User talk:Col. Hauler/Archive001
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
[edit] StarCraft Hybrid Scan
No, I never got to scan it. I don't have access to a scanner.
[edit] Wii
Please stop adding "wee" to the first sentence of this article. Use the discussion page and have your say. Havok (T/C) 11:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- If a solution is not found, I will take it to Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation. Havok (T/C) 12:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Is that a threat?
-
- If you were actually making any attempt to debate rather than just blindly reverting there would be no problems, but as it is it's clear you don't actually want to discuss it, just enforce your POV interests in keeping the reference out of the article, which is clearly ran by fanboyism, looking at your userpage. --Col. Hauler 12:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ok. Should I revert myself or would that count as breaking it? I'm confused. :¦ --Col. Hauler 13:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Please read WP:3RR more carefully. 3RR does not count when reverting vandalism, such as the reverts I made to the anon vandal. However, your edits are not reverting vandalism, you have continuously reverted despite multiple other contributors' objections. Please read WP:POINT as well. I haven't reported you for violating 3RR yet, but if it continues I'm afraid I'll have to. Sorry. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- You are the one vandalizing, not me. Please read the talk page... --Col. Hauler 13:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Sockpuppet
I can easily tell you I am not 81.182.142.141, seeing as this address resolvs to .hu I am currently located on a machine with the ending .no. Meaning, I'm in Norway. Nice try to frame me though. Havok (T/C) 13:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm giving both you and User:Havok a 24-hour timeout. Both of you, please learn WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT. RadioKirk talk to me 13:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why is Havok getting a timeout? He's just trying to talk some sense here. -Numbnumb 21:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't put "sockpuppet" tags on people's pages just because someone corrected someone else's grammar. That's seriously uncivil. Ashibaka tock 04:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Civility in the Wii hours of the morning
Please refrain from making personal attacks against editors. Havok is not vandalising, and you are not reverting vandalism. We must all strive for civility on Wiki, even when confronted by those who strongly disagree with edits we make. I also must remind you of the 3 revert rule- you're getting close to it, so it would be a good idea to take some time off and cool down.
Cheers! Daniel Davis 09:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
I put previous messages in my archive on my talk page - please stop reverting my talk page. If you have anything to say please put it on my talk page and I will read it.HappyVR 10:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wii
The name section was relatively stable and I think in terms of importance possibly in the right place in the miscellaneous section - please stop placing it at the top of the article - if only because this causes 'edit wars' - there is a section in the talk page for wii I have added. Hopefully someone with an outside view to this issue will contribute to it.HappyVR 10:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR again
You have made at least three reverts to Wii in the past 24 hours, despite consensus reached on Talk:Wii. As you have recieved prior warnings about the Three Revert Rule (see above), any more will result in a 24 hour block, as per policy. Regards, smurrayinchester (User), (Talk) 12:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Will (E@) T 13:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More Wii
I have attempted a compromise at this article. Please use the discussion to raise any concerns. I would like to see this edit war stop. Thank you. :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Presuming the blocking admin has no objections, I have a proposal: I want you in on the conversation currently taking place here, which would require that I lift your 3RR block. I would ask that you do not alter my compromise until a consensus is reached (and if necessary), and I would demand that all editors remain civil and assume good faith. Do you agree? RadioKirk talk to me 18:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC).
