User talk:Guinnog/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Thanks, userpage rescued again

Thanks, as usual, for the revert on my userpage. Best, Gwernol 01:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for taking away your first block. Yes, I enjoyed his insistence on correctly spelling his rather pointed message. Gwernol 01:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rankings resource

I had previously listed a literary source for world cup rankings but it must have not been considered reputable. There were others in some yearly sports almanacs such as Sports Illustrated but I have not been able to track down some of the older ones. I was hoping the following source would be suitable. http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/releases/en/fwc_origin_en.pdf Libro0 18:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My focus was on including the rankings for 1930-1966. These have been userfy(ied) as you suggested. Thank you by the way. User:Libro0/rankings(along with other seldom seen data). Since current rankings would be a valid inclusion because FIFA uses them I don't think discussion is necessary for those. Therefore as a matter of consistency the early ones could be included as well. I think that the respective pages themselves would be suitable for the discussion. I believe on the 1930 and 1934 pages it has already been started. Libro0 18:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in a RM going on at talk:Prime minister (sic). Some individuals moved the page to that ridiculous name (if it stays at that form WP will be a laughing stock!) Feel free to contribute to the debate if you wish. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MOve on?

not until I get an apology for being unfairly blockedTheTruth2 17:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:2nd Piston Honda

Nicely done. --Guinnog 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you please offer your opinion of my handling of this incident at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Duke53 and 2nd Piston Honda? Thanks,  Netsnipe  ►  01:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. --Guinnog 07:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woo, congratulations!

Hi Guinnog,

I came here to leave you a message, and... discovered that you'd become an Admin, and I knew nothing about it. Congratulations :)

Just wanted to let you know about the discussion over at Talk:Popsicle, regarding the name. I don't need to explain it here - you can see it on the page, if you haven't already guessed what it could be about! I am hoping for your support.. if you want to give it. Thanks; all the best. EuroSong talk 19:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CAT:CSD

I think we just deleted something together, and it may happen again. Therefore, I propose I start at A and work down, and you start at the other end and work up! Hopefully, we'll clear the backlog faster that way. Good idea? Thanks :) —Xyrael / 10:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Incidentally, I always read a newspaper from back to front as well! --Guinnog 10:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for stopping immeadiately after asking. Had to leave. —Xyrael / 15:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem. --Guinnog 15:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV (September 2006)

The September 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 12:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JPD's RfA

Thanks, Guinnog, for your support at my RfA, which finished with a tally of 94/1/0. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown in me in my activities as an administrator.

[edit] Sondre

I too have had a lot of problems with User:SndrAndrss. He rarely communicates. See two recent problems. [1] [2] many of his edits are good but all too often there are really bad edits. This means ALL his edits have to be checked. I can give you mnore info if needed. Something should be done since he is such a prolific editor and despite the good he does he sucks a lot of time from other editors. David D. (Talk) 15:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have warned him; I nearly messaged you yesterday as I saw you had too. Let me know if he strays again. It's difficult because as you say he is not a clearcut vandal and does do many good edits. We need to balance WP:AGF with protecting the content. --Guinnog 15:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that he has been much better recently and CAN learn to conform to style. Sometimes it takes a while but the edit wars usually die down. The uncommunicative part of him is what makes it so frustrating. I have no idea what that flag thing was about. Very very strange. David D. (Talk) 15:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've also recently noticed User:SndrAndrss making edits in the articles in my watchlist. I've reverted a few of them but I wouldn't classify this user as a vandal (some of the edits do make sense). But I'll definitely have an eye on this user's "contributions". Chanheigeorge 01:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autoblocks

Yeah, autoblocks are nasty. I'd be happy to see them abolished, but that's another discussion for another day. To free an auotblock, go to the unblock form. At the top is a link to the autoblock tool; follow it to the tool at [3]. There you can search for any autoblocks on a user of applied by an admin. You'll need the name of the user who was originally blocked to find the one you want. In the case of User:Arpingstone, ask him for the complete message he receives when trying to edit which includes the name of the account that was originally blocked. You can then search for that autoblock on that account and lift it. Best, Gwernol 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like exactly the right thing. Good job, Gwernol 17:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your block of User:83.71.28.133

Not at all, please feel free to give him block of any length. --WinHunter (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 81.76.87.138 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)

This vandalising IP number is one of several IP numbers that have been making the same edits to various UK cabinet ministers. It seems to be the same individual, or team of vandals, perhaps, using multiple IPs to beat the blocks. I do not think Wikipedia permits this, I think it is called sockpuppeting. Is there anything that can be done about this? Perhaps the five biography sites involved can be semi-protected? Viewfinder 23:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've blocked them this time. Let me know if it happens again. The individual articles can be swiftly reverted, as they have been on this occasion. Protection and semi-protection are normally only used as a last resort in cases where we can't keep up with vandalism. I don't think this is the case here. Thanks for reporting it though; keep an eye on it and I will too. --Guinnog 23:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Thanks for your note, and thanks for your note! This is all very encouraging. Thanks for your confidence. :) Dlohcierekim 00:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Thanks, and let me know if you've any suggestions regarding Scottish literature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JPX7 (talk • contribs).

