User talk:CesarB/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

Older comments

If anyone wants to know the rationale behind my current shuffling on Dewey Decimal Classification, see User talk:Falcon Kirtaran#Dewey Decimal. cesarb 22:21, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please hold off on this project until we can get a wider discussion of it. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can tell, this is essentially your unilateral project rather than something for which the wikipedia community as a whole has expressed a need. As this expansive of a project will obviously affect, well, everything, I think this needs to be debated. Best way I know to do this is to list the root category at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, where the merits of this project can be debated. Postdlf 10:02, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I thought it had already been debated before (and I'm not the only one doing it). See User talk:Falcon Kirtaran and Wikipedia talk:Dewey Decimal System.
Isn't there a better page than "something for deletion" to ask for comments on something? It would be an abuse of CFD for me to ask there, since I wouldn't really be asking for deletion.
I started doing it really slowly (just a few category pages per day), in the hopes that if someone had an objection, he would raise it before I created too many pages. Looks like it worked.
cesarb 12:50, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't create Wikipedia:Popular articles (the page history lies sometimes), but I appreciate you letting me know it was on VfD. Thanks. Angela. 11:15, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for noting the Emperor George II vandalism attempt. I've got a pretty good idea who it is, and I'd like to move to have them banned immediately. This is the 4th time they've done it in the past few weeks. Any idea how I can get an IP trace done to nail this idiot? --Gene_poole 13:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you want to ban him by IP (or even get his IP to do a trace), you will have to find a developer and ask him. I think sysops cannot know the IP of logged in users, but I'm not sure. cesarb 13:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Cesar :-)

I appreciate your assistance! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for Deletion

Good afternoon. I saw the addition you made to the Guide about refactoring. You specifically mentioned tables in addition to refactoring of the list. Is it your thought that we should preclude, for example, the recap table at the top of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/La Shawn Barber? Even though I added that one, I'll admit that I've had second thoughts about whether or not those recap tables are really helpful. Their big advantage in my mind has been to give the "ambiguous" voters a chance to come in and clarify their position. On short discussion threads, it's not usually so important but on the really contentious issues, it seemed helpful. The downside is that the recap table tends to bias people toward vote-counting and away from discussion. I felt it was acceptable because the really long and argumentative discussion threads have almost always already degenerated into namecalling by the time they're that long so not much would be lost.

Should I stop? Rossami (talk) 22:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I think you confused my edits with someone else's. I only expanded the links from the cryptic WP: abbreviations to their full names. cesarb 22:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Did you have a reason for doing that? I'm curious as to whether I'm missing something. The shortcuts weren't actually reader-visible, and the pipe trick was already used to give the actual titles. As far as I can see all that expanding [[WP:VFD|Votes for Deletion]] to [[Wikpedia:Votes for Deletion|Votes for Deletion]] has done is made the raw article bigger. What else has it done? Uncle G 23:35, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
      • The pipe trick is [[Wikpedia:Votes for Deletion|]]. Somehow the wiki expanded that when I saved the page (I thought it would save as I had typed). The shortcuts are reader visible (just hover over the links and you will see the tooltip). In fact, that was how I noticed (I tend to hover over the links to see if they take me somewhere interesting, and for instance Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is much easier to see what it's about than WP:DA, unless you have already memorized all the shortcuts). And the change on the size of the page isn't that big (it was 33 kbytes before, it stayed 33 kbytes after). cesarb 00:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Ah. In other words: I was missing something. I generally ignore tooltips in applications. Uncle G 15:21, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
  • It was I who added the note about refactoring. See the article talk page. Uncle G 23:35, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
    • Huh... The "compare versions" feature merged your edits somehow. I must be getting happy-fingers tonight... Rossami (talk)

Thanks

Thanks for removing that disgusting piece of vandalism from my talk page. --Umofomia 01:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well. I really appreciate it. Jason One 07:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Great work

My pleasure. I'm always happy to welcome users: it's one of my little hobbies here. :) – ClockworkSoul 01:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Period at the end of formula

I am now doing myself a bad service, but there is discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics about period at the end of formula if formula is at the end of sentence. So, you can go there and put your vote (which will be against me). I would like to ask you to specify there your background. It seems that mathematicians are mostly for period at the end of formula, while engineers (and now I see, computer scientists) are against.

In the future, I will avoid modifying non-math articles, like bra-ket notation, which is physics. I try to stick to math, but sometimes non-math articles (again, like bra-ket notation) are put in a math category, and then this kind of disagreements arise. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 19:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't care either way, as long as it's obviously separate from the formula (like a big fat period). You not only added a period which looked like part of the formula, but you added it inside the <math> tags, which made it even more like part of the formula. cesarb 19:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I found a solution to prevent breaking the line at the period while still putting the period outside the <math> tags. I created a template Template:nobr for it; see my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics for details. cesarb 19:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Let us see how the opinions develop on this. Oleg Alexandrov 20:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

re: Multiple lines in VfD nomination

We are still working on WP:GVFD. You might have highlighted a new area that we need to discuss. Let me see if I can explain here. If this explanation works, maybe parts of it can be incorporated there...

It is considered extremely bad form to change another person's votes or comments. There are only a few exceptions. 1) It is acceptable to tag votes with signatures or attributions if the voter forgot (or deliberately avoided) signing their comment. 2) It is acceptable to remove personal attacks - usually leaving a comment such as (personal attack removed). 3) It is acceptable to refactor comments for general format. This is what I was doing in your case.

The general convention is to use bulleted lists in the discussion threads. Each bulleted matches to a signature. Indentations are generally rebuttals or expansions and may or may not be new votes. One of the big advantages of this pattern is that the deciding admin can fairly easily spin through the discussion history to determine if anyone has been tampering with the votes. I usually do this with two windows open. Since the comment is confined to a single paragraph, it's relatively easy to compare the window with the diff against the window with the final discussion. When people break their comments into multiple paragraphs, other users feel free to insert their rebuttals in the middle, breaking the connection between the first paragraph and the signature.

This explanation is clear as mud... Let's see if I can do better with an example.

First broken comment

I think this article should be deleted because I don't like it.

It's also original research.

And it's unverifiable. user:A

Rebuttal

I think this article should be deleted because I don't like it.

That's not a good reason to delete. user:B

It's also original research.

  • No, it's not. See here. user:B

And it's unverifiable. user:A

User:C's reaction

I think this article should be deleted because I don't like it.

That's not a good reason to delete. user:B
And we should ignore the comment because it's unsigned. user:C

It's also original research.