-
- Yeah I agree. Sorry, only just noticed this. Hope you notice it too, lol, since I can't message you. =\ --Col. Hauler 09:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Okay, let me check with the blocking admin. RadioKirk talk to me 16:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Template db-meta
Hello. I've reverted your changes to the above template as the change did not work correctly when applied to articles with spaces in them. Regards, MartinRe 19:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] font -> span
I've converted your <font color="#002bb8"></font> to <span style="color:#002bb8"></span> as it is more appropriate for XHTML, and allows forward-compatability. It is questionable however if such stealthy links should be standard. I was one of the first ones to start putting class=plainlinks into the user templates, but that does leave the color noticably 'external' so people can still tell it isn't a wikilink. If this was to become standard, an addition to MediaWiki:Common.css for something like .stealthexternallink would be useful. Splarka (rant) 07:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not an admin, can't :)
- But yeah I see what you mean, kinda. The thing is they aren't really external links, it's just a problem in the MediaWiki software that we can't make internal links to pages with arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org/Randomness?action=history is no more an "external link" than http://en.wikipedia.org/Randomness yet we can only link the former by setting it up as an external link. It's pretty silly really. --Col. Hauler 11:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, but we don't need to admin in order to facilitate change, just to engage it ^_^. I've implemented such a test (:visited, :hover, etc) at Uncyclopedia:MediaWiki:Common.css (at the bottom) and put it into Uncyclopedia:Template:User and Uncyclopedia:Template:IP. You can see the effect at Uncyclopedia:Uncyclopedia:Ban_Patrol. Splarka (rant) 20:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Ok, started a request: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#User_templates_css.3F. Splarka (rant) 07:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] RFM rejected.
A request for mediation that you were involved in, involving the articles Wii and Wee, was denied due to the opposition of one or more participants. Regards, Ral315 (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Log links
Do you have any ideas on the question raised here? (I will watch this page) NoSeptember talk 15:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm currently banned still. Sceptre (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) covertly did it without leaving a message here for a full week, while the other guy who did just as many reverts as me got 24 hours...
- Have a look at this (click): #Wii. I was promised to be unblocked but looks like RadioKirk forgot to check back on this page... Do you think you could point him over here please? --Col. Hauler 15:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'll leave a note for him to come here. Let me know if you know how to get url links to look nice (without the two tiny squares), that has always bothered me. NoSeptember talk 15:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Temporarily does not mean 24 hours. I'll lift the block so you can take part in the discussion Will (E@) T 20:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't forget, I was busy with other matters and never got any messages. Sceptre has unblocked you for the purposes of discussion. RadioKirk talk to me 12:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3Rr warning
This is just to warn you that you're in danger of violating 3RR at WP:NPA if you haven't already. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- You just did. Please take the opportunity to revert yourself to avoid being reported. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have only made 3 reverts, no more, as you can see by looking at the history. My first edit was not a revert, that was adding content that wasn't there previously. --Col. Hauler 13:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- You removed content at least four times. I'm in the process of writing it up, so it's your decision. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Removing content isn't a revert by any definition. I removed that because it was not policy and should not be added to a page titled "This is Official Policy on Wikipedia" until of/when it has been accepted by consensus. At the moment it's not, so you are in the wrong re-adding it (with your 3 reverts). I only reverted 3 times, it just doesn't sway to say that a normal edit was a "revert" when it plainly wasn't.
-
-
-
-
-
- You can continue threatening me if you want, but I'm sure anyone can see that my first edit was not a revert. --Col. Hauler 13:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You reverted to a previous version from May 7. Your first edit was a revert. I'm about to post the violation, so you have a few minutes left in case you want to revert yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- What "previous version from May 7" are you talking about? I know I did no such thing, my first edit was done out of scratch not as a revert. I have not edited the page prior to today either. --Col. Hauler 13:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You're being a little disingenuous. You removed the entire section, just as someone else on May 7, which made your first edit a revert to that version. Even if you didn't know that at the time (and I believe you did), at the very latest you knew once I'd alerted you, and you were given every opportunity to revert yourself, yet you chose not to; not only that, you proceeded to remove the diffs to your reverts from the 3RR page. This isn't your first block so you were fully aware of the policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- A revert is a revert. My edit was NOT a revert. Just because I did something similar to an old version as well as made other changes doesn't make it a revert:
- This is clearly NOT a revert... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks?diff=54696383&oldid=52009668 --Col. Hauler 14:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Blocked
FeloniousMonk 14:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand this block. It seems punitive. User:SlimVirgin did not present the proper evidence of violation of 3RR. This seems like an attempt to keep a version of a page against consensus in talk. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response to RadioKirk
- - I had already read the talk page, and saw the article had been changed back without the content removed (just altered in wording, which is fine) so I had no problems with the article. There asn't anything to discuss any more by the time I was unblocked. Any more would have just started an argument all over again probably. I didn't really have anything more to say.
