User talk:Pilotguy/Archive9
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You are out of lineHello, you recently deleted an article about the website www.greasymoose.com citing the guidelines for notability. Well, you had absolutely no right to delete that article because it met the guidelines for notability, specifically it passed number 3 by having its archive displayed on its Dedicated section (meaning the author of the animations could not create such a dedicated section, a section like that has to be created by the management of newgrounds which is independant of anyone who is merely hosting their animation on newgrounds) on newgrounds.com. Also it won an award from the brisbane fast film festival for the animation angry dog (http://www.biff.com.au/general/content.aspx?code=84) and I wasn't able to get the link at the time, because people actually need to sleep too. So there, I met the criteria, now I demand that you undelete The Greasy Moose article immediately. Heh, "I make mistakes, deal with it", you're damn right I'm going to deal with it... --Badsearcher 9:43, 7 November 2006 (PST) Unblock requestCould you please unblock User:Afrika paprika? I think he deserves a probation period, if not, than at least because of User:Hipi Zhdripi. Notify me, please. --PaxEquilibrium 22:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
ApologiesApologies, Pilotguy. I didn't check the block log - I was just RC patrolling trying to be helpful, but now I'll avoid overdoing it. Thanks! --SunStar Net 00:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC) FYI, WP:AIV and WP:ARVJust an FYI, but this edit [1] broke compatibility with ARV. That's why you see a few of us going "I'm not a bot" in the history. Though sometimes I do wake up in the morning feeling rather odd. Perhaps I am a bot... -- Gogo Dodo 06:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Perhaps I am a pilot??? Hehe.... // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 21:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalismHi. You removed my and other posting on the board, saying, "Take it to ANI." What is ANI? Thanks. :-) Nightscream 05:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. As aforementioned, he's been repeatedly warned on a dozen of his user pages, and on at least two of them (63.164.145.198 and 207.200.116.138), there is a long list of warnings and blocks that far exceeds four. Thanks again. Nightscream 14:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Deletion summariesHi, I have noticed that you often provide only a very short abbreviated deletion summary when you delete pages (like "a7" "nn-bio" and similar). Please keep in mind that most users do not know all of Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria by heart. Please consider providing a brief "plain English" explanation without relying exclusively on "CSD jargon". Additionally linking to the relevant criteria so people can read it in full can also be useful, for example Most browsers have a autocomplete or other "form filling" features that allow pre-prepared boil plate texts to be inserted into web forms with just a few keystrokes. This is useful for inserting detailed deletion summaries without having to type out the same things over and over. Please consider looking into it. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC) I'm sorry, the rest of us are doing it, why are you singling me out? Is it that hard to remember the criteria for speedy deletion with one letter and number? // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 23:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC) requesting undeletion of the paraphysics articleparaphysics article deleted, and protected. By you to be correct. http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa062298.htm http://paraphysics-research-institute.org/index.htm and maybe you should try looking up paraphysics on google. Love and happiness from user:openforbusiness Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.8.50.9 (talk • contribs). Unblock requestPlease advise what you define as notable Tap Dancer so I can better contribute. I am confused seeing Jamie Williams listed. The site tapdance.org recognized Robert L. Reed many years ago for his accomplishments in Tap Dance. Please reference their page http://www.tapdance.org/tap/people/robtreed.htm - Thanks! millercmomo Template:IPA fonts on deletion reviewAn editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:IPA fonts. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --cesarb 20:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC) See UsernameThanksPilotguyCouldYouUnbalock130.194.13.101.ItsUnfairlyImpactingMe! 23:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Signpost updated for November 6th.
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 05:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Genetic disorderCould you please look at the recent rename of this to Race related disabilities - it seems entirely inappropriate (made by an editor with a long history of questioanble edits). Could you revert and remove it? --ArmadilloFromHell 15:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Block needed!Hello Pilorguy! The IP address 87.29.89.217 has been vandalizing and being perfectly useless and unproductive. Some of his edits: These aren't silly things, it is perfectly ridiculous. Can you please take the appropriate action against this person/people? Thank-You, Happy Birthday!