  • No, it's not. See here. user:B

And it's unverifiable. user:A

This is a really long-winded way of saying that there's nothing absolutely wrong with what you did but that it creates a small possibility of ambiguity. I wouldn't go out of my way to refactor such a comment but I might tighten it up as a courtesy if I'm editing the discussion anyway. Does that help? Rossami (talk) 18:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Understood... How about adding to the guide "Avoid using multiple lines on your nomination or comments unless they are really needed, because they might get broken by replies."? And then a condensed version of the example... I think this discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk:Guide to Votes for Deletion, it would be useful to have something about it in the Guide. cesarb 18:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of purported cults

Need your help at List of purported cults. --Zappaz 00:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Camp Hero

The information you posted on Camp Hero is innacurate and unprofessional. Camp Hero was not a Radar Base and was not operated by the Navy. Pleased research your information before posting on this topic again. --Outlander 22:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You must be confusing me with someone else. The only changes I did to the article were to add a stub notice (since it was only one paragraph long) and copy the categories from the related Montauk Project article [1].
The change you are probably complaining about is the one just before mine[2], which removed most of the information from the article (and made it look like a stub). In fact, he reverted the article to its original state[3].
You probably believed the history view of the article[4]. I've noticed lately the history seems to be missing some edits, which can be found via the next/previous links in the diffs. Try opening the diff that seems to be mine[5], click on the "Newer edit" link, and then on the "Older edit" link, and my real edit[6] will appear.
--cesarb 22:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Interesting, you seem to be correct, someone else vandalized the page and then removed the edit from the history page somehow. Anyway, I've repaired the content - sorry I mistook you for the vandal. --Outlander 23:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of stupid article ideas semi-revert war

As a side note, I've come to the conclusion that SPUI is a Troll in this situation given his vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of really really stupid article ideas that you should not create Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 01:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Pedant/911

I notice the page is in two categories; however, the categories were clearly intended to be links. I don't want to fix it since it's in your User: space, but could you please change the two instances of [[Category:xxx|yyy]] to [[:Category:xxx|yyy]] (i.e., add a : in the front) to convert them into proper links? --cesarb 03:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

sorry... go ahead and make whatever fixes you feel are suitable, regardless of it being in my namespace. I looked it over real fast and couldn't spot the links... I just got in from a 2 day shoot, and I'm too beat to do anything now. Pedant 02:09, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Vfd controversy

List of Political Parties in Honduras is back at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of political parties in Honduras. Nice to see a Brazilian working here, I live in (but am not from) Honduras, --SqueakBox 13:59, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Gangulf 06:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GRider != Jimbo

Ok, thanks for pointing that out. Added now. Radiant_* 09:58, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Socks and pics

I had reached the same conclusion as you when I first looked into his contribs on Friday. Also can you take a look at Image:Ron Branson.jpg, SqueakBox 03:42, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet letter

It appears that RexJudicata (talk • contribs) created Agwiii (talk • contribs) as a sockpuppet in order to give him some support at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Uniform Parental Rights Enforcement and Protection Act. Rex created the article at 9.12 on April 1 here. DJ Clayworth Vfd'd it 6 minutes later [7] At 11.14 Agwiii makes his 1st ever edit here with Rex coming back in here at 12.15. Here RexJudicata mentions and the elimination of Lenin's creation, the 'no fault' divorce.. Here Agwiii cretaes an article on this subject. They have very similar interests, and both supported the father's rights being POV'd into Abortion. Agwiii being a sockpuppet would also explain why he was so paranoid about having his contributions investigated, --SqueakBox 20:31, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio images: done. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cock ups

Feel free to correct my cock ups. Cheers, --SqueakBox 21:49, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet spotting

Thanks for your help - I'll contact a developer. Grutness|hello? 00:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Convention

Would you be interested in a Charter Convention? If so, email me. — Xiong熊talk 13:41, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

User_talk:10.0.0.23 Issue

(Thanks for responding.) Wikipedia is supposed to use the external IP, I understand. But there is something funny going on, because when I visited wiki yesterday, there was a banner saying, "You have messages." When I followed the link, it delivered me to User_talk:10.0.0.23. It appears that wiki identified me, at least temporarily, as 10.0.0.23. As you know, this IP is invalid for the internet, it is only used within institutions. Since I am not part of wiki, it should have known me as 204.4.13.x rather than as a 10.x.x.x number. So I don't see how this could have happened unless wiki also identifies users by the wiki-side institutional address. Should this question go to a developer or something? CoyneT 17:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Changing merge templates

Please see Template talk:mergewith#Merge template changes before changing more merge templates. - Omegatron 12:42, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ip banning

I am on a boat and go ashore to use wireless internet access via Starbucks. Late this week I have been unable to edit on Wiki (an example IP was 208.54.15.1.) due to some idiot who had caused an IP ban. I also had no way of letting anyone know that the ban was affecting the innocent too!!

I believe you may know how to get this ban lifted...I mean banning access from Starbucks customers must affect a lot of Wiki users <grinz> vizion

HP Block

Trouble was that as I was blocked, and the sysop had no email, and due o block I could not notify sysop I was stuffed!11 vizion


Maps

Thank you for the reformatting. -- Stevey7788 21:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your message about moving pages. I didn't know about the move function about moving pages. I'm just getting used to it for the first time. That's why I used the copy and paste. User:SNIyer12

IEEE 829

You put a clean-up tag on this page at the beginning of April, but I'm unclear why. Having gone to the link given I could find no further reference to what anyone might think this article needs. Please would you indicate, preferably on my talk page, thanks. Matt Stan 11:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thanks for template help.

Thanks for that help with template:mn.. The experiments can continue. Mozzerati 07:16, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

New pope spike

Hello cesar,

I noticed on the Signpost newsroom page that you commented on the influx of interest in the new pope's selection, and the traffic spike it caused. Do you think you could write down a few notes and link the draft from the Newsroom? I would really appreciate it. I'm subbing for Michael as editor this month, but I don't have time to write nearly as much as he usually did... User:Sj

closure

Is there a reason the closure template is necessary? I actually looked for one that had been closed properly, but couldn't find any; shouldn't the note at the top that they have been closed be enough? --SPUI (talk) 17:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed up Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Iraq occupation mistakes (the one I originally meant to do, then went to SR 900 as one that should have been closed to get the info off of). --SPUI (talk) 17:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:TOC

Thanks for the info. I looked and could not find it. I know the information is there since I found it before. Vegaswikian 17:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Inapp project

Hi there! If the wikiproject you mention bothers you, I'd suggest starting an RFC on it; the 'inapp projects' page doesn't seem to spark that much discussion, so it may be a non-issue. Radiant_* 09:19, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. With all the chaos your misunderstanding was understandable. I need to be more careful about how I word things in the future.

So, your vote is still in the "delete" column... If you honestly believe that way after all the discussion, then I respect your right to disagree. For what it's worth, I now think the article is more a victim of misunderstanding then any sort of anger-motivated "deletionist" attack. It seems that the deletion-viewpoint and the inclusion-viewpoint both have Wikipedia's best interests at heart. The concerns of both viewpoints need to be addressed and respected. Everyone isn't going to agree on everything, but I think there is a HUGE common ground where, though things might not be done exactly as you or I would prefer, they are done in a way which we don't seriously object to... Hey, I think I just described consensus! I wasn't ever trying to. Maybe consensus is a natural aspect of respectfully working in a collaborative envirionment.