[edit] e-mail

I just sent you an e-mail on your wiki account. David D. (Talk) 05:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another message

(Moved from the top of page Gwernol 06:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)):

son, you need to chill. please do not add anything to my page again unless i hand out permission. thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.165.171 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] PRODs

Fine by me - I almost did that myself, but I thought it was best to get a second opinion. — sjorford++ 09:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All is well now

Thanks. I guess it's a risk one has to consider : ). Anyway, everything's fine now - at least you blocked the both of us. Man, that felt good! --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page blanking

No problem on the revert. Not sure what you did to tweak that IP, but he's headed for an early bath now :-) Gwernol 13:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

Hey, just read in the Signpost that you're an admin now. Congratulations! :) --Galaxiaad 17:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block of SuperJumbo

Gah. It seems that he's been moving and copying comments on his page; my reply is at the bottom of the page with the original copy of the block notice at User_talk:SuperJumbo#Reblocked. He's trying to change the Manual of Style – or at least enforce his interpretation of the MoS – by changing a large number of articles and presenting a fait accompli. What he should be doing is continuing to discuss the matter in good faith at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_quality_initiative—a discussion that SuperJumbo actually started before he went back to changing date formats.

I'd be pleased to see him contributing again, as soon as he's willing to discuss the date thing rather than going in with guns blazing. It's true that 'edit warring' was a poor choice of words; it's more of an 'edit offensive': attempting to touch as many articles as possible to update them to his 'standard'. If he's willing to return to discussion, I agree that he should be unblocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Thanks for the award, kind sir. Admittedly, I had to read up on what it was for, but I'm happy to receive acknowledgment for my contributions to the land of Wiki. I shall keep doing my bit.

Congratulations on your recent promotion. - Dudesleeper 01:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:UA232damage.png

Thanks for uploading Image:UA232damage.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help

Hey, I am getting fed up with redvers' attitude towards me and my friend User:jimothytrotter, we have accepted that some of our past edits were not ideal and have apologised for this, we have written several comments about this which we have asked him to look at, he did not instead he deleted our comments without even bothering which to me is a personal attack, by doing this he is basicaly saying "you are a complete swine, i don't wanna waste my time on you as I Hate you so much" (the reson for this hartrid is unknown)

My last to comments on his talk page were serious comments which i would have actualy liked him to answer, but yet again he is discriminating against me, if i could reach him i would ask him what this discrimintaion is about but i am unable to talk to him as he deletes all my comments, I am not only offended but disappointed in him for being so RUDE, because to me that is all it is. There is no need for him to be so horrible to us, and i am now left in a really annoying problem, I only wanted him to help me out of a problem and i put it across in a nice manner.

Do you understand him? maybe you could ask him what his problem is for us.

I make a habit of never hating anybody and hope that he can do the same.

thanks mate Dean randall 21:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

have a nice time down the Pub but i'm afriad i can't do the same because i am too young to drink in a pub by myself Dean randall 22:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User wants to vanish

Hi, this user left a note asking to vanish. His experience here was not the best. I told him I'd pass on the request. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] colloquis

hello below is a copy of the email from colloquis about copyright, I don't want to talk to them as I am too yuong and will not understand whats happening. Would you be willing to give them your number, i'll just set up a wiki account e-mail address and then you could possibly send me a number and ill tell them to give you a bell!

the e-mail
Apologies for not responding to your email "re: the Colloquis story on Wikipedia" sooner.
I work with Colloquis on the pr side. It would be helpful to me if we could talk briefly on the :phone.If you will shoot me a number where I can reach you and a time that is convenient I will give :you a ring.

Best regards,

Reid

cheers mate...JIMOTHY

[edit] email is set up

My email is set up, all i asked was wether or not i could sue the text from the website on a wikipedia article, and they obviously want to discuss the implications of doing so, rather than just signing on the dotted line, if you know what i mean!

whoops sorry, sorted now!