-
- See Wii#Reaction where the Forbes reference that I was adding back in (to the dismay of fans of the company/console attempting to censor a very valid reference by the most notable business magazine in the world) is back in place. I also read Talk:Wii/archive9#Compromise and was fine with the result, not realising that simply not saying that it was "ok with me" could be grounds for another block...
-
- I should not be blocked because I didn't carry on any of the arguing there, which I thought was the whole point of the block (???) - Another point is though people like to go on about 9RR, other editors also reverted many more times than 4 in the edit war that happened there and got only a 24 hour block, while I got a week (which was well, more than a bit dodgy)
-
- I had no intention of starting up any previous arguments there and was fine with the compromise, that's why I didn't carry on discussion (as basically it looked like consensus had been reached at last)... Please don't think that was my intention, cos it wasn't. I would very much like to be unbanned as there really is no reason for me to be banned, I have not broken 3RR nor did I carry on the revert wars at Wii. --Col. Hauler 18:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Then you should have said the compromise was fine; my offer was to lift a block so that you could take part in the discussion ("I want you in on the conversation currently taking place here, which would require that I lift your 3RR block"—see More Wii above). By only now, five days later, saying, "the compromise was fine"—saying so would have constituted the discussion I was requesting and would not have led to another block (and, if that was a concern, you could have written me or the blocking admin and asked)—this leads the reasonable user to believe that you wanted your ban lifted for no more purpose than having your ban lifted. RadioKirk talk to me 19:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I'm sorry, I honestly didn't realise it was a condition to post even if there were no longer any problems. At the time I did wanted to be unblocked to carry on discussion, but the compromise and the article as it turned out are fine so I did not see any need to.. I'm sorry and hope this isn't a reason to be ban me again, because as I've said already I saw consensus had been reached so didn't see there any need to post anymore...
-
-
-
-
-
- Would you consider amending your post on WP:AN/3RR please? Or if you don't feel like retracting that support for a ban, at least link to this discussion here so others can see what happened? --Col. Hauler 19:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Done, per WP:AGF. RadioKirk talk to me 19:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
I would like to ask you to consider this: it is the nature of an open project such as Wikipedia to see disputes between people of differing opinions as to the content of its articles; the beauty of Wikipedia lies in when these differing attitudes can be meshed into work that is all the better as a result. Edit-warring is never productive; I was involved in one that I regret (before I was made an admin) and I know of at least one admin who lost that status because of it. Take part in discussions with those users, both on their talk pages and on the articles' talk pages. If that doesn't work, follow the process of resolving disputes (that's why it's there). We all become even better editors when we show other editors we respect their views—especially when they disagree. I hope I've been of some assistance. :) RadioKirk talk to me 14:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin did none of those, he reverted me without any attempt at discussion, only saying "see talk" after he had already reverted once. After I pointed out that consensus was definitely not to have it in the policy as it's not policy on the talk page, he did not reply (ignoring my attempt at discussion) and so I reverted, and he reverted until we'd both reverted 3 times. Just before my last revert he threatened to ban me, just because he disagreed with me, while trying to claim I broke 3RR when I clearly didn't (and no matter how many times I pointed out that the version he was saying I reverted to was plainly NOT the same, he ignored). I just can't believe this kind of thing is just simply allowed to go on, it's sickening. --Col. Hauler 14:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unblock request
(See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Col._Hauler and #Response_to_RadioKirk)
Can please someone unblock me? It's clear I didn't break 3RR... It has been many hours since RadioKirk asked for a response on WP:AN/3RR yet neither SlimVirgin nor FeloniusMonk has replied to keep me blocked...
Anyone can see I did not break 3RR and this was just SlimVirgin's way of trying to "win" a revert war by getting the editor she was reverting (me) blocked. He reverted 3 times, I reverted 3 times. I did not break 3RR at all and it's pitiful how nothing has been done about this block.
- According to my log, your block should automatically expire in about one minute. Please read the note I left you above. RadioKirk talk to me 14:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Could you please unblock it manually, just for posterity? It's very clear this block was unjustified and that I did not break 3RR, you pointed this out yourself on WP:AN/3RR but SlimVirgin (and FeloniusMonk, presumably a friend since he totally ignored my evidence that it was NOT a breach of 3RR) stalled to try keep me blocked and tarnish my record.