- Pioneer-12 22:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Xiong

Hi there! Because the RFC about Xiong seemed to deal mainly on his disagreements with Netoholic, I thought it best to start a new RFC to see if people have comments on Xiong's behavior that do not relate to Netoholic. Please give your thoughts and/or opinion on that at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xiong. Radiant_* 08:27, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Mostwanted

Great man, thanks Gkhan 23:17, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Transclusion_costs_and_benefits

Hah! Wiki moves SO darn fast! I almost just have to THINK stuff and it happens. Thanks for watching. :-)

Kim Bruning 00:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

re:Wikipedia:Disclaimer templates

User:Rick Block has also recently created Wikipedia:Content labeling proposal (which I see that you've also discovered. It looks like these two proposals cover the same area so they probably should be merged. BlankVerse ∅ 00:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Disclaimer templates

Thanks for telling me :) I don't have a problem with it being there, although I probably would've put a bit more thought into how I said it had I known (oh well ;)). I really appreciate the fact that you let me know! -Frazzydee|✍ 01:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, reading Wikipedia:semi-policy, it seemed to be a bit heavy handed to link to from here, that's all. Nobody likes disclaimer templates, there's no need calling it "semi-policy". :-) JRM · Talk 13:21, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Netoholic

I've fixed the evidence page. I also put a note on the Proposed Solutions talk page reporting it as an injunction violation. As much as I would like so Assume Good Faith, if Netoholic can act like this even before his RFAR is final, he will not last 6 months before all three of his mentors give up on him. BlankVerse ∅ 02:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

{notpolicy}

I'm not grousing about your application; I rather think it gives the pair of opinion pieces a nice symmetry. Now, all that is wanting is VfD on the new page, and all will be equal. :)

But the template itself annoys me somewhat, and not because it is unnecessary....

If you want to move this discussion somewhere else, go ahead; you can replace the copy here with a pointer to the new place.
--cesarb 05:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The discussion has overgrown its home; apologies for flooding your Talk. Moved to m:Namespace proposal. Please comment. — Xiong熊talk* 15:38, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Abortion sockpuppet

Agwiii/RexJudicata has returned. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RexJudicata for details, --SqueakBox 23:27, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Stub template weirdness

I notice you created {{Template:Compu-network-stub}}. I can't figure out why the "expanding it" link is screwed up in this article I just added the tag to. - dcljr (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I can figure out why, but the fix probably isn't easy. When you write RFC 3377, it gets turned into a link; that seems to be badly iteracting with the link on the template (which is http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/r/f/c/RFC_3377_5d08.html — take a look at the wiki markup for that), and closing the [] before it should be closed. You should talk about it to the Wikiproject stub sorting people — that code came from Template:metastub (it was copied to Template:compu-network-stub via subst:). --cesarb 12:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
FYI, this phenomenon has already been submitted to MediaZilla as a page-rendering bug. - dcljr (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
It's Bug 1344. I added a description of this particular example of the bug. - dcljr (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian Computer Scientists

I say "requiring a BS/BA" because a Computer Scientist is a title awarded by a univerisity/college to a person completing its CompSci degree. how else are you going to be a Computer scientist? as far as the move is conscerned, yeah, you're right, i'll move it right now.

Project2501a

So, you're telling me that there are persons who, on their own, will study the following topics and be able to excibit considerable knowledge on them:


and on top of that, learn 4-5 computer languages, 4-5 computer language paradigms, 5-6 APIs, 2-3 development enviroments and 1 or 2 operating systems.

Dang. I'd like to meet this guy :)

Project2501a


And there's also another two cases:
  • A student who (like me) hasn't graduated yet.
  • Someone who studied outside academia (even if following the same curriculum).
Neither of them would have an academic degree.

True. I would place a computer science student under our category, in fact, i'd welcome a student with open arms (cuz they have all the time in the world and can reseach and write articles BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *Evil laughter*)

Somone outside of academia is not a computer scientist even if he has followed the same curriculum. it's the same deal between mathematicians and amature mathematicians. see Mathematics#Common_misconceptions . Same goes for Computer Science. When was the last time you saw CS theroy being created by an amature computer scientist (person without credentials) and being accepted by the computer world? (academia is the self-refencial pointer by which we can tell if a person has *some* background about his work or not)

Project2501a 00:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


The pioneers of the field, where trained mathematicians (which is mostly where computer science originates from) or electrical engineers. Turing, knuth, Dikjstra(sp) were definately not amateurs. Project2501a 01:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


Complexity (computer science) arises from simple variables(pioneers). In anycase, the category is a way for wikipedia computer scientists to be able to find each other, so, we can verify the integrity of the computer science articles. That's why i reqiure credentials.
O grego deixou o edifício no navio do pirata. Project2501a 10:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
It will make sence during next year's Football World Cup ^_^ We're comming to get you! :D :D :D Project2501a 13:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey!

Hi CesarB!

Preliminary congrats on your RfA. It's looking good at (14/0/0) and four days left! Unless something freaky happens from now to then, yay!

I noticed you're a Linux user. If you're interested, take a look at my user page. You'll find my personal Beowulf cluster there, along with other interesting tidbits. Catch you on IRC sometime, eh? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 12:25, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

image alignment

Hi - Do you enough about CSS to know whether the monobook skin can be fixed to avoid the issue raised here? You never commented about my response indicating it's not just a Gecko bug. I haven't tried Opera, but if it affects pretty much every layout engine except IE's it seems to me that wikipedia's default skin should avoid the issue. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:41, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Trolling user

Hi CesarB,

Our friend from RfA has sucessfully annoyed a lot of people with his nonsense; I am considering opening an RFC against him. What is your opinion on the matter? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 16:39, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. Please see this RFC page and add your comments. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:53, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My old talk page

I am not entirely sure I understand what you mean by "Could be confusing later".

Ops, forgot my sig. Admiral Roo 02:24, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism

Hey, thanks for fixing the references on libertarianism. I hadn't bothered to keep them in order while the article was being written because they kept moving around. Thanks for taking the time to clean up after me :-)

Dave (talk) 03:13, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:03, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalizing user pages

Kindly refrain from vandalizing my user page. It is NOT appreciated.Enviroknot 07:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Kmccoy/Delfino

Thanks for the user and article templates! kmccoy (talk) 17:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: User:68.33.122.254

Why, thank you! I will gladly extend his block to a month... actually, you know what? I think I'll make it indefinite! Hmm, a *long* history of vandalism... sure. Thanks, CesarB! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:44, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey, Cesarb!

I know this is a bit overdue, but I just wanted to thank you for your support vote on my RFA. Thanks to everyone who supported me, I am now an admin and I have been using my new powers to help Wikipedia out. Thanks! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 00:04, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you 2.0

While it won't stop them from vandalizing my talk page, at least I don't have to worry about them vandalizing my user page.

When I come up with something to put on it, I will let you know.

I hope that Mel Etitis doesn't simply unprotect, vandalize, then reprotect it (he does, sadly for Wikipedia, have Admin powers).Enviroknot 04:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rules that condone unethical behavior

If you review the recent behavior of Squeakbox, you will see he has stalked Rexjudicata on Wikipedia, and made changes to any page edited by Rexjudicata. He has claimed that Agwiii and Rexjudicata are the same person. They are not.