[edit] VAX

I've reverted your change to VAX (well, I assume it was you, that is; I found my way here from the Spellmaster page) as it'd moved some comments regarding its categorisation away from the cats in question. These might seem a bit glib, but you'd be surprised just how heated that particular debate can get!
—Chris (blather • contribs • e) 22:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popsicle

I assume that by "can you reference that", you mean can I use the correct reference template? I just did that now :)

The "Creamsicle" info came from the article of that name. I thought that it more properly belonged in the Popsicle article (since it's a brand by the same company), and therefore copied the text into the P- article and made C- a redirect. The info isn't mine originally. EuroSong talk 23:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] just trying something

you can remove it if you likeAspensti 16:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Hey, thanks a bunch Aspensti 00:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redvers

how do you suggest i repatch my friendship with redvers? I genuinly want for him to forgive me because it will mean i can forget my troublesome past.

Dean randall has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

I will give him time to cool off. I think my chances of repairing our friendship are good because he forgave fellow troll user:jimothytrotter. Thanks for the advice

sorry, i need to get into the habbit of using my personal signature DARReNTALK

[edit] Your edit to Tony Blair

Your recent edit to Tony Blair (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 00:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&diff=75004907&oldid=75004857 --Guinnog 00:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Reported here [4] --Guinnog 00:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo POV tag

The last time someone messed with the tag, it started a firestorm (in which I admit participation, as I did not agree with the one who tagged it that way). I'm going to stay out of it this time. Maybe by now it's off the radar of the one who tagged it in August or whenever it was. Good luck. :) Wahkeenah 12:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your note. I'll stand by my comment from a few minutes ago, as well as the above. If both sides think it's weighted the other way, it's hard to figure how the POV tag really applies. Wahkeenah 00:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I was wondering...

are you any good at user page design? even if your not could you please take a look at the comment I left my user page creator and see if you can get your head round it?! JiMoThYTALK

[edit] Image:Well's fargo counterfit cas.jpg

The original image had a license allowing anyone to use\alter it, which I did. --Ed629 20:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sept 11th attacks vandalism

have requested semiprotection for today... your thoughts? This is turning into constant editconflictitis... (No more bongos 17:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] User talk:86.138.73.188

You added a note at User talk:86.138.73.188 which I think was in error. You might want to check. You can argue with this IP's one edit, but given that it was the addition of one word ("Arab") which is accurate, and confirmed later in the sentence, I don't see why you left a warning about removing content. I assume it was just a mistake, and as such, you might want to leave a note for this anon user, clarifying.

PS: Thanks for all of your anti-vandalism work on September 11, 2001 attacks today! -Harmil 17:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

np, and thanks for following up! -Harmil 17:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Delete

As you offered please delete all facilities under my username. Thanks for your help.Pjbruce 12:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted your user talk page per your request. Admins will still be able to see the deleted history of course. I hope this was what you meant. --Guinnog 12:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war at Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations

Hi Guinnog, I took at look at the article, in particular the latest diff. I think you need to take this one change at a time. Some of the changes made by Numskll are minor stylistic improvements; for example I think the header "Challenges and responses" is pretty useful. On the flip side, several of his edits do indeed seem to be POV, such as changing "Members of the mainstream scientific and technical communities who have commented reject the claims as baseless." to "These claims are widely dismissed as baseless by NASA and interested members of the mainstream scientific and technical communities." where the insertion of the word "interested" is problematic. Some of his changes are just factually wrong, such as discussing the recent loss of Apollo 11 pictures in terms of just a single picture.

I think the only way to resolve this is a painstaking process on the talk page. Of course it doesn't seem like Numskll is prepared to do that. That's a problem :-)

I will leave Numskll a message and try to get him onto the talk page. In the meantime, because there are useful changes he is making, along with the not so useful, I suggest you (and other editors) do not wholesale revert his latest change. If he really isn't prepared to discuss this, then I'll step in and take appropriate action, but only after making an attempt to persuade him otherwise. A revert war over the entire set of changes isn't going to persuade him to discuss it.

Make sense? Gwernol 12:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lurkers

lol No worries Mr Lurker! I was just curious to see who was being mysteriously described as one of my lurkers! I might just take you up on that beer. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Better watch out, he's got quite the reputation. :) ++Lar: t/c 19:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] [My] edit to United Airlines Flight 232

I am fairly sure it was heading to Chicago. I am away from my paper references just now but can check in a few hours. I won't revert your edit just now. Sorry if it turns out I was wrong. --Guinnog 00:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Just looking at the PDF of the NTSB report linked in the article's references section, it says the flight was Denver to Philadelphia via Chicago. So, in some sense we're both right; I've updated the introduction to clarify that, and make it consistent with the "Chronology of the flight" section. —LrdChaos (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption

"

They have exactly the same right to define the word as they choose as anyone else does. No modern dictionary maintains the position that they are repositories of 'correct' meaning, they document actual usage. The USSR definition is every bit as valid as the US one, and the article should reflect that. After you're done on this page, you can go and tell Michael Jackson what 'bad' really means. Carfiend 21:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"

