages are not protected as a rule, except in special circumstances. If you're going through a bout of severe vandalism from one or two IPs, it's usually better to just warn and block them. Let me know and I'll take a look. RasputinAXP c 11:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Recent events" leading to WP:CANADA

Thats awesome that something so random led to you writing a wikipedia essay. My policy is that most people just dont realise they are hanging themselves until you have given them enough rope. They just seem to spurt open like a leaky dam. Thanks for giving me a bit of fun for today! Ansell 11:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. I saw it a few times in the weeks leading up to that one, but that just blew my mind. OF COURSE YOU WOULDN'T THINK IT'S NOTABLE, SHE LIVES IN CANADA! ;) RasputinAXP c 14:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

ROFL!!!!!!! :-D Ansell 22:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I always enjoy the line "we have an article on Windows XP, so we must surely allow one on Widgetware Plus, even though it is still in alpha". Comparing the product to BackupExec? Hey, come back when Symantec have made that buyout offer, eh? Just zis Guy you know? 20:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better late than never

Fantastic, so now you are an administrator! I would have come earlier, but could not on account of my sickness from 3rd April to 24th April 2006 resulting into my wiki-absence. I convey my congratulations to you on your elevation as an administrator, and wish you all the best! Have you ever seen me around? I am just curious! --Bhadani 15:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A friendly request regarding song articles.

We're both on a similar page regarding articles on songs currently, I think - we should have less of them, and need to be bright about it. At the same time, however, could we at least attempt some minor consensus building when it comes to otherwise bold redirects on songs that are released singles, especially ones with highly successful chart history? I don't think every one of the redirects you made on the Keane songs was off-base, but certainly a situation where a top 10 international hit gets made into a redirect without merging any information warrants some discussion, please? Otherwise, keep up the good work. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. They were all blending together after a while because so many of them that were just "This is a track from the album" etc. and were lacking in anything other than that. But yeah, we don't need an article on every single song. Er. Every single. Um. You know what I mean. Sorry. ;) RasputinAXP c 02:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vito Fossella vandalism/blocked user

Hi, you put a 24 hour block on a user who had been vandalizing the Vito Fossella page. As soon as the user could edit again, he/she put the same edits back into place. I reverted them and put a notice for administrative action. Somone deleted the request, saying that "blocking is preventative, not punitive" and that since it had been 9 hours in between the time the most recent vandalism occurred and the time he saw the request, there was nothing he could do. I don't understand what that means. If it is preventative, shouldn't this person be prevented from making the same improper edits over and over again? Could you block this person (IP: 24.168.108.195) from editing the page for a longer period of time? Thanks. JaimeTorres 01:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I gave the user a one month time out. RasputinAXP c 01:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] spoilsport

I was just leaving a message for the anon on the Myg0t talk page to the effect that having been deleted twenty times by over fifteen separate admins was probably some kind of record, and that it's an odds-on bet that they are pissing us off more than Wikipedia is pissing him off :-) Just zis Guy you know? 20:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to have spoiled your fun ;) RasputinAXP c 20:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I got to say it anyway, the jeezly thing is up for WP:DRV again. I have not the words! Just zis Guy you know? 21:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 216.56.25.166 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

I was fealing rather less generous than you (1 week vs 1 day). Mind if I re-apply longer block as it looks like a static IP ('Direct allocation' according the WHOIS)? Petros471 14:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no big deal. Go ahead and swat with a bigger stick. :) RasputinAXP c 14:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Done :) Petros471 15:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)