Squeakbox has written on the Parents Without Rights page that Grayson Walker has had his parental rights taken away by the court. This is not true. Beyond that, it would be impossible for Squeakbox -- in Honduras -- to have access to private records of a Florida family law case. The fact that he would write such a libel shows his intent is to harass and not contribute.

It is important to note that Squeakbox knows nothing of these topics, and the sole purpose of his changes have been to harass Rexjudicata. As Squeakbox is an "old" member of your clique (aka Wikipedia community), he rallied his friends for support and they joined him.

Your code of conduct notwithstanding, the fact remains that the behavior of Squeakbox is a violation of the Cyberstalking Laws of Florida, many other states, and a growing number of other countries. Your Wikipedia S.O.P. is in conflict with these laws, and that should give you pause. Why are your members allowed or even encouraged to break the laws in a growing area of International regulation?

If you can get past the fact that Squeakbox is "allowed" to make edits -- as are all Wikipedians -- and examine why and what he has been editing in his attack on Rexjudicata, you see that he has used your rules as a vehicle to harass Rexjudicata. The choice is yours -- ignore the stalking and harassing by claiming the rules permit Squeakbox's behavior -- or look at the unethical behavior of his stalking.

Consider what we call the ethics transparency test. Ask, "Could I give a clear explanation for the action, including an honest and transparent account of my motives, that would satisfy a fair and dispassionate moral judge?" Squeakbox's behavior fails this test.

Consider what we call the ethics Golden Rule test. Ask, "Would I like to be on the receiving end of this action and its potential consequences? Am I treating others the way I’d want to be treated?" Again, Squeakbox's behavior fails this test. If Rexjudicata had behaved as Squeakbox did, he would have gone to all of the substantive pages that Squeakbox edited, and made changes to them -- this did not happen. Instead, he posted his complaint about being cyberstalked and erased harassing comments made by Squeakbox on his page.

The choice is very clear. You may intervene and stop the unethical, stalking behavior of Squeakbox, or you can stand behind a technical interpretation of your rules, ignoring the fact that they permit unethical and illegal behavior. This is not about suggesting that Squeakbox or any other Wikipedian stalker be prosecuted, but about the fact that your rules are increasingly out of step with both ethics and laws. Philanthropists and investors are very careful about such issues.

Rex

Rex Judicata 07:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

There is evidence that Agwiii and RexJudicata are indeed the same person, and this was accepted by other editors and admins at the time. In so far as the Golden Rule makes sense as a practical rule (which it doesn't), one would have to say: "If I were pretending to be two different people and were found out, would I be satisfied to be dealt with accordingly?" The trouble is that, if I were the sort of person who behaved in that way, then I'd not have the moral integrity that made my response relevant — and if I had the requisite moral integrity, I'd not have pretended to be two people in the first place. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is also evidence the earth is flat, but both are untrue. I suggest you review the definition of 'libel' before you embark on your conditional ethics rationalization. It is not surprising that you feel the golden rul is not practical. Clearly, ethical behavior and wikipedia are at odds.

66.176.193.185 13:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only clearly illegal edits in this case are this and this. If you pump the IP address into Google you get this cached version [8], note the reference to Spam & Kook Killers are Us, the company Rex admits to working for on his user page. Here, in another cached version, we see this is actually Grayson Walker, with a connection to this, which I used in the Grayson Walker article, and which is whois registered to Grayson Walker. So it appears to me clear that it was Rex who was impersonating me. Calling me a paedophile, from a new IP address, is typical of his past behaviour on other sites. I would welcome a police investigation of this case, as I believe the facts speak for themselves. Have a nice day, SqueakBox 15:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot, et al.

Given that Wikipedia policy is to place the sock-puppet template when there's firm evidence for it (such as matching IP addresses), wouldn't it be better to protect the page with the template in place? When it's a matter of differences over content in articles, etc., then I agree that protection should in general be neutral between the sides (though even then, it would be odd to protect an article in a vandalised state). Here, though, it's a matter of policy that the template be placed there. Would you object strongly if I (or another admin, perhaps you) edited the protected page in order to replace the template? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As the placing of the template is policy, I think that asking for further assistance at Admin's noticeboard isn't necessary (though my request for advice about Grace Note's removal of the template resulted in the advice that I should warn him against doing it, and block him if he continues). I don't think that any admin has expressed opposition to the placing of the template (again, difficult to do so, given that it's policy to place it). I'll sleep on it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don Black, et al.

Thanks for moving Don Black (nationalist) back. I can't blame the other Don Blacks of the world for being unhappy with sharing their name, but I wish the editor had asked for help and guidance. I'm not sure what to do with the odd little description of the other fellow at Don Black. I guess it's harmless, but it seems out of place in an encyclopedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Er, hate to ask you, but the same editor is back and has done it all again. -Willmcw 06:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

VfD

Yes, I normally do just that. However, when there's a backlog of 500+ VfDs, anything that saves time is a good thing. —Xezbeth 20:04, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

you're welcome

...bet you'd do the same for me! Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stanislaw Tyminski

Ah, thanks for correcting that. Sorry, but I didn't know you have a problem with diactrics, and thought that'll work. Thanks for correcting me. Regards, Datrio 12:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VFD

Thanks for figuring that out.  :) RickK 21:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

NOEDITSECTION

Yeah, that was quite fun, wasn't it ;) Ah well, the wikihousekeeper's work is never done... sjorford →•← 22:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NOEDITSECTION

Congratulations, you just destroyed VfD! <g>

Well, not exactly "destroyed", but now the edit links are gone on the latest log (and possibly in others). Could you help find out and remove the ones that are subst:'ed and couldn't be found?

--cesarb 21:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh god yes, I hadn't thought of it working globally, I'm a pillock. Sorry about that, and thanks for cleaning up my mess. --W(t) 23:21, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Well that was quick.

I went away for one weekend and behold, Mel Etitis has abused his powers not only to vandalize my user page but to prevent me from fixing it.Enviroknot 04:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your support for my adminship (complete with example!). I hope to live up to the high standards set by other admins such as yourself. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:15, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

School vandalism

I realise some idiots from the school I attend are ruining wikipedia, unfortunatley we share the same IP, I did contribute but I noticed people around me destroying it so thats why I registered, I hope that you do block people from modifying from my schools particular IP, but please not my account, you can keep track of what I do and see its not vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LaRgO (talk • contribs) 01:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

They have been vandalizing my page constantly like this. The first time they did it, I sent each a warning not to do it again. Mel Etitis' response was nasty email to me followed by his constant hunt for nonexistent "evidence", as well as encouraging his Islamist friends to attack me at every opportunity. This has been beyond ridiculous, and it IS vandalism as well as complete bad faith on their part.Enviroknot 01:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Even then, calling names only makes things worse. It's even possible that some of the editors reverting you might be thinking ill of you just because of these kinds of edit summaries. --cesarb 01:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm pretty sure it is because they are friends/sympathizers of Mel Etitis' political agenda - his first recruits were the like of BrandonYusufToropov and Yuber and it seems to have gone downhill from there.Enviroknot 01:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! (RE:Urgent repair requested)

Thank you, Cesar!