Can you respond to this, or should I? Appeals to Wahkeenah for rational responses are met only with avoidance and abuse. This is the kind of behavior that leads to labels like 'revert monkey'. As an effort of good faith, I'd like to ask you to step in, because your response is more likely to be restrained, but my patience is running thin with this disruptive user. Carfiend 23:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
As you are the disruptive and abusive one, who takes those criticisms and repeats them back to us, I probably should have posted a parrot instead. Wahkeenah 23:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
And, by the way, what have you got against squirrels? Wahkeenah 23:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

(copied to both talk pages) Guys, please. Carfield, I'm sorry if you don't appreciate my efforts here. I have no idea what you mean about USA vs USSR. Can you exaplin your point please? Wahkeenah, Carfield, I know you are both decent people. But we need to eliminate this rancour; I really want this article to get better, I've been contributing to it for a while on and off, and I want to take it forward. Can you both please try to focus on improving the article? That's all I am interested in, not you too slagging each other off. Please. --Guinnog 00:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your efforts. Don't worry about the US / USSR thing, it is a transcript from the page - I posted a question to Wahkeenah, he responds with a picture of a squirrel. I appreciate your call to civility, but am pushed to the limit of my tollerance with this disruptive user who is interested in nothing but POV pushing and insults. Carfiend 00:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I refuse to have anything more to do with this user or the one and only page he has focused on, until he is blocked... which he will be, inevitably. Wahkeenah 00:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, that would be a shame, as I know you have contributed to this page in the past. As Gwernol said, I too have concerns about Carfield, but please make sure you're not stirring the pot and making things worse. I still think that working together, we can improve this article. If you want to take some time out from it that's fine and I understand that too. But ultimately, we should all put past rancour behind us and move on. Either way, the article needs some attention, and I hope that long-term you will feel able to help with that. Best wishes, --Guinnog 00:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
There can be no peace, as long as that user is around. So I am going to make good on previous promises, and sit on the sidelines for awhile, and let the rest of you slug it out with that character. Wahkeenah 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your input Guinnog. Good job. Carfiend 00:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand. Maybe that's a wise decision, for now. Catch you later. --Guinnog 00:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Railway barnstar

Well now, "aw shucks" as we say in these parts. Many thanks for the barnstar. I finally got my books unpacked after my recent trans-continental move and have been on a bit of a tear the last few days. Much appreciated, Gwernol 01:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go raibh maith agat!

Hi there, Guinnog!

Thank you so much for supporting my RfA! It ended up passing and I'm rather humbled by the support (and a bit surprised that it was snowballed a day early!). Please let me know if I can help you out and I welcome any comments, questions, or advice you wish to share.

Sláinte!

P.S. Thanks for your message!

hoopydinkConas tá tú? 05:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wahkeenah's revert warring.

He is clearly revert warring without using the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_space_exploration_milestones%2C_1957-1969&diff=75971166&oldid=75970846, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_space_exploration_milestones%2C_1957-1969&diff=75970135&oldid=75970045, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_space_exploration_milestones%2C_1957-1969&action=history, for example. Asking him to use the talk page is not 'stirring it up', in none of those edits did he even make a meaningful edit summary, let alone discuss repeated questions on the talk page. Carfiend 01:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If you continue to behave like this you risk being blocked yourself. --Guinnog 01:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Which part of my behavior are you talking about? Please be specific. Do you mean asking Wahkeenah to use the talk page and stop revert warring? Please clarify, thanks, Carfiend 01:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I might have reverted him twice. My final revert for the day was to put it back to a version that he had told its editor (Arglebarger) was satisfactory. Wahkeenah 01:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. --Guinnog 02:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
That item of mine you just quoted back to me was from about 24 hours ago, before I got slapped (justifiably) by an admin regarding an unrelated article. Today I am trying to live up to what I said in the item you quoted, namely that I am no longer responding to that user's attempts to bait me. Wahkeenah 02:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Without wanting to feed him, Wahkeenah admits that he is refusing to discuss his edits on the talk page. I find I am at a loss to know how to deal with a user who openly refuses to use Wikipedia process to discuss his edits (which I still feel are reverts). Your suggestions would be welcome. Carfiend 04:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Whenever you get a chance, I would actually appreciate a response. Carfiend 16:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, your silence speaks volumes. ;) Carfiend 15:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unspoken question

To answer your unspoken question, I've no idea about the truth behind this topic. My interest is the editing process as played out on wikipedia and how that process is ma nifest in thevapplicability and value of the content. The article in question is an excellent vehicle to examine that process AND, most importantly, no other editor seems to share my prespective on the value of substancial and carefully edited articles on topics such as these. Your all obsessed with either pro/con POV or reaching some bizarrely awkward balance that has resulted in the mess we have now. Numskll 03:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your deletion on thev talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AApollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations&diff=75984703&oldid=75984118

Should I understand this edit as a commitment on your part to keep the topic I started on topic? Numskll 03:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. --Guinnog 12:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

First and only reply on the topic was a flame, and villation of QP:AGF and WP:NPA. It's better to give disruptive a place to play. Numskll 23:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expired Block

Hi Guinnog my block has finally expired and I'm eager to start on those proposals you sent me :) dan --Frogsprog 16:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belated thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. Consensus to promote was reached, and I am now an administrator. I'll be using the tools cautiously at first, and everyone should feel welcome to peer over my shoulder and make sure I'm not doing anything foolish. --RobthTalk 04:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you reverted my interwiki edit?