-
- People doing this kind of thing shouldn't be simply allowed to get away with it. It's very obvious SlimVirgin was using her administrator status to try "win" an edit war. --Col. Hauler 14:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
A quick flick through FeloniusMonk's talk page archives and there you go:
From the tone it's obvious they're pretty familiar with each other.
Bloody despicable. --Col. Hauler 14:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- My suggestion, then, is to file an Rfc—next time, before an edit war because, wrong though it is, editors feel justified in returning the favor. RadioKirk talk to me 16:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Removed unblock template, block has expired per above communication. NSLE (T+C) at 06:57 UTC (2006-05-26)
[edit] User:Woggly
I noted this edit comment: people should know when reading this page it was not made by an administrator. Well, actually, it was made by an administrator: User:Woggly. If you were up on the situation, you'd know that she's been seriously harassed by User:Israelbeach and his various sock- and meatpuppets; there's really nobody better to identify manifestations of this abusive and banned Wikipedia user. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is vandalism. Do not do anything of the sort again. Thank you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Afd sorting
Hello. I'm here regarding this edit. I'd have to say in the strongest possible terms please don't do that again. It's even mentioned in the Guide to deletion as something not to do. It emphasises the "voting" aspect which is a bad thing. If you want to chat about it more, feel free to leave a note on my talk. - brenneman {L} 06:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
there's power in numbers. Lonecanine
[edit] Personal attacks
Regarding this edit, no more personal attacks, whatever the justification. You are well aware that personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia. --Yamla 15:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that really is a "personal attack", it was civil criticism. SlimVirgin has been saying worse about other people on WP:ANI, yet she hasn't been warned. I don't like how it seems that it's okay with some administrators to be extremely abusive about those that can't defend themselves. --Col. Hauler 21:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thewolfstar user page
Brownie point with Bishonen? I don't have to discuss anything and if you revert me for replacing the indefinitely blocked tag, you'll find yourself blocked.--MONGO 21:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- True, you don't have to discuss anything, but that kind of attitude won't get you far and is against all that Wikipedia stands for. But then again, I doubt you care - You have your administrator badge so "obviously" no longer need to listen to anyone else. Sigh. --Col. Hauler 21:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thewolfstar does not have "a significant log of positive contributions". Simple. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that's true: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&target=Thewolfstar&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 - She clearly had potential, if it were not for all the arguments (reading the talk page). --Col. Hauler 21:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's fewer than 100 mainspace contributions, almost every one of which was quickly rolled back as POV or similar. Even if all of them were great, fewer than 100 isn't a "significant number" around here, I don't think. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Perhaps I can help
Hi, Col.Hauer. I see you've already received some messages about the User:Thewolfstar page; perhaps I can clear things up. I don't agree that I'm dealing with the matter improperly and according to my personal feelings (well, obviously, I wouldn't). Category:Wikipedia indefinitely blocked users with a significant edit history is for users who "have a significant log of positive contributions". I don't think you'll get many to agree with you that Thewolfstar has that. Please take a look at for instance these discussions on WP:ANI, and you'll see the consensus (on the noticeboard, anyway) that she hasn't. Notice especially the people saying things like "I reviewed all of Thewolfstar's contribs ... I think I can count on 1-hand the ones that weren't somehow related to personal attacks, incivility etc.", and the way nobody's contradicting them. I appreciate that you probably weren't aware of this. Please get back to me if there's anything you'd like to discuss. Bishonen | talk 21:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC).
[edit] re:Your revert on User:Sgrayban
User is indefinitely blocked and is active in an off wiki website that seems to exist solely to allow banned editors a chance to vent and moan about the awful crime that some mean admins did to then for blocking them, for simply no reason at all. The website also exists it appears to allow stalkers and other worms to post personal information about wikipedians, which lately has become even more disgusting. If an editor is indefinitely blocked then they get a nice indefinitely blocked tag to decorate their page, and no brownie.--MONGO 22:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'd prefer it if you didn't use my page to attack other people. --Col. Hauler 22:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