I had some ideas (one of them almost the same) about fixing but I was not sure (beeng not seasoned enough plus feeling badly after mistake I've made).

Thanks again!

pavlosh 20:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WP:VFU

Please join the discussion on Vince DeMentri, which some people claim was deleted out of process. Yours, Radiant_>|< 09:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • yess the establishment needs you to suppress articles, becaus they change the rules all the time. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blocking or not

First of all, you are correct on that fact that I did not warn user:Mateusc on his talk page. However, did you actually take your time you understand what we are talking about? Did you check that article's talk page? Tried to understand what he's been doing for a long, long time, and the amount of people who went against his ideas? I might be wrong for not warning, but I guess that's far more than a reason for anyone to be banned with no warnings on his talk page. Also, he didn't accept the block, and used an anonymous IP to keep on posting and reverting and using the arguments that were judged to be POV-oriented and unsuitable for Wikipedia, by a consensus achieved through a long time discussion. User's unhappy with their blocked status should wait until the blocking period is over to try anything else. You might think "That's right, I'll unblock him, and he won't do this again". Of course, because he now knows how it feels to be blocked. What he did do as soon as you unblocked him was to delete what was put on his talk page, in order to erase it from the eyes of anyone that would happen to cross it.

I'm just upset with the fact that it took you so little time to try to understand this. If any at all.--Kaonashi 22:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed you're Brazilian. Everything leads to that conclusion. If so, you're very much aware of what the article in question talks about. I actually do believe any Brazilian that saw that article and what has been added to it, would refuse to accept it. The claims. Everything. If you have no idea of what I'm talking about, go check it. I know I would. The user you unblocked today just told me he will get back with those claims very soon. If you are here because you fight for a better encyclopedia, free of bias as much as possible, you should keep an eye on that. You should not refrain from it. I've done my part. I'll be watching this from a distance for now.
Lembre-se de tudo isso. Boa sorte, e veremos se você fez a escolha certa.--Kaonashi 03:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My Talk Page

When I remove contents of my talk page, is because generated constaint ackward for me. --Mateusc 23:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I can clean my talk page now? I'm just requesting your authorization. --Mateusc 01:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moving forward with anarchism

I proposed a disambig header at Talk:Anarchism#Proposed_header, I've tried all sorts of techniques, summaries, surveys, arguments, summaries of arguments, and plain reasoning, but nothing seems to deter the libertarians from their crusade the claim the word "anarchism" as their own. We need to have some sort of mediation from a third party, since I am obviously biased and they just won't listen. Any ideas? --albamuth 16:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I ran out of ideas before you did. You might want to ask the Mediation Committee for help. --cesarb 17:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
None of the three Users I singled out have agreed to mediation. I could try the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal?? --albamuth 29 June 2005 04:40 (UTC)

Linux

Thank you! —Sean κ. + 21:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blocking MARMOT IPs

I regret to inform you that I had to undo two of your blocks on IPs used by MARMOT, because they were cache proxies and used by many other people. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Please do not block User:62.253.96.42 (cache proxy). JRM · Talk 22:34, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Proxy block

I saw you blocked User:193.65.177.205 as a proxy.

How do you know? I've been trying to establish this for the last few minutes now, and then I saw you had already blocked.

Are you just using the heuristic "same user, radically different IP", or something more tangible? JRM · Talk 00:03, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

I can't say how CesarB did it, but it's running an open web proxy on port 80. --W(t) 00:33, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

re:Reblocking

I am actually not sure. I might check it out on Meta. If I do have to temporarily unblock, I'll not do it for an hour or two hoping that this person is not hanging around here anymore. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Well. After that recent bout of vandalism on my user page, I feel like I should thank you for reverting it (and reverting it again, and again...) for me. You are truly very Wiki-nice, er, something. So thank you! --Dmcdevit 04:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Size matters

How do you tell how big a article page is? WikiDon 23:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can we suggest that they had that feature at the bottom of the page? WikiDon 00:02, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am not that good at computers, I don't program, except for very basic HTML. WikiDon

RFC

I was aware. Thank you.--Kaonashi 28 June 2005 21:29 (UTC)

Site notice

I immediately reverted what I did. It was a mistake in pasting between windows. Of course it makes no sense. The problem is not all projects have a valid sitenotice right now, it requires to be sysop to edit it and it takes so much time to switch oneself sysop on each project one at a time, that I lazyly pasted the message in village pumps for sysops to change their site notice. I just messed between windows. I hope you will accept my words when I say it was a mistake. Anthere

re: Subst:'ing speedy deletion notices

I wanted to apologize for that, I had no idea and thought it was helping the server load. You (Talk) June 29, 2005 22:05 (UTC)

Ditto the above really - I'm sorry about doing it (I didn't realise that it caused trouble). The reason I did it in that circumstance was the author had deleted the previous speedy tag and I was trying to deter him/her from doing it again. However, now I know this I will make sure I don't add the subst: to any more. Apologies again and thanks for letting me know. Will => talk 29 June 2005 22:12 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello, I just wanted to say thank you for updating my userpage so quickly! Even though, it turned out that I was still here to do it myself (but don't know when I may no longer have computer access,) thanks again! You (Talk) June 30, 2005 21:38 (UTC)

Merging page histories, etc.

Oh, I don't plan on messing with merging page histories for awhile, if ever. I'm slowly easing myself into being an admin, and for now (and possibly ever) will only block obvious vandals who have been given a fair warning and deleting obvious speedy candidates (if I have ANY doubt, I'll just mark them as speedy so another admin can look at them.) You (Talk) June 30, 2005 22:18 (UTC)

Vandal

Thank you for the help with the vandal!!!! Agriculture 1 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)

Possible spam links

Since you seem to be the master commercial link remover, could you tell me what to do when I find edits like this one and the previous edit? --cesarb 1 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)

Well, first you check if they comply with WP:EL (obviously not in this case) and remove them. A quick check of the user's contributions is next, they often hit more than one article. Then, if you're feeling thourough you plug the domain name of the URL into the search box and check for articles that have been hit by other IPs or users (the search index is updated infrequently though, so you might want to do the search again a week later). If you feel up to it you can also do an external link cleanup on the article, generally the high-profile articles attract a lot of cruddy self-promoting links. If the user in question doesn't stop despite {{spam1}}, {{spam2}}, or {{spam3}} you can also put them on WP:VIP and/or WP:AIV, but they often just add links and never come back so it's not really worth it. --W(t) 3 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)

Your threat

You just threatened to block me. Am I breaking a rule, or are you just allowed to block people when you don't like their edits? Floopy 3 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)

No comment? I can wait. Floopy 4 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)