I sorted the interwiki links for the Fungus article and added an LV link. You removed the LV link and mixed them back what is like reverting my edit completely. Why did you do it? I don't see how the spelling mistake correction is an appropriate reason for this kind of editing. --Knakts 10:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. It looks like we both tried to make similar edits at almost the same time. I have no idea how it ended up doing what it it did. Thanks for letting me know. --Guinnog 10:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
OK

[edit] mainspace edits silly question

Hi, this keeps showing up under RfA oppose votes. How many is enough? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a silly question at all, it's a very good question. I am reluctant to put a hard number on it, as I know editcountitis is evil, but I think I would look for around 2000 minimum, although I would always bend that for a candidate who absolutely blew me away in other regards. Certainly I think 602 is too few. --Guinnog 13:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

ThanksDlohcierekim 13:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (50/3/0). If you have any further questions or suggestions, feel free to write me. I hope I will live up to your trust. Michael 01:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:203.206.175.46

Hi Guinnog you seem to be online, so I thought this might be the fastest place to get attention. I see you blocked the above user for 48 hours for vandalism on 2006-09-16. Unfortunately they're back and right back to their old behavior. See their latest edit to Natascha Kampusch[5]. "Dahneel" is the name the vandal inserted into previous articles. Do we have to go through all the warnings again before the user is blocked, or can you just shut them down straight away? (In case it's useful - IP's contributions:Special:Contributions/203.206.175.46, Bloglog:[6]) Thanks --SiobhanHansa 13:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've warned them and will block again if they continue to vandalise. --Guinnog 13:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I guess I was hoping we could dispense with all that for a 4th block. I'll follow more process next time :-) --SiobhanHansa 14:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Barnstar

Thanks! Nice to be appreciated. Rich Farmbrough, 21:26 18 September 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Your input please

Hi Guinnog - As a user and admin who seems to be interested in things South African, I would appreciate your input here. There is an unverifiable statement in the Tupac Shakur article that Nelson Mandela will be at the planned spreading of Tupac's ashes in Soweto in 2007. But, every time I delete the reference to Mandela, a certain user adds it back. I've tried to discuss the issue on the talk page to get some concensus, but the conversation is missing the point. The user has pointed out one article from an Australian source that mentions Mandela would be at the planned spreading of Tupac's ashes this year (which was cancelled), but there is no article anywhere (especially not in South Africa, as the talk page shows) that verifies he will be there in 2007 (or was planning on being there this year for that matter). I think this is a moment of very weak research that needs to be corrected. As someone who is interested in South African issues, and someone who seems to have a level head and open eyes, I would appreciate it if you would comment on the issue. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. Cheers, Jason Lionchow 08:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and corrections to the article. Unfortunately, I have found that there is much misinformation on WP about Africa in general, some small, some large, and this is just one instance. Hopefully I can help correct more. Lionchow 10:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I added Scotland (and Ireland) to my 'travelling' box. I don't know how I forgot them. If you noticed one of my userboxes says that I enjoy drinking, and it is my dream to tour the distilleries of the world, so how could I leave out Scotland! Cheers, Jason Lionchow 10:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lol

Thanks! :) - Glen 10:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maraba Coffee

Hello! As you're a Wikipedian interested in African topics, I'm writing to notify you that the Maraba Coffee article is now a 'Featured Article Candidate'. Please feel free to evaluate the article and write your support or opposition at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Thanks — SteveRwanda 15:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page

Hi, I liked what you did for User:Newyorkbrad. Any chance of having a look at mine? Sorry to be so cheeky and I won't mind in the least if you have better things to do. Thanks if you can manage anything, --Guinnog 19:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure Guinnog, no problem! I'd love to! If you can give me a few parameters, that would be great, and I can try to do it within 24 hours. These details would be great:
  • A table border color
  • A table background color (if you want one)
  • A text color/any other style (if you want one other than black, default sans serif font)
  • A color/any other style for the headings (if you don't want the default)
  • Any other special things :-)
—Mets501 (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm all done for now. Hope you like it! If there's anything else I can do for you in the future just let me know! :-) —Mets501 (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough

Please don't think that because you've gained admin status you have some newfound right to patronise other users. Behaviour like that certainly doesn't help the project. I've held my tongue thusfar because you seem to be a good contributor, but please refrain from making idle, pointless threats. Rebecca 01:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Spare me the police officer routine. This dispute has been going on for months. We had a very lengthy discussion about this earlier in the year, and the sections referred to on my talk page were thus removed. Why Tenebrae is taking an old version out of the history and then claiming it as policy I have no idea. The current version of the MOS, which is without the guidance they were relying upon, is quite stable and hasn't been changed significantly in several months. Despite this, two users, Bobblewik and Hmains (I was mistaken in thinking that Quadell had gone back to this, and have apologised accordingly), have consistently refused to engage in any discussion and continue to use an automated script designed by Bobblewik to kill any and all date links in sight. Bobblewik has been blocked numerous times by numerous users for this, and very narrowly escaped a community ban the last time the issue came up. Having had to deal with this for months, I've found that the only way of getting either of them to stop is to respond to their bot-like-removals with bot-like reversions. They still won't discuss and try and get any sort of consensus for their actions, but at least making it clear that their edits will not stand prevents the damage from the ongoing running of their script. Rebecca 23:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moon page

Why did you undo my edits of the moon page? A Stand Up Guy 01:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

(copied from your (other?) user talk page) I reverted a few of your edits where you were changing "Moon" to "moon". In fact, as the Moon article explains, it is capitalised in the case of the Earth's natural satellite. Please also seek consensus for any future changes of this kind, and it will save another editor (in this case me) having to clean up after you. Thanks. --Guinnog 00:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

I got my own back by making some sneaky edits to your user page! Thanks for all your good work. --Guinnog 00:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm as useless at conferring barnstars as I am at designing pages, but I join in the sentiments! Newyorkbrad 00:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks guys! —Mets501 (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi,

Thanks for your intervention. It seems that Rebecca is carrying out her promise to use rollback on my edits. Does this constitute stalking? bobblewik 06:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stalking

I am also being stalked by Rebecca, having been mass reverted in the past, and a new threat yesterday. Any help is appreciated. Thanks Hmains 04:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It will be difficult as Rebecca acts on her theory that every date that was ever linked in any article is to remain linked forever. And she fights everyone with every means avaiable. Thanks Hmains 01:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandal

now you're an admin I ask you to take a look at this and take action at your discretion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedians&oldid=76986679, these edits were made by User talk:70.48.182.191, I have warned them, but please could you check if I used the correct template, thanks --Frogsprog 14:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks for the heads up. Another user just gave them a final warning; if they vandalise again I will block them. Best, --Guinnog 14:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Information in the German Wikipedia article

The error was corrected. Disregard! Thanx.The dugout 19:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Narrow gauge

No worries. I'm slowly working my way through referencing the railways. When I get to Eastriggs I'll be able to check the original source and find out. IIRC it was a WWII ammunition dump, but could well be wrong. Best, Gwernol 01:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Missing Ouroborous

Sir,

You have deleted my Ouroborous without explanation. Why? I will forward the e-mail from the library. Robert Prummel 12:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Well, since then i have found out about the stricter rules.. they are stiffling! But it is not your fault Guinnog! Robert Prummel 02:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Halo's RfA

Guinnog...
Thank you very much for the constructive criticism in your oppose comment in my request for adminship. Ultimately, no consensus was reached, and I failed to be promoted, but I am very grateful for your coments. I will strive to better myself in all areas, especially Mainspace.
Thε Halo Θ

[edit] HELP

Guinnog I need your help, I removed a POV tag from Lancashire because the article has been corrected, and then i posted on the talk page of george w bush in a discussion about a new template message. User:MONGO reverted my edits so I warned him against removing content and now he is warning me of vandalism. Please help me --Frogsprog 14:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I

I have mentioned you on AN/I, regarding User:Morton devonshire. Tyrenius 08:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cademuir International School

Can you please tell me why you will not allow my contribution about Cademuir International School? You critiscised me for not putting enough evidence, so I put pretty extensive evidence (newspaper articles) and you delete them in a few minutes! What is going on here? Your article did not cover this extensive evidence of abuse reported in 2001 in two reputable national newspapers. If you prefer that the articles are merely linked, or attached as images, then fair enough. but to just delete them? Is that not covering up for child abuse? Not that I am accusing you of this, but please explain why you seem determined to delete these details. If you check editions of these papers at these dates, they will verify them word for word. I did not just dream this stuff up, to not include these details is not what Wikipedia is all about.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomPrescott (talk • contribs).

I have replied in your talk page. --Guinnog 19:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry? You don't think it adds much?

