User talk:Muéro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive

Archives
1 2

Contents

[edit] huh?

i believe that i've been pretty good on that. dposse 00:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

thats because most of my edits are small, like spelling, grammar, ect. Any big edits (moving sections, deleting stuff) i provide a summary for. anyway, i dont see what the big deal is. even if i don't do a summary, you can always see what i edited in the history. dposse 13:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism to tie domi

i appreciate your concerns about my "vandalism" of tie domi article .... i do not agree with you. i stated the truth .... please explain how that constitutes vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.24.147.126 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 4 October, 2006 (UTC).

[edit] George Radanovich

Thanks for fixing Congress Radanovich's page. What did you think of my improvements I made on the original page?Mrsmart 04:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA and for understanding what I was saying with the answers to the questions!

Atlant 12:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week now that I've been an administrator and I'd like to take this moment to once again thank everyone who supported my RfA, and to let you all know that I don't think I've screwed anything up yet so I hope I'm living up to everyone's expectations for me. But if I ever fall short of those expectations, I'd certainly welcome folks telling me about it!
Atlant 14:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hockey player infoboxes

Why do you keep reverting my edits? The infobox I switched to for the Wayne Gretzky, Gordie Howe, etc. articles has been adjusted to be applicable for both current and retired players. --207.69.137.200 15:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do NOT edit my talk page

I have told you before not to edit my talk page. I will file a complaint of harrasment if you continue to falsify information in an attempt to villify me (see your sock puppetry accusation for details). Jaskaramdeep 17:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the above statement, the sockpuppetry was confirmed, which resulted in a block. Addhoc 23:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
what block? 68.149.157.248 06:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You were blocked for 48 hours, see 68.149.157.248 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Addhoc 11:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
lol, I didn't even notice that (probably because I don't volunteer every waking moment of my time to a site that gives me nothing in return, unlike some others.... *cough* *cough*) I do find it odd that you're watching this talk page though, with responses hours after I change, even though the user whose talk page it is hasn't responded yet. I think that this might not be a Wikipedia relationship between you two - either you are friends outside of Wikipedia, or are the same person. In any case, don't expect me to waste half a day writing up a complaint on you two (or one??) 68.149.157.248 15:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm Muéro's advocate... Addhoc 16:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
this is very interesting, actually. it's a chicken or the egg scenario. are you watching over him like a hawk because you accepted his case, or did you accept his case because you're fiends with him/are him? It's very easy to get an anonymous IP through a router or proxy server. It is strange that you would defend him so vehemently in ways that do not relate at all to the initial case you accepted. 68.149.157.248 20:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh wow, I really stumbled onto something today, didn't I? If this was a movie, you would be slowly backing away, hoping nobody saw your flub. I finally realize why you said "oh, I totally agree" when Muero presented heaps of false information, while ignoring EVERY one of my concern with him/you, lol. Well, all I can say is leave my Hemsky article alone, and we'll be square 68.149.157.248 21:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I have six advocacy cases open and seven mediation-cabal cases. This case hasn't gone to RfC or arbitration yet, and the sockpuppetry report was filed by Muéro, so I've been more involved in other cases. Since I've been editing Wikipedia, I've been accused of being Australian, American, Indian and British. Also been accused of being a creationist, a skeptic and the founder of a new religious movement. Also being a POV pusher for pacifism and a supporter of human rights violations committed by the LTTE and the Sri Lankan Government. None of this impresses me. Addhoc 22:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
In other random news, I've got a pet dog, two hockey sticks in my bedroom, I like to ride the early bus in the morning so I don't get late for school, I enjoy the odd pizza now and then...... What's your point? That you're a busy sockpuppet? You have my sympathy, I guess 68.149.157.248 00:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Ovechkin article

From Talk:Alexander Ovechkin, I gather that Jaskaramdeep isn't exactly a reformed character yet. Addhoc 23:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animated GIFs

Hi, I was wondering, how do you create these animations? I saw Image:water4.gif, and thought it was ace. - Jack (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMA

Should I close this case... Addhoc 11:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll close the case. Addhoc 12:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk: Colorado Avalanche & Lubomir Visnovsky

Hello, Muero. I'm against diacritics, however I'm for compromise. See Avalanche & Visnovsky discussion for further diacritics discussions. GoodDay 03:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out Krm500's compromise, at my talk page. I think it's a great idea, for all NHL Euro/French Canadian Players bio articles. GoodDay 23:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Tkachuk

Hey, thanks for the "assist" on this article. I took most of the POV garbage out, but I left a those things intending to take them out tomorrow if no one else did. He's my favorite player and I would love to work the article into a GA. Mus Musculus 02:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tie Domi editing

OH NO!! My ONLY warning!! Threatened by a self important computer geek!! What will I do? where will I go??

Watch out for your pocket protector, Bozo.......... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.229.113.36 (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Tie Domi again

You are almost as big a jerkoff as Tie the guy is........almost —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.229.113.36 (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Regarding edits made to José Theodore

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Muéro! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule ebay\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 01:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just letting you know...