Updating WP:VFDL

Bom dia,

looks good to me. The only thing you didn't do is remove the oldest date from the list of "old votes", but that's hardly important. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 4 July 2005 05:35 (UTC)

Tutorials for HTML

Why did you revert Peterf's edit on Talk:HTML? The article page instructs people to make suggestions there: "we are intentionally keeping this list very short; please use the discussion page to nominate new entries" Rl 5 July 2005 06:38 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It wasn't meant as a criticism anyway, I was just curious. Rl 5 July 2005 12:20 (UTC)

Hogeye on WP:ArbReq

I've never done an arb-req before. Is there anything I should know? --albamuth 6 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)

Hogeye

He is attempting to take absolute control of the article for himself by avoiding the 3 revert rule and instead simply cutting and pasting from various degrees from a pet article. I have no desire to participate in a revert war, but nor do I intend to simply watch Hogeye unilaterally determine the status of the anarchism article. If you have a solution for me, please offer it. He refused mediation, mocks arbitration, rejects page protection, and insults people repeatedly on the talk page, no longer even trying to engage in substantive dialogue. Doing nothing means he walks all over a public works, so is there another possiblity other than undoing his edits?

I have reverted 2 times today, and so have several other users, and he just continues to put the same texts that he knows are objected back in. Still, I will hold off for your response for at least another day before reverting again out of respect for the mere hope that there is some other solution. Kev 6 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)

It is exactly the eventual affects of his actions, the long now, rather than the immediate now, that I am concerned with. Hogeye knows that his edits won't stand. What he is hoping is that he can poison the article enough to force a "compromise" around his edits. But the article was already the result of compromises between dozens of editors, and he now wants the entire thing to represent his views in particular. Anyway, I will try to gather evidence of partial reverts, but it is difficult as he is purposefully using different segments of the article he is cutting and pasting from with each edit. Kev 6 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)

Re: Template stuff

The reason why I added the category was to assist in the already existing one (Wikipedia:Indefinitely blocked users). Take a look at [[Template:Indefblockeduser]] and you'll see what I mean. Cheers, Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk July 6, 2005 22:05 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for pointing that out. I realize that I should have gone to bed long ago.--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)

3RR on Meme

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. This is independent of my feelings about the content you are reverting. Bovlb 2005-07-07 00:20:31 (UTC)

Hogeye

"Most or all of the behaviour that made me certify this RFC has either reduced greatly or disappeared. Withdrawing." - from RFC. Does this still represent your opinion, considering this user's recent edits? --Tothebarricades July 7, 2005 02:15 (UTC)

wanker001 not blocked?

Any particular reason you didn't block the wander dude? Just curious. -- Rick Block (talk) July 8, 2005 02:16 (UTC)

Template:Message box

In case I need to be more clear, your reverts break that template on IE. I understand if my changes break on FireFox, but a vast majority of our users are on IE.

Why bother reverting to a version I've said is broken? Why not report it to me instead.

You're gonna run us both out of reverts by the end of this and it's pointless since we're BOTH RIGHT. Calm down a bit, and I'll fix it if you can tell me what is wrong. -- Netoholic @ 8 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)

Dr. Weazel

How is he circumventing your blocks? -- Essjay · Talk July 9, 2005 10:45 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with the weird characters he's using in his usernames. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dr._W%D0%B5%D0%B0z%D0%B5l and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dr._Weazel NickBush24 July 9, 2005 10:47 (UTC)
No, it's due to a new software misfeature. I had already blocked both versions of the username. --cesarb 9 July 2005 10:49 (UTC)


Stale inuses

Hi - thanks for removing my "stale inuses". I was conscious that I was using this template incorrectly, but didn't want to remove them myself, as another editor had told me that if I was still in the middle of working on an article, I should flag this up by using the inuse template, rather than mentioning this fact in the text. Can you let me how you would suggest I mark these articles to indicate their incompleteness? I wouldn't want people to go away thinking that the articles were complete. --SP-KP 22:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

re: Concerns about vandalism

I'm not quite sure exactly what you were trying to say by that link. Were you saying only that the user was allowed to edit their userpage? The user was obviously incorrect in claiming to be no longer banned [9], and that's the reason I reverted that. Were you explaining that they could edit the userpage? Perhaps I should watch the noticeboard more closely. You (Talk) 00:34, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks for clarifying. You (Talk) 01:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

VFD info

Thanks for the help with that VFD question I posted on Village Pump! Tufflaw 23:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete extra archive page

Hi CesarB! Thank you for your comments on the vote today. Since you seemed to be helpful, do you mind helping me delete the page Wikipedia talk:Doppelganger account/Discussion so I can finish with the archiving? I put all the threads in Wikipedia talk:Doppelganger account/Archive 1 already so that everything is together. Next time I'll try and set up the pages so that it is much more easier to manage. --HappyCamper 00:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for moving my comments to the right place...With all the links pointing in a thousand different places, I couldn't figure out where to put them! -- Essjay · Talk 01:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Romath deletion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Romath

You said the result of this vote was delete. Please look at it again. A vandal had been repeatedly removing keep votes, and the result should have been no consensus if all votes were counted. CDThieme 23:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye (again)

Hogeye continues to break the 3RR [10]. He has now grown more sophisticated in his gaming of the system, he is using multiple IPs, as well as continuing to refuse to label his reverts, making reverts with superficial changes, and shuffling them around to make it difficult to collect evidence. I provided all of the evidence for this on the 3RR page, except for the url for the IP tracking service that reveals both anon IPs to be of the same origin. I didn't want to give him further tools to mask his behavior. Is this the proper approach? Should I have made a separate section for the 3RR page, or should I include the url for the IP trackers? Kev 20:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for saving my report, it took some time to put together. Sorry for putting it in the wrong place. Thought you might like to know that Hadal blocked another of his sockpuppets [11]. Crazily enough he has continued, now making this revert using an anonymizing proxy service called "kaxy.com". I suppose there is nothing to be done if he jumps from IP to IP, but at least its a recognized problem now. Kev 05:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Hogeye continues to violate his ban by using alternate IPs. Hadal is doing a great job of looking out for new IPs and blocking them as they come up, but Hogeye is being very persistant and doing a lot of reverts during the time Hadal isn't on. For example, in the last day alone he has reverted the anarchism page 7 times from 04:15, 17 to 03:39, 18. I've already informed Hadal of this. I think Hadal already banned this IP once already as a sockpuppet of Hogeye after this edit, but if so it must have been a 24 hour thing since he is back at it now. Would it be possible for you to keep an eye on this, to help take some of the burden off Hadal? Kev 03:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Ah, okies. Well when you get back, you had asked me for proof of an IP being an open proxy, and Hogeye thankfully gave it himself: 02:42, 19 July 2005 205.234.161.227 (http://www.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/p5.p1.pjt.perutbrrxq.pgka- →Anarcho-capitalism) Of course, it is always possible that isn't Hogeye, but the IP is definately from an open proxy, and it is making edits very similar to his. Kev 04:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Page protection request

Please protect Creation science. See here for more details. -- BRIAN0918  04:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Category:Articles actively undergoing a major edit