 From all of us at Esperanza, we wish you a Happy Birthday and a great day! Bearly541 talk 00:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Happy birthday! --Merovingian ※ Talk 04:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Rene Ramon SanchezCan you check to see if an article was created called Rene Ramon Sanchez and see if it was deleted? If you find it can you leave it on my talk page? Thanks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Small token of thanks and appreciation :)
Happy Birthday
Audrey Hepburn templateHi. I'm slightly confused by the "no consensus" decision on this deletion debate. I counted it as 7-3 in favour of deletion (7-2 if you don't include the template creator), which I thought would qualify as a consensus? JW 17:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Its this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_22 JW 13:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC) SorrySorry about that weird "rvv" on your userpage. I swear, recent changes DID say an IP recently edited the page, and when I checked the diff, the person had blanked the page and said something about pilots. —The Great Llama talk 18:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Did you block 207.245.40.134 or not?Hi. I filed a block request this afternoon for IP 207.245.40.134. You indicated that your action was to block that IP ([2]), but you made no reference to a block on that IP's talk page ([3]). Maybe I'm just missing something, or maybe you just forgot to do that? Can you respond here (and on the user's talk page, if applicable) to let me know. Thanks. Wolfchild 03:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Yes, I blocked that IP... it's a school IP with nothing but vandalism so why would they care anyway? // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 13:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Okay, thanks, but you still haven't completely answered my question. You never (and still haven't) noted the block on the IP's user page ([4]). Unless I'm mistaken, you are 100% required to do so when you issue a block. Basically, I just think it is time for people to stop being so lenient with this IP (issuing tons of warnings before requesting a block) and maybe by seeing two previous blocks listed, people will toughen up a little more on this IP. Thanks. Wolfchild 17:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC) That's very silly to do, considering it's a six month block on a school. Besides, no one's complained about me not doing so until now. They could care less anyway, it's a school. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 22:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry, but I am pretty much totally missing the point you are trying to make. Call me stupid, I guess. ;) I just read the block log. It is only now that I see the block you placed is in effect for one month. My only point is that, if students continue to vandalize Wikipedia after this 1 month block expires, I will want the school to be blocked the for a longer period next time (and eventually permanently if it continues from there). Do Wikipedia admins not base the block they are issuing at least partly on the length of the previous block? If so, do they investigate the length of past blocks (including this 1 month block) in some way other than looking at the user's discussion page? Please make your response as clear as possible. I think maybe you are assuming that I know more about Wikipedia block policy than I actually do. Thanks Pilot. Wolfchild 04:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I sure as hell hope so. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 21:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks!Some guys get really upset when someone interferes with their God-given right to vandalize Wikipedia. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC) No problem. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 13:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC) That revert thingI still don't get it...but grats on the admin thing Dracion 12:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC) 65.172.235.249I noticed you blocked this user for six months a while back for abuse of editing privileges. He seems to have returned under 65.172.239.222. That IP edits the same range of articles and respons in the exact same manner as 65.172.235.249 did. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Dark ReignHi - thanks for blocking that guy for a bit - there is an ongoing problem with that page - the same three or four people try and insert a gamesguide (which is not in line with WP:NOT) and round and round we go. --Charlesknight 09:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC) You're welcome to request to have the page protected, or have a checkuser done on the vandals if you feel they are related. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 22:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Templates for deletionHi, you had closed the discussion on a large set of templates that I proposed to delete. (See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 30 and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 1) None of those templates have been deleted yet. Is there anything else I need to do? I have followed the instructions on the TFD page, but if I missed something, please let me know. Andrwsc 18:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 13th.
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 05:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC) AutoblockCan you undo it for User:64.12.116.134 - aol IP 64.12.116.12 22:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the blockPilotguy, thanks for the quick block of the travel link spammer. He was adding new ones just as quickly as I could delete the old ones... --JFreeman (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Pilotguy, thank you for your quick action in blocking user 195.82.106.244 from vandalizing wihout discussion the Brahma Kumaris Page. Your help is appreciated. Thank you, 72.91.4.91 22:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC) W. S. GilbertThanks for your diligence against that rather persistant "baby-eating accusations" spammer. We're a small group of editors, and wouldn't be able to make it through all this vandalism without everyone's help. Cheers! Adam Cuerden talk 01:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual UniversityHi Pilotguy. Look, I am going back in to contribute to the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. I have agree fine to work the citation the dominant contributor and follower Riveros11 is proposing. Much of my edit is in paraphrasing untidy verbatim copy and paste quotation into neater prose. You blocked on the basis of accusation by Riveros11 of "not being willing to discuss changes". Wiki records will show that I instigated both a Request for Mediation and a Request for Arbitration with Riveros11 but on both occasions he refused to participate. Two admins have cited Wiki policy of allowing self-published material which the other editor refuses to accept. I have even accept using the academic citation he suggests but am still subject to skillfully crafted ad hominen attacks by this member of the religious group in question. Please see discussion pages. It is laughable that I am the one being accused on not being willing to discuss! So easy on that trigger finger until you have a better overview of what is really going on. Riveros11 seem to have sussed out the miracle of slapping Vandalism warnings on anyone that questions his world view. 195.82.106.244 01:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 24.244.192.130 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and vandalismI was considering taking this to WP:ABUSE, but I'm not sure yet whether to report 24.244.192.130 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) to it; would it be a good idea or not?? Thanks, --SunStar Net 12:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Galactian/Professor SunderlandAre you aware that User:Galactian has just removed a report about himself and his sock, User:Professor Sunderland, from the Vandalism report? [5] Also has been removing comments from my talk page and others. wikipediatrix 22:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Signpost updated for November 20th.