Let me please repeat this. You don't think that two national newspapers both accusing the managment of a bording school of multiple serious cases of child abuse add anything to an article about the school?

You don't think child abuse worth mentioning?

If your issue is with the validity of these articles, full text of them can be found using "HighBeam Research", a web based archive. 20:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Tom Prescott

I have already read it and I don't like the way you dismissively assume I hadn't. The fact, for example, that the school was investigated by police for child abuse is not an unsubstantiated allegation, it is a matter of record, worthy of note. Please do not tell me that further evidence is requirde, because if you do not accept back issues of national newspapers as credible evidence then you should reconsider your existentialist like criteria. If you can not find them that is not my fault, it does not change the historic record. If you can't find them and yet I have copies of them, why are YOU editing MY contribution? Is this not abusing your position? Sorry to be so argumentative but do you have evidence for the holocaust? did you see it with your own eyes? Do you accept it to be true or are you a holocaust denier? (I mean this rhetorically). Denying allegation of child abuse is however a serious issue, please take a moment before deciding on this, and please, I feel I deserve a bit more explanation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomPrescott (talk • contribs).

The sources ARE verifiable. How much more verifiable do you want? As I have stated, the sources are from two national newspapers, and I have also told you an on-line archive where you can find them. What more do you want? Or is it the case that you just delete anything you want that doesn't come up after a quick google check? There is a difference between something being not verifiable and something which takes a small amount of effort to verify. If you tell me how I can make it easier to verify this then let me know. but I think giving you full text, with the authors name, the publication, and an on-line source is REFERENCED and VERIFIABLE. 20:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Tom Prescott

[edit] Verifiability as defined by Wikipedia

This is what you said:

"Because Robert Mulvey, the founder of the school, is still alive, we have to be extra careful about what we include in the article about his school. Because the sources you want us to use are not verifiable, we cannot include them. Hope that is all clear now. --Guinnog 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)"

This is what Wikipedia says:

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.

It then goes on to say:

If the newspaper published the story, you could then include the information in your Wikipedia entry, citing the newspaper article as your source.

What you are saying does not appear consistent with Wikipedia's policy. Are you seriously telling me there is no way I can get anything on a Wikipedia page about someone who is alive regardless of how much evidence there is if it does not come up instantly in a google search? 21:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)TomPrescott

[edit] Response

Can you please let me know why you are saying my sources are unverifiable (and explain why you are disregarding Wikipedia's guidlines as to the definition of verifiability) 22:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)TomPrescott

[edit] Your vote please

Hi Guinnog - Please vote on the proposed move of the 'South African farmer murders' page. The straw poll is here. Please also pass this message on to others you think would be interested. Thank you! Cheers, Jason Lionchow - Talk 08:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

to quote you:

"My issue with the reference (once I had tracked it down; you could have made it easier by giving me a url) is that it is present on a paid-for site. "

- You can access the full contents of the site without paying a penny, they offer a week's free trial.

"My issue with the article is that I'm not sure, even if we could reference it properly, whether adding this info to the article is really necessary, given the legal implications I referred to already."

- Do you really think this information not worth a mention? How does that fit in with the ethos of Wikipedia, that because something may be a tough issue which requires sensitive handling we just don't bother? I am merely asking that the fact that numerous allegations have been made, and investigated by the police, be worth a mention. Surely there is a way to do this on a proper legal footing.

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to air your grievances with the school, however well-founded they may be."

- These are not MY greviences. These are greivances which were considered sufficient enough for two mainstream national newspapers to air. yes I have greivances with the school, and they go a lot further than this, but I have shown restraint in not airing them here, I am sticking to what is in the public domain, and is VERIFIABLE according to Wikipedia's policies, as I have quoted.

"My other issue, increasingly, is that I really don't like the tone you are taking with me. I understand you may be frustrated at not getting the article the way you would have liked it; please understand that I am only doing my job in keeping wikipedia free of POV-pushing scandal which could ultimately lead to danger for the project."

Maybe I have my reasons for creating the article but I have only reported what is in the public domain, as I have said. I have also said several times that I would be willing to revise the tone if you felt this to be necessary. But instead you just delete the entire submission out of hand.

"Any future sarcasm from you will simply be ignored by me. Any future "rhetorical" shots along the previous lines of comparing me with a holocaust-denier may result in a block for incivility. --Guinnog 23:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC) "

- I did not compare you with a holocaust denier, I was merely pointing out that I find it offensive that you should choose to not include this information, this is disrespectful to the victims of this abuse. Considering that it is very well referenced, and that I have offered to help you substantiate it further, I think it is very inconsiderate to just delete the whole thing. In the example given in Wikepedia's guide on Verifiability, the example given is when something has been published in a reputable newspaper. This has been in two. If you are unable to verify it, then tell me how I can help you. Are you really telling me that despite this information being in the public domain, because you personally can not find it then it is unverifiable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomPrescott (talk • contribs).

