User talk:Curps/archive12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Miscellaneous stuff added at the top instead of the bottom

Curps is unfamiliar with colleges, their attitudes, aspirations, and personalities and therefore has neither the knowledge nor the appropriate familiarty to comment on what has become a national sensation in Rufio and the Lost Boys.

What is your point in informing me of this? Do you have some authority, or are you just a busybody? googuse 05:06, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Curps,

You may not believe I am who I say I am, but you could easily call me (I have provided my number) or go to the University of Waterloo website and look up my profile which states that I am a PL/I expert.

Now what are you prepared to show me to verify that YOU are indeed legitamite?

Dr. Bill Wilson Software Engineering University of Waterloo

I don't doubt that there may be a PL/I expert by the name you use, just like there is a "Frederick P. Brooks". But I doubt you are him. Your credibility is not enhanced by posting absurd messages like the one below, using a slightly different University of Waterloo anonymous IP.
No doubt you are students enjoying a prank. I have now posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, you can make your case there if you wish. -- Curps 20:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Okay Curps, I certainly did NOT post the message from Brooks. Believe it or not, there are multiple terminals at the University of Waterloo, and a great deal of intelligent people (who know the correct pronounciation of PL/I) to use them.
As for the message you posted on my talk page, yes my network admins know who I am. Do you honestly think they would block my IP because of a dispute on Wikipedia, especially one where I am obviously right?
I will leave your incorrect pronounciation of PL/I on wikipedia. I was trying to give people the benefit of my knowledge and experience, but quite frankly I have better things to do than argue with a bunch of kids who have no grasp of the history of software engineering.
I would suggest that you are more open-minded in the future and less arrogant.
Dr. Bill Wilson
Software Engineering
University of Waterloo

Dear Sir,

We of the PL/I development community are severely hurt by your recent attacks on the integrity of this language. We fully back Dr. Bill Wilson and his associates in their quest to restore the proper pronunciation of (Pee-ell-eye).

The first incident of mispronunciation occured at the hands of one, who, in the year of our lord 1966 decided to corrupt the initial spelling of the language to PL-One. He was helped in this cause by several associates, and they, together, have ruined the once-proud name of Bill Wilson, the original designer of this language.

Please, to restore balance to the universe, we beseech you to stop your attacks on this language.

Sincerely,

Dr. Frederick P. Brooks Jr.

A bit over the top. Can you sign the next message as Wilma Flintstone? -- Curps 20:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Curps,

I do not like what you insinuated in your last message to me. Please refrain from personal attacks, we both have the same goal - to make the wiki as accurate as possible.

Now your own reference states "pee el eye", which confirms what I have been saying for the past 30 years. Unless you are one of the orginal designers of PL/I, I suggest you leave the wiki as it is.

Dr. Bill Wilson Software Engineering University of Waterloo

The reference I cited (c2.com) is a wiki, and it originally said "PL one", but was edited (sometime since the last Google cache snapshot) to say the opposite. Regardless, there are many other references to "PL one", including the borland.com ref I gave in the PL/I edit history. -- Curps 20:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Curps,

Stop changing my PL/I entry. I've been programming in PL/I probably since before you were born. If you really have issue with me, call me at 416-727-0195.

Dr. Bill Wilson Software Engineering University of Waterloo

This was the first message posted, other messages above were added in reverse chronological order (none of them timestamped). At the time the above message was posted, I had reverted the PL/I page once, with a polite inquiry in the edit summary: I never programmed in it, but always heard it called "PL one"... can you cite a reference for "PL eye"?. The above was an unusually aggressive response ("stop changing my entry") to a single revert, and subsequent messages (above) were considerably more odd. -- Curps 20:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Curps,

Stop changing my PL/I entry. I've been programming in PL/I probably since before you were born. If you really have issue with me, call me at 416-727-0195.

Dr. Bill Wilson Software Engineering University of Waterloo


QUIT REMOVING MY ARTICLES CURPS

GREG ERICSON FREEPRESSINTERNATIONAL.COM WINGOVER


when will they learn curps?

[edit] The moon

Please see User_talk:Egil#Moon_craters_and_latitude_and_longitude.