Before I signed in today, I noticed I had a new message. Which was strange since... well... I wasn't signed in. Anyway, I read it and it's a message from you that said this:

"This is the only warning you will receive.

Your recent vandalism to Manny Legacé will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia."

I was tickled confused, to say the least. I have dynamic IP, so I guess it must have unfortunately coincided with some hockey vandal who you wanted to warn that time. Either way, I'm letting you know that he may not have quite received your message. Dynamic IP's do that.

And if you believe I am here to lie, then just review my contributions and you'll see that I pretty much stay as far far away from hockey (and most sports... the only exception is Futsal...) as possible.

In light of that though, I'll just mention that you aren't on this list: Wikipedia:List_of_administrators#M. Which means you don't have the ability to block someone.

I applaud your willingness to fight vandalism (as we all should), but you should know that your empty threats won't really get a point across. Getting someone blocked is a lengthy process, and one that wouldn't happen after one editor says:

"This is the only warning you will receive."

Plenty of vandals know this and would likely proceed to defy you just for the hell of it (I see this has already happened once, with that "Domi" guy) and because they know there is nothing you can really do to stop them any time soon. Especially if they have dynamic IP. If you use discourse and truth, then they're more likely to realize that they are being a dick and that no one appreciates their behaviour.

So keep up the good work, just be more civil than the vandals. It's what separates us from them, and it obtains more results. Sage of Ice 00:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


"1. How would I have known if the warning I left was used as a dynamic IP?"

You wouldn't have. Which is why I mentioned it. You need to think twice before you fling out requests for IP blocks due to dynamic IP's; that was my point. The person you wanted to warn clearly never got the message yet, four months later, here I am.

"2. I've left hundreds of warnings on user pages and had multiple users blocked."

The problem with your claim of having been responsible for the block of multiple users is that you don't have anything to back that up. It may be true, but I reserve the right to be skeptical unless there is some verifiable statistic you can pull out. For the vast majority, I am quite certain that your warnings did not accomplish as much you would have liked them to. I believe that civility and discourse would probably have gotten you far more immediate results than just a block threat.

"3. I did not engage in an edit war."

I didn't say you did, so I really don't know why this was mentioned.

"4. I did not insult the vandal."

I did not say you did, I just pointed out that you were being less than amiable just in order to scare him off. I have endured many vandals in the ever-defiled Avatar: The Last Airbender pages without resorting to threats, so your approach seems rather unnecessary. Do whatever you will, I merely pointed out an alternative.

"Really, I did absolutely nothing wrong, and even in hindsight, I would not do anything differently. The edit in question was replacing proper awards with "He Haz A Big Cock says his wife," which is obviously blatant vandalism by someone who never intends on becoming a good editor. After all, that is the only edit by that IP address . . . ever."

I have endured vandals deleting entire Avatar pages and replacing it with things like "avatar suks an is lik sooooo gay ppl!" and "fuck u all" without ever going to their talk page and threatening a block. Especially if it was their first offense, as most of them don't come back repeatedly. You aren't assuming good faith if you think that they have no intentions of ever being a serious editor. And considering how they clearly had dynamic IP, then the contriution of one IP adress does not equal the contribution of one person.

"You know you have a dynamic IP, and knew that the message was not meant for you. If there were no such thing as dynamic IPs, there wouldn't be much need for user accounts at Wikipedia. As long as you sign in to your account, you should never receive any messages not meant for you."

I don't keep cookies or saved password forms as a security measure. When I am done on the net, everything is erased. When I come back to Wikipedia, I am clearly not automatically signed in, then. So it's very possible and probable that I might see messages meant for a coinciding dynamic IP. I don't really care though. Your message just intrigued me.

"I see that you're new here, so please realize that you may have something to learn. For example, you have provided an edit summary on only 51.14% of your edits. Always filling in the summary field is considered an important guideline at Wikipedia. Thanks for your recommendation and I hope you continue making good edits to improve Wikipedia."