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 06:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Depressed?
--Nlu (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Thank you!
Re User:Rodney21aIt's back: Image:Amy_reid_001_jpg.jpg. Erik Swanson 01:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Re Robert TuckerThe image you removed was taken by the subject of the entry and he has given his permission to release it into public domain with no restrictions. I've reloaded the image. Please post explanations for any future changes on the discussion page. Cmaa 14:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Thx for the unblock--Golf Bravo 21:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 139.142.135.106Hey Pilotguy, You recently declined the un-blocking of 139.142.135.106. The IP is registered to my school, and I had to log out in order to be known as 139.142.135.106 and edit the talk page. It wouldn't let me post the request when I was logged in. About a month ago, some grade nines at CSS were vandalising the CSS page, and I had the AP deal with those students, and according to our techy guy, only 2 requests in the past month have been made to edit wikipedia, both from my laptop (which I take with me and connect at school). I would like to contribute and just manage my page from school, yet I can't do so because of the imposed block. Could you please lift the block off the IP, or atleast give a valid reason as to why the block should stay?? Thanks for your time, Ard0 04:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!Persistent little vandal...it seems really important to him to get that one silly sentence into Common Era. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC) ReminderHey Pilotguy: Just a small reminder: I noticed you delisted Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Me and my robot from RFA; don't forget when you delist an RFA to either close it out, or better yet, notify a bureaucrat so we can close it out. Once they're delisted from RFA we're unlikely to see them to close them out. Thanks! Essjay (Talk) 03:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC) 3RR WarningWhy did you give me a 3 revert rule warning for the Galactus page? I was simply reverting a persistent vandal, a topic we are also addressing on the discussion board. Manssiere 04:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC) I (and I mean this in a non-offensive way) have to agree here and say that this was a tad premature. I had just opened a discussion as per someone's suggestion and was about to respond to the comments when I saw that I was blocked. Truth be known, I did not make three blind reverts but in fact added information every time. I did not think this was grounds for a block - only 3 blatent flip-flops in 24hrs. As to the edit - all the relevant material is still there. I simply rewrote it and culled some of the POV paragraphs. I'm not a vandal as I have enriched the article by adding references for new readers so as they can source the stories. Anyway, let me know what you think. Regards Asgardian 04:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Afrika paprikaThe guy you indef-blocked has made his re-emergence under the same IP as 89.172.7.166. You might also notice that he has exposed himself, 194.152.217.129 being yet another sockpuppet, seen at Talk:Pagania's history - the two continue their posts. Should you block the two or should I go the normal process through WP:AI? --PaxEquilibrium 11:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Wish to recuse myself of a template deletion that already occuredHi Pilotguy, for this template [[6] I had voted to keep the template. However a person on the other side of the debate launched a Checkuser case on me, with evidence which I feel is inconclusive. Elalan the other wikipedian who was caught in the mess volunteered to do a checkuser on himself and me. Here is the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Elalan. The checkuser raises further lingering doubts, so I would sincerely like to recuse myself of the vote and unduely impact Elalan's credibility. I feel this is the honorable thing to do. Trincomanb 16:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Calgary Science School IPI can't remember the CSS IP, but Is there any way to block an IP from editing unless you log in?? Or is it a blocked or not blocked kinda thing?? --Ard0 03:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Talk:CreationWikiWhy was this talk page deleted? --64.22.206.248 17:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC) The corresponding article was deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CreationWiki_(2nd_nomination). —Pilotguy (push to talk) 21:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC) "any issues have been taken care of""This is months old, and any issues have been taken care of." <-- I do not agree. Thank youThank you for unblocking us. There is a school project at Leonardo da Vinci High School that requires the usage of wikipedia to finish. zlhappyone 22:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC) emmanuel on deletion reviewAn editor has asked for a deletion review of emmanuel. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. It appears there was a previous battle over a nn-something. I can understand that deletion, but term does have some significant meaning outside of that, see Catholic Encyclopedia here. I was working on Emmanuel College, Boston when I ran into this. --Bobak 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Signpost updated for November 27th.
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 01:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