[edit] Indefinite

I know constant recreation is annoying, but I don't think the blocking policy allows permanent blocks for that. Could you lower the block to a simple 24 hours for User:Greenstatehombre and User:Greshambakerman. I'd be more than happy to help blocking them with increased lengths if the behaviour continues. Mgm|(talk) 16:43, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Since these are obviously sockpuppets, there's no actual harm done in blocking them indefinitely, but since you insist, I've unblocked them. -- Curps 21:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I recommend some friendly notices to remind them about the recreation of previously deleted vfd material. If they still don't engage in discussion and keep at it, you've got my support. Have you got undeniable proof these are sockpuppets? - Mgm|(talk) 22:29, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Well, their one and only contribution in each case was to re-create Schluegenkopf with the exact same content that had been VfD'd and then re-created and speedy deleted a few times. Strong circumstantial, basically. That content is now at User:Schluegenkopf. Anyways, it's not really worth debating, not an emergency. -- Curps 22:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

yes lol you are right Nomorecorruptcops 05:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PHP

How long is the spambot protection on PHP likely to last? Thanks. --Ctz 17:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed the protection just now. I believe the spambot is still out there, but people will just have to keep reverting I guess. There are certain domains that the spambot uses that haven't been approved for adding to the spam blacklist, so the spambot will just keep using them. See meta:Spam blacklist under "BEGIN RUSSIAN SPAM SECTION"; some of the domains there are commented out or only partially blacklisted. The bot can't be blocked by IP blocking, because it just uses different anon IPs every time. It can't be blocked except by blocking the entire top-level domain (eg, spb.su) because it just uses a different free subdomain every time. Unfortunately it seems a handful of legitimate sites that we (or other Wikipedias) have external links to also use some of these same top-level domains. -- Curps 21:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[edit] "Pelican Shit" Googlebomber is back!!!!!

Check out Fishtail (talk • contribs) He needs to be blocked. - Stevey7788 21:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for the notification. -- Curps 22:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ISO codes for flag templates

Why? They aren't as common as the IOC codes that were in place prior. Who uses DNK for Denmark??? And CHE for Switzerland? Not that many people speak Latin! Earl Andrew 06:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See User_talk:Aris_Katsaris#Three-letter_templates. After full reflection, probably the only solution is fully spelled-out templates, like Template:CROATIA, etc. This is pretty much foolproof, which is important since any fool can edit Wikipedia. It also avoids conflicts like "IND" already being taken and not being available for India. Also there are many cases where sub-national entities participate in international affairs, but don't have either an ISO 3166-1 code or an IOC code, for instance we'd need a Template:QUEBEC for Francophonie, etc. -- Curps 06:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the link. I will also fix my image post thing. I was ignorant of the + thingy, I never use it myself. - Earl Andrew 06:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What's your point? The flags also make it much longer. Plus, who wants to type out People's Republic of China all the time? - Earl Andrew 06:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How about we create our own codes, for wikipedia? I suggest 5 letter codes because of the India problem. And, I already created Canada's provinces earlier today for adoption in various curling articles. (They are 30px though) - Earl Andrew 07:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I sincerely doubt that there would be reversions. And any sort of code will have to be looked up anyways. - Earl Andrew 07:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Related issue: Can we agree on some page for collecting all the existing flag templates, so we can look them up easily? I had a hard time guessing the proper code before and the changes didn't help. Rl 20:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Either ISO 3166-1 or List of IOC country codes or some invented codes, or a combination of all three. -- Curps 05:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we should change the IOC and ISO pages to actually display the flags created so far!? Rl
Well, go ahead if you like. I'd rather wait for some wider input on naming standards for the flag templates. -- Curps 20:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Fine with me, I'm not in a hurry. Rl 20:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Protected page subsections

Hi, why did you get rid of the "Protected against article re-creation vandalism" section in Wikipedia:Protected page? I (and a number of other people) thought it was really useful; it allows us to separate out the non-articles that we don't need to unprotect quickly, from the real articles we do need to be judicious about protecting, so I put this subsection back. Noel (talk) 14:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your Editing

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for your editing. Cheers! Astrowob 04:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RM and block compression

Hey there. Thanks for the input about move requests at WP:RM. Just to let you know about the block compression problems: we can work around them for now, moving the destination out of the way and flagging it with template:pending deletion or template:pending merge (if there is a significant history). This allows the redirect left behind to be removed, and thus the move performed. Not ideal but it works for now - I've done it for a few of them (and they are listed at the "History mergers" section of WP:RM). Cheers, violet/riga (t) 00:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK thanks. That's a useful way to get around the problem, I made use of it. -- Curps 01:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipædia and other main page changes

I hardly see the vowel change in "Wikipædia" as impairing the "basic functionality"; I really thought that it was one of the cutest and least-potentially-harmful changes. I understand that we might not want to change the bars at the top of the screen, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having some fun. April Fool's Day is a widely celebrated and understood day in the English-speaking world, particularly on the internet. -- Creidieki 06:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pope John Paul II

That wasn't funny. There are pranks and there are meanspiritedness, and that went over the line. RickK 08:06, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Check this out. RickK 08:10, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

That was an anon, not me. See [1]. -- Curps 08:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's really weird. When I look at the history, it shows it as you making that vandalism, and that link was to the page which said so, but when I click on the link, it shows otherwise. Some sort of history glitch, I guess. Sorry. RickK 20:11, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalize?