Your attempt at patronizing me is a failure, and your attempt to discredit my opinions based on the age of my account is cowardly. Perhaps you have something left to learn as well... allow me to explain:
The edit summary takes into account EVERYTHING you edit, even talk pages. Of course I won't put a summary down on talk pages, it's completely superfluous. You may add what you want to your talk page edit summaries, but it doesn't change the fact that it is entirely redundant. Furthermore, there are typos on articles. Plain and simple typos that are so obviously wrong that the need to summarize the edit is just plain zealous. I don't summarize an edit if all I did was change "recieve" to "receive". On my talk page, the edit summary to your response was: "Response about vandalism warning message left to anonymous dynamic IP". That's fine and all but... it's not really serving much of a purpose except to make yourself feel better about your "edit summary percentage". I'll tell what it is ACTUALLY doing though:
Believe it or not, many computers still suffer from slow connection and processing speeds. You may be able to quickly view an edit history page with no problems, but accept the fact that not everyone can. For some, a slew of unnecessary edit summaries only causes more loading and processing time. It also means there is more needless information that the Wikipedia servers have to store, which increases their maintenance. These are things you really should take into account next time you try to make yourself look good by typing in pointless edit summaries to talk pages. It may be a guideline, but every guideline has to first be processed according to common sense. If the cons outweight the pros, then the guideline can be ignored for the betterment of Wikipedia, whether technical or literary. That's actually an official policy, by the way. Here: Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. Only article edits are truly worth summaries.
As for the age of my account, that doesn't reflect the age of my editor status. There are several reasons as to why someone would not want an account. With a dynamic IP address, I had safety in doing my edits anonymously for a long time. Just because I decided to get an account on a certain date, doesn't mean that I wasn't here improving Wikipedia beforehand.
For some reason or another, you took my simple suggestion far too seriously and decided to retalliate by bringing my knowledge of Wikipedia into question. Please refrain from doing so to other editors in the future as these things cause avoidable arguments that only serve to encumber the Wikipedia community. Otherwise, carry on with the good work. I wasn't questioning your abilities, merely that one method. Don't know why you got so carried away. Sage of Ice 04:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I completely agree with you that a warning is perfectly valid and often necessary when it comes to vandals. It's just that the specific message I read felt more like an ultimatum than a warning, like he had already overstayed his welcome after only one edit. That was my issue with it.
When it comes down to it, I'm just very lenient on warnings anyway, mainly because the Avatar pages get vandalised so often, and so continuously (it's the curse of its target audience...), that, if I were to warn every vandal that popped by, I'd be spending my entire life writing up warnings. So I have a laid-back approach to warnings, but I do endorse them. It's just that the wording of the particular warning I read made it feel like you were being too rash. But you've demostrated that you do exercise caution of action regardless of your caution of wording and don't recklessly try to get people blocked, and I take your word for it. It's just that it took all this for me to find that out about you, so it's more a question of the image you portray giving off the wrong message about your attitude. And that was why I made the suggestions I made. Granted it was four months ago, so you may have already taken some of that into account by now.
I do agree that Wikipedia needs to be vandalism-free and that it is hard to keep it that way often enough. I just don't want anyone to feel jaded about coming here in the future because they got blocked in the past. Everyone grows up and can become a serious editor in the future. I like to make sure they won't hesitate to do so for fear of being a newcomer with a blocked background. Of course, common sense needs to be used here too, and that's why I prefer the soft warning approach. If they continue to be a dick even after you were polite, then you know they're vandalizing out of immaturity than out of spite, and therefore need a block.
I often do add "typo fix" to my typo edit summaries these days, but it's not something I strive for. I mainly do it as a formality on high traffic pages. This is mostly because I mainly edit Avatar pages and I have already established a reputation there so that, when I edit, people know it's not garbage and they know I'd have a summary if I had changed anything substantial enough or made some form of addition. I don't shun edit summaries, I just don't support superfluous ones, and those are the edits I make that never meet criticism since they are obviously sensible changes of "I before E except after C" and etc. Anything else on an article page will almost always see an edit summary from me. It should also be worth noting, though, that I spend entirely too much time on Talk and Discussion pages for my own good, and I never add edit summaries to those.
On a quick technical note, while one small edit summary for a typo may prove insignificant for loading, a build-up of such could be detrimental, especially if someone wants to see the previous 200 or 500 edits in case they were away for a bit. It's a matter of courtesy choice; you can choose to be courteous to the editors with good speeds, or to the editors with bad speeds. I like to think that my 51% edit summary showcases that I try to please both crowds by using my own degree of common sense to determine when an edit summary is truly useful, without having anything be redundant.
In the end, it's good that we got everything sorted out and I think we're both better editors for it. I doubt our paths will cross again, seeing as how we edit entirely differently things, but it's good to have a varied distribution of competent editors to keep Wikipedia in line. Sage of Ice 15:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] commons:User:24.164.94.90

I assert to be the same user as commons:User:24.164.94.90 --Muéro(talk/c) 06:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Bertuzzi

It is true that my comments on the Bertuzzi page were very opinionated, very much anti-Bertuzzi. My only flimsy excuse is that they were in the TALK page, not the article itself.

However, what about the article itself? This article is pro-Bertuzzi in the extreme, implying that his attack on Moore was justified. I think that is uncalled for. The Marty McSorley article, for instance, does not suggest that his attack on Brashear was justified. Nor does the Tonya Harding article contain a justification of the attack on Nancy Kerrigan.

The recitation of Moore's supposed sins should be removed from the Bertuzzi article. I suppose they should remain in Moore's own article. Hockey fights have a long tradition that I do not entirely understand, but this (like the McSorley-Brashear case, although more extreme) was not a hockey fight. Paul 18:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hockey Infobox

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution has been removed from several articles. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not add duplicate material to infoboxes, which are meant to specify critical information only. "Age" is a duplicate of "Date of birth"; since age can only (and easily) be found from date of birth, the former should only be provided in infoboxes. Take a look at your recent contibutions and consider reverting them. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The strokes 23:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sundin revert

Hey, I was wondering what this revert was about. I was fixing the grammar to be more encyclopedic (ie words like "uncanny" are a bit non-neutral). --Wafulz 18:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/u/%C3%A9/User_talk%7EMu%C3%A9ro_9f40.html"