This is just over-categorization. No one ever needs to go looking for pages that are "Inuse", as those pages are marked as such for only short periods. You can always use Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Inuse if you want. This was done previously and rejected, see Template talk:Inuse#Category:In use. Please go ahead and back-out that change and have your new category deleted speedily. -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree; see for instance Template:PotentialVanity and others on Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup and Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance. All or almost all the templates of that kind (adding "colored boxes" to the top of an article) have a category, even if you could use Special:Whatlinkshere on them. However, feel free to ask on WP:CFD for deletion of the category if you think I'm wrong (the previous deletion was a speedy because the category wasn't in use). And some people do go looking for pages marked "inuse", since sometimes these tags are left on articles for weeks. --cesarb 19:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
"almost all the templates of that kind... have a category" - true in some respects. But that is a poor reason to automatically over-categorize this template series. A solution in search of a problem. -- Netoholic @ 20:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The category is on CFD now. I do agree that if a template is supposed to be temporary, there's no need to add a category to it. This may or may not apply to other cleanup templates. Radiant_>|< 19:19, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Right you are

Those pesky redirects! I have fixed it. Thanks for the catch. --Dmcdevit·t 23:18, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk

Hi CesarB, just to clarify since there's now some confusion there, did you mean to cast a vote or just post a comment? If you could clarify what you intended there it would help. Thanks either way. FeloniousMonk 07:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Block clash

I see you blocked User:195.92.168.173 one minute before I did. My block was only for an hour, since the IP address comes from (or claims to come from) one of Britain's biggest ISPs. Since my block will cancel yours when it expires, do you want to remove mine and reblock, or shall we both just be vigilant when mine expires in an hour's time?-gadfium 00:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Subject matter's importance

I'm not quite sure how this Wiki thing works but I think you modified the following entry to say it lacks importance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_from_Golders_Green

For what it's worth, "Rosemary from Golders Green" is just a member of the public who calls a small London radio station from time to time (they have about 2.0 to 2.5% market share) and spouts nonsense. I really fail to see how she warrants an entry in the Wiki. How does this benefit the world or even the other 98% of Londoners who have no clue who she is (assuming that all of that stations listeners know her - which they don't)?

And as you suggest, there's not much in the way of useful information in that entry. Given that the original author seems to think that a member of the public who phones up a radio station to say she thinks recycling is a waste of time (without even explaining why) has a place on the Wiki, may I suggest that the entry is only of interest to obsessive fans of the station - all of whom already know what's on there - and it should therefore be removed from the Wiki?

I don't know how you go about getting an entry removed, that's why I posted here :-)

Thanks!

Removal and Restoration of Freenet links

Hello, as i've noticed you have once reverted a removal of Freenet links. Now i'm on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in the "User:Beta m and his freenet spamming" section. I just would appreciate it if you would please say something there. Thanks either way. Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)

renames of speedy deletion templates

Now that the TfD on {{nn-bio}} has been closed I have renamed all the speedy deletion templates to names that start with "db-" as discussed in that TfD discussion. I have also cleaned up all double redirs and fixed all coumentation pages I know of. The only template not conforming is {{delete}} because it is currently protected. I hope this meets your concerns in this matter. DES (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You wrote (on my talk page): Yes, much less confusing right now. I think it's better to keep Template:delete as it is, since it's a bit of a special case. I would have also left Template:deletebecause or renamed it to Template:db, but the current name of Template:db-reason isn't that bad. --cesarb 00:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I didn't leave {{deletebecause}} unchanged becase i wanted it to group exactly with the other tempaltes, and thus to start with "db-" otherwise a hypothetical speedy-tagged Template:Decotation, say, would sort between them. for the same reason, i want to rename {{Delete}} to {{Db-noreason}} (or soem other name that starts with "Db-"). Since {{Delete}} (and all the other existing forms) will of course be left as redirects to the new name, this will not hinder anyone from using the form they currently prefer. I couldn't simply move {{deletebecause}} to {{db}} because of the existing shorthand redirect, i would have had to do a three-cornered move via a temporary name, and that seemed more trouble than it was worth, besides that would make the names a bit less similar. DES (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Careful with your categorization!

Cesar, I've noticed that you've been removing articles from some of their categories recently based, apparently, on a misunderstanding of WP:CLS. The non-controversial one I can point to is where you removed Debian from Category:Linux distributions with the edit summary of "rv; the cat is redundant (parent of Category:Debian)".

However, WP:CLS states:

"An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, e.g. Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software — except when the article defines a category as well as being in a higher category, e.g. Ohio is in both Category:U.S. states and Category:Ohio." (emphasis added)

Thus, a distribution that's a spinoff of Debian would go just in Category:Debian. (or would, if Category:Debian based distributions wasn't a sub-cat of Category:Debian...) But Debian itself should be in both Category:Debian and Category:Linux distributions.

Unfortunately, this happened to coincide with a somewhat more partisanship-inspired effort by a particular user who was very selectively applying the policy based not on whether the articles defined the sub-category but whether they "defined" the parent category -- a POV judgement he affected to believe was the operative criteria (ignoring evidence to the contrary), and affected to believe was his to make. i.e., instead of "Does Scientology controversy define Category:Scientology controversy?" he applied the test of "Does Scientology controversy define Category:Scientology? No, so I'll remove it! Does L. Ron Hubbard bibliography define Category:Scientology? Of course, clearly it does, so it gets placed right in that category!" I'm afraid that my edit summary for the edit in which I restored the full categorization, on the first article on which I encountered your changes, described it as "vandalism" -- which I thought it was, a bad-faith pretense by this same user to still misunderstand a policy that was clearly explained to him multiple times. My apologies for that... but I do hope that you won't remove any more "redundant" category tags that in fact should be there. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops!

Thanks for the tip. Looks like I need to read that section a bit more carefully.  :) Best, Lucky 6.9 00:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Bot or Not Bot

Hi. I'm drawing my conclusion based on recreated article titles which come in from a different proxy every time, with or without the same text in the body. Wiki vandal bots seem to be a pretty hot Google if memory serves. Just my assumption when I see the titles keep popping up over and over. - Lucky 6.9 00:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Oh, heaven forfend!  :^P - Lucky 6.9 00:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Block interference

Sorry, I usually check but I must have missed that one. Say, shouldn't this be a bugzilla request? Radiant_>|< 00:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Spam/Ad/Advert/Advertisement

All of these words represent the same concept. Our reaction to all instances of possible ads should be consistent. No? — Xiong熊talk* 16:38, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you very much for reverting my mistakes with RobotE. Ellywa 22:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You are Ril and I claim my Colley Cibber

The Colley Cibber.
The Colley Cibber.

Thank you, CesarB, that's interesting. Anybody who says You are X and I claim my five pounds to me is presented with the prestigious Colley Cibber award, in compliment to their powers of observation and to the celebrated Brighton Rock plot device. You are the first recipient of this tribute! Bishonen | talk 01:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Redir tl's

I've nominated the lot of them as I believe they're considered harmful; please visit WP:TFD. Radiant_>|< 12:48, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

IPCC

Thanks for your comments.