I acknowledge your message. Let me think about it. Please don't add the material back meantime. Thanks. --Guinnog 17:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks G

Thank you very much Mr Guinnog for your help and support. :) It is very much appreciated. I just sent you an email. Cheers mate, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding 198.67.36.169

I know your reversions were in good faith, but please be more careful next time when reverting edits. When you rolled-back some of this IP's edits, you also removed some constructive edits along with any vandalism that was added. Thanks. Shadow1 17:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops. When I was reading the contribs list, I initially meant this, but then I went back and noticed that I was wrong. Sorry mate! Shadow1 17:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impressive

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I have seen your username around Wikipedia a lot and have noticed your persistence in making sure that a user has been helped as much as possible. This is very nice to see and you should be proud. Keep up your great work! Wikipediarul[[WP:EA e]]s2221Holla 00:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I very enthusiastically second the above! :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. It is this kind of positive feedback that keeps us all going through thick and thin. We should probably all do it more. --Guinnog 04:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] jura river

you created an article about a river called the jura river. I don't think it exists. I can't find anything about it on the internet. I think it should be deleted, or expanded.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scotto263 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Thanks for the support

Thanks for the support Guinnog, as always I greatly appreciate it. Gwernol 01:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your favorite article

Hi Guinnog - I know you just love spending time dealing with the Crime Expo South Africa article, so I thought I would ask you a question. User:NdlovuX is edit warring with other editors (yourself, User:Zunaid, myself), here is the page history. He/she has reverted edits made by those three editors 4 times in the last 24hrs, in order to include info about someone's blog (which obviously doesn't meet wp:rs). What recourse is there at this point, so that one does not have to baby-sit this page and user? Cheers, Jason Lionchow - Talk 11:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Just wasn't sure what the process is. - Jason Lionchow - Talk 20:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User pages

Do you have some specific objection to Morton Devonshire's? Tom Harrison Talk 19:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. See [7]. Tbeatty has now refactored my remarks to avoid repeating the offensive and possibly actionable remarks. Morton has, in trying to tone down the libel, actually made it worse in my opinion, as I intend to tell him. I don't see why anybody needs to have material like this on a user page; it's hard to think of an encyclopedic reason. --Guinnog 03:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not let this become (or be seen as) some kind of personal prosecution. Consider mediation or an RfC if you think it's warranted. I suggest a couple of weeks of everyone avoiding each other might be useful. Tom Harrison Talk 04:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the word 'libel' is being slung around way too casually. I'm going to try to follow my own advice and leave this alone for a while. Tom Harrison Talk 05:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can you please help?

Hey mate I was wondering if you could tell me how i get access to the page Bush family conspiracy theory that has been deleted. So i can have a copy for myself. Is case you are wondering I am not the original writer as i think the delete artist thinks i am I had book marked the page for a article i plan to write! i don’t agree with the censorship going on in this website and believe that my in fact make a better piece. I would however like to have a copy of the page for my own use! can you help! Also could you give me a quick guide as to how a new person asks for a deletion to be reviewed and if you have the time explain how people become administrators ? Thanks Freedomspeechman 13:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The robot definition

Hi Guinnog, this is alexandrepv talking. I notice that you have removed the robot's definition that I posted. I am new here in wikipedia(I signed up a few hours ago) and I still have things to learn about how wiki works. Maybe you are right, I just put the definition without any explanation but I didn't think someone could actually remove it...

The reason I did not put a explanation is because I was typing at the computer centre at my university, between classes. I study Robotics and Automated Systems at the University of Plymouth and I already studied the definition of a robot. The definition I put before was the right one.

Many machines are denominated robots when in fact they are not. A remote control car or a remote control "robot" designed to disarm bombs are only tele-controled machines because the became a extended part of the operator. Machines that do only one type of work, non-reprogrammable machines, are just machines. A is for definition a machine that has inputs sensors and output actuators and is able respond to stimulus in a intelligent way. The intelligent may be a program-defined routine(electronic or mechanic program), a artificial neuron network behaviour or any other kind of decision control. A robot arm in a assembly line of a car: I may do only one job, welding for example, but it is able to be reprogrammed to do some other tasks as well. In terms of sensors, even though it seams to have no sensors at all, because it only repeats one task, it does have and these sensors are monitoring its joints making sure that the turn the right amount of degrees. This is called: Feedback control.

I put the definition back again before reading you message, feel free to remove because it has no explanation but I intend to write down a paragraph to explain it. Ok?

well, thanks for the hint.

Regards

Alexandrepv

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/u/i/User_talk%7EGuinnog_Archive_5_f552.html"