User talk:Winhunter/Archive-Dec06
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Image:Putypute982.jpg
Greetings. Would you be kind enough to have a look at this image? The unloader continues his history of license abuses. Óðinn 16:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 13th.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 46 | 13 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 23:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request for unblock Omura entry
Hello. I understand you are following WP guidelines and are asking me to do the same. It sounds a good way to go. But again, if others are teaming up to collectively effectively sabotage (ignore and revert consensus decisions made by all involved included them during recent meidation), your intervention is in effect serving the goal of mocking the mediation process - regardless of your intention. Please think about this. Thank you.Richardmalter 08:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] omg typo alert
"Please read our our username policy and choose another name" (just letting you know -- didn't dig through your monobook to see where it's coming from). Luna Santin 23:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 20th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 47 | 20 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Would You Take a Look at This Please....
Hello Winhunter, would you take a look at this comment that this user has left on an admin's talk page. He has a fairly large amount of sockpuppet evading bans (see here). You might as well check this too.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but here's another small childish blurb of his.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User Mystìc
hi this is user Mystìc here, you have declined to unblock my account saying as per below. If you check the checkuser request the allegation was that the users Vandalized the user:Sudharsansn's page. If you check my contributions you can see I have not done anything like that. In fact I didn't even know such a user existed b4 the block. Further more I've been accused of vote stacking for the template that was nominated for deletion, you can verify for your self in my contributions that I have not done so. And I've been accused as a sockpuppet for user:Lahiru_k again whom I have not had any relation to and nor I endorse his behavior in wikipedia. I kindly request you to unblock my user account. Thanks and regards 222.165.157.129 08:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] reverted why?
Miltopia's my friend, and he specifically asked to be made to laugh in that section... why would you revert my funny limericks, that weren't even visible? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's an honest mistake. In hindsight, thanks for reverting my vandalism; I don't blame you for not checking whether it was invited. It so seldom is. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AIV
Thanks for blocking. --Dweller 09:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My block review
Hi Winhunter, I sent you an email to which I got no repsonse. Can you explain to me why you decided that I was 'disruptive' on the BDORT page? Thanks, Crum375 12:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- (copied from my Talk page, Crum375 15:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC))
- The reasons I considered you disruptive is because your previous reverts in the article and the fact that this time is a near 3RR. --WinHunter (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response, Winhunter. May I ask if you have ever seen me go over 3RR, anywhere? Or ever being uncivil or violating any WP rule? And is being 'near 3RR', while trying to keep an article under mediation stable, considered 'disruption' in your opinion? Also, do you think that an editor who's contributed a lot to WP and had never been warned, blocked or been uncivil, deserves at least a warning and a chance to explain himself before being summarily blocked? Crum375 15:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Quote from WP:3RR: "The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique." In my opinion, repeatedly going near 3RR is disruption. My view is that if it is consensus then it would not require a single editor to even go near 3RR. If you still disagree with my reasoning feel free to ask another admin to review my decision. --WinHunter (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Winhunter, I am fully familiar with that statement, and as I mentioned to you in my email I normally try to stick to a 1RR, except in some unusual cases, and this was one of them. I do intend to get some more view points on this issue, as you suggest, but I do care about your own views, as you were directly involved. You did not respond to my question above about the need for a warning message prior to a block, I would appreciate your opinion on that point also. Thanks, Crum375 16:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry for missing that part. My view is: For new users, warnings are required as they do not know about Wikipedia policies. For established users, they are assumed to know the policies such as 3RR. While warnings is preferable, it is not required before a block take place. --WinHunter (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I guess I am not familiar with the part of the policy that says that an established and civil contributor, who had never been warned, never been blocked, can get blocked for 'disruption' without any warning whatsoever. My best understanding of WP's spirit and rules is that we bend over backwards to try to explain why a particular behavior is contrary to rules or otherwise disruptive. In this case, there was no effort whatsoever made to explain the disruption prior to a block being applied. BTW, part of WP's policies are also its common practices. And to the best of my knowledge, many (if not most, or even all) of the WP's best editors would from time to time resort to reverting 3 times, with proper warnings and edit summaries. I can buy your argument that to you personally my 3 reverts, despite their edit summaries and Talk page notes looked 'disruptive'. But I think that even then, a warning message is still warranted prior to a block. Crum375 17:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry for missing that part. My view is: For new users, warnings are required as they do not know about Wikipedia policies. For established users, they are assumed to know the policies such as 3RR. While warnings is preferable, it is not required before a block take place. --WinHunter (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Winhunter, I am fully familiar with that statement, and as I mentioned to you in my email I normally try to stick to a 1RR, except in some unusual cases, and this was one of them. I do intend to get some more view points on this issue, as you suggest, but I do care about your own views, as you were directly involved. You did not respond to my question above about the need for a warning message prior to a block, I would appreciate your opinion on that point also. Thanks, Crum375 16:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Quote from WP:3RR: "The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique." In my opinion, repeatedly going near 3RR is disruption. My view is that if it is consensus then it would not require a single editor to even go near 3RR. If you still disagree with my reasoning feel free to ask another admin to review my decision. --WinHunter (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response, Winhunter. May I ask if you have ever seen me go over 3RR, anywhere? Or ever being uncivil or violating any WP rule? And is being 'near 3RR', while trying to keep an article under mediation stable, considered 'disruption' in your opinion? Also, do you think that an editor who's contributed a lot to WP and had never been warned, blocked or been uncivil, deserves at least a warning and a chance to explain himself before being summarily blocked? Crum375 15:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How Do You View This?
Hello Winhunter. As an admin of Wikipedia how do you view someone creating an image for a vandalism barnstar, as a sockpuppet of JINXTENGU has done? I just think its a tad desperate for a vandal but is this considered appropriate? I would think an award that encourages the destruction of Wikipedia is not in essence an award for Wikipedia.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Update: admin pschemp took care of it.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] WinBot should not make changes within nowiki tags
See my post at Village Pump.
Others appear to agree WinBot should not make changes to apparent template calls inside <nowiki> (or <pre>) tags. I.e. it changed the apparent welcome template in error.--SportWagon 15:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User talk:206.207.42.115
Hey, mate - you dealt with this IP before (and someone's strange campaign to use Marco Rullo to attack "Kyle.") He's back, and doing the exact same thing - if you get a minute, can you take a look? Thanks, --TheOtherBob 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 27th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 48 | 27 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Mike1
Thank you for protecting the page. Could you please restore the old reversions as well? I had them deleted earlier today because I am leaving, but I have decided that I would like to keep them for historical purposes and so my contribs aren't fragmented (I know I'm a total egotist ;-). Please leave the retirement message as the live page however, and I would appreciate if you could re-protect the page afterwards (if that's needed) Thanks very much for your help! Mike1 03:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Turkey
I saw your post on the talk page of Turkey about the Prime Minister.. I looked for the logical inconsistency that you mentioned, however I was unable to find it.. If you can show me where it is, I will fix it.. Thanks.. Baristarim 14:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- ok then, sorry about the confusion.. Cheers!Baristarim 14:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