The issue is that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is known internationally but Independent Police Complaints Commission is just a British thing. (I say that even though I am British myself!)

Compare Google hits:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ipcc+intergovernmental+panel+climate+change
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ipcc+independent+police+complaints+commission

Until recently there wasn't an article on the police complaints commission. It was created because of the Jean Charles de Menezes affair.

80.229.160.150 20:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Revert

Thanks for the revert of vandalism to my user page!--MONGO 02:12, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Diff modification

Just now I feel like trying out your modification, but you aren't using it anymore?  :-) — Omegatron 14:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to install it specifically to edit this series of edits: [12] but none of the versions I have tried have done anything. Am I missing something very basic? — Omegatron 14:55, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I stopped using it because of a really annoying problem: on some diffs, the right column would be extremely thin, making it really hard to read. I just need to find a way to force both columns to have the same size, and I will start using it again.
It also sometimes does not work (and again, forcing both columns to have the same size and filling the whole screen would probably fix it). I have no idea of what makes it not work, unfortunately.
Take a look at User talk:CesarB/monobook.js for some of the problematic diffs.
--cesarb 19:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I tried a few different diffs, and couldn't get it to do anything. I will stare at the code later and try to figure out what it does. I'm not a javascript master. — Omegatron 20:34, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Reference Desk TOC

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Wikipedia:Reference_desk.2Fall a discussion about TOCs on the reference desk pages. Superm401 | Talk 02:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

You blocked one user but not the other, Calton, who also made four reverts. Why? Partisanship on your part?

[13]

And anyway, where do you get the gall to TOTALLY block User:67.182.157.6 so that he cannot even edit his own user space or a request for arbitration where he needs to be free to defend himself?

Check the timing. I blocked 67.182.157.6 at 17:35. The fourth revert by Calton was at 17:37. When I looked, there was no 3RR for him. --cesarb 18:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

DotSix has been blocked under his IP 67.182.157.6,[14] but has made six edits since then using 172.198.185.228 [15]. He is taking ArbCom for a ride. Banno 21:08, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

You would look a lot less partisan if you blocked Calton now, wouldn't you, old boy?

I can't. He falls under one of the 3RR exceptions. --cesarb 14:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

IP address

Cheers for locking the article. Hopefully we can all calm down and resolve any problems on the talk page. Also thanks a lot for helping me resolve my difficulties with avoiding the yellow message. Much appreciated, SqueakBox 19:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 19:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Please send me the IP address that you are testing this with - I would like to hard code it and verify it - thanks :) 0waldo 17:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/American lawyers

Hi, yes an anon created the sub-page for a Cfd. We do not use individual sub-pages, so I moved the entry to the correct place here. This page is not needed, and will not be used. I understand it has history, but it should not have been created, and if there is a way to merge the history with the 28 Aug Cfd page, then that will be fine too. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 20:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks, that works good. I didn't think of that, but will do it if it occurs again. Thanks again. ∞Who?¿? 21:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

I appreciate your reverting that "Lucky 7.0" doofus. I've blocked him from editing. Anything I can do to help in return, just ask.  :) - Lucky 6.9 00:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk Protection

Hello CesarB - I've been following the whole Dot 6 troubles, hoping for the situation to calm down, so true, truth (and related articles) can come back online - as you're probably aware, the Rfar against Dot 6 has led to his banning of editing any pages bar his own talk page [16] - do you think it might therefore be appropriate to unblock the truth talk page? - thank you! Petesmiles 11:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

  • thanks for your message cesar - indeed apologies for not being up to speed! - i'm not sure there's anything useful i can do to help (though let me know..) so its back to sitting on my hands waiting for dot 6 to get bored and go away...... your work keeping everything together is great! thanks on behalf of all sane, interested readers / editors...... Petesmiles 02:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks CesarB and sorry

Request to Block 216.234.114.127 and 24.30.157.246, Ddespie

Been a problem and is a complete nuisance. Thanks Scott 23:18:12, 2005-08-30 (UTC)


rv; this is completely the wrong place to put a blocking request. Try [WP:AIV].

Will do thanks Cesar, Scott 00:23:45, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

Thanks Cesar!

I didn't catch the newgroup>newsgroup thing when I posted it on Scientology versus the Internet

Marbahlarbs 23:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection

Thanks.

Should we run a book on how long it takes until his return? My money is on about 12 hrs. Banno 22:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

WonderBread

Thank you for blocking the latest Willy incarnation. Could I trouble you to delete Ultraviolet-sensitive bead if it's still a redirect? Splash's overhasty delete tag prevents me from moving the article (currently at Ultraviolet-Sensitive Bead) back. —Cryptic (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I've done better: moved over the redirect (a delete and a move in a single command; very annoying when you do it by accident, but very useful when it's exactly what you want to do). --cesarb 01:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


Well, it's hard for the bot to detect that kind of vandalism. It's a different kind, subtler. -- Curps 01:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Me and RFA

I think I'd make good use of adminship, so if you think the same, feel free to nominate me. Due to my lack of substantial content contributions (almost all minor fixes, vandal-fighting, and discussion), I'm not sure I'd pass, but it'd be nice to get the feedback. Thank you for expressing your appreciation of my work - I didn't think it would happen so soon. ~~ N (t/c) 02:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Raye and Nestor

I noticed you deleted my article; that's expected, especially since it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia at all. I just wanted to do something nice for my two best friends who finally hooked up and became a couple. I'd like to ask you two questions:

1) What does "nn-bio" mean? You wrote it as the cause for deletion. 2) Obviously you're an administrator because you deleted the page; can you please copy-and-paste the content of the deleted page and give it to me so I may always remember this pivotal day in my friend's lives?

Thanks!

--LoganK 21:57, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, and thanks for putting the page back up under my user. How would I release the picture to the public domain?
--LoganK 00:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Explanation Please

Okay, why did you delete my RFC about DESpiegel's unsolicited obscene message to me? It was of great importance to me to stop such behavior and you interfered with my legitimate efforts to put a stop to it. Send your explanation to my user talk. Felix Frederick Bruyns 03:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC) ==Apology and User Talk Problem== I genuinely apologize for the RFC mix-up. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I now realize that I chose the wrong RFC board. By the way, a user named Knowledge Seeker says that I am accidentally damaging others' user talk pages (something or other about the "enter" key). If so, I certainly want to stop. Have I in any way caused misalignment on your user talk page, including with this message? If so, please respond at my user talk. Thank you very much. Felix Frederick Bruyns 17:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Article in question ?

You might want to check out the efficacy of this article on Wikipedia, as its companion article you just took off ( Lev A. Sviridov ) by the same author. I just don't have a clue. I leave it up to you. Perhaps it's fine. With all due respect to Mr. Simpkins, Charles Claudio Simpkins. nn-bio, etc ? Totally unsure about these things. Wikiklrsc 21:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Archive 1
| Archive 2 →
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.