What on earth are you talking about? Exactly how have I been "vandalizing" around, according to you, so as to merit being quickly threatened with a ban? I have made three edits: at Pope John Paul II, to delete the reporting of an event located in the future as if it had already happened (midday April 1st has not yet happened, so you just cannot yet report that by midday April 1st the media had said such and such, because doing so is telling an obvious lie), and then to delete that obviously false information again after having been restored by another anonymous user; and finally, at Chlamydia trachomatis, to link three terms in the definition. You seem to have a very particular concept of vandalizing, and do not seem to think twice before threatening to ban. 213.37.6.122 08:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See your talk page re Pope John Paul II. -- Curps 08:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Even if the deletion of "His Holiness Pope John Paul II né" hadn't been inadvertent (it was, check in the history page that the previous edit upon which I made my first one did not contain it, and my second edit was merely a revert to my previous one), don't you think it would be really undeserved to qualify it as "vandalizing"? (if you take that for vandalizing, then what do you call the blanking a page or inserting abuse?). Also, note that (a) that information was not lost (everywhere else in the page, including the title, it's clearly stated that Karol Wojtyla is Pope John Paul II), and (b) some people consider that to start an article with authority titles such as "His Holiness" and "Her Majesty" is POV because those titles do not apply for people who are not under or do not recognize that person's authority. OTOH, what I was intending to delete (which should have been clear from the comments to the edits) was the sentence "By mid-day on 1 April, it was widely reported that the Pope had suffered a heart attack and cardiocirculatory collapse", i.e. the sentence as a whole not just the words "cardiocirculatory collapse". Now, that sentence, as a whole, is false because it is telling about the future (that something—whatever—was widely reported by midday April 1st) as if it were the past; it's not my fault if whoever wrote the sentence got the time wrong, the sentence as it was was an obvious lie (regardless of whether Woytila suffered a cardiocirculatory collapse or not) and that's why I deleted it. Besides, I didn't delete the link to the CNN report, and "cardiocirculatory collapse" is implied in "heart attack" which remained there in the next sentence. 213.37.6.122 09:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abdullah Ocalan

Re reverted, material incorporated in both pages, Abdullah Ocalan and Kurdistan Workers Party. Since its reusable text template is aproporate. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) You are welcome to put it on a templates for deletation, please check how I am using it. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why are you reverting my edits constantly? Can you explain your behavior? --Cool Cat My Talk 11:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) Do you realise some of your edits are vandal like? --Cool Cat My Talk 12:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, since you want unnecesary burocracy... Lets clutter wikipedia moves... and template suggestions... --Cool Cat My Talk 12:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Kurdistan

I've been disenfranchised :-( — Davenbelle 13:49, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The templates

Did you delete the templares? Please put them where they were as I need them to argue my point. Can you restore the templates? --Cool Cat My Talk 00:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you in the history of some of User:Coolcat's template experiments; I've reworked what he was doing as subpages in his user space; there's a discussion on my talk page and I adjusted his notice on the village pump. The timeline is still a template and I thought I should give you a heads-up; it's still used by Kurdistan Workers Party which I'm not going to touch for now. — Davenbelle 09:52, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Coolcat,
Sorry for not replying sooner, I took a wikibreak. No, I didn't delete your templates; I reverted the pages that used them as per my previous messages, but did not delete the templates themselves. Looking at the delete log, I see they have been moved to User:Coolcat/Abdullah Öcalan and User:Coolcat/External links by User:MacGyverMagic. -- Curps 23:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My adminship

Hi Curps, Thank you for your vote in my nomination. Your support means a lot to me and I look forward to helping out as an admin. Cheers, BanyanTree 03:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lysithea

See my User talk:Urhixidur page for the infamous Lysithea picture mystery - solved!

Urhixidur 01:49, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese SVO vs. SOV

Hi Curps,

I noticed you made an old edit to Subject Verb Object with the comment "omit Chinese: not clearcut SVO vs. SOV (see for instance Li & Thompson)." However, I did some Google searching and found a paper that cites Li & Thompson and says Mandarin is SVO, which contradicts this claim. The only thing closest to the claim I could find was this, in which it says:

The verb ba was grammaticalized to a preposition to produce a construction of the form S prep O V (Li and Thompson 1974).

However the ba preposition is generally regarded as a coverb due to the serial verb construction feature of Chinese, so the sentence actually still retains its SVO word order.

I don't have the actual Li & Thompson source that you cite, but I couldn't find a single source through Google that claims Chinese is SOV. All sources seem to point that its SVO. Do you have any comments? There's currently a discussion going on at Talk:Chinese language#Question_classification_as_.22subject_object_verb.22_language about this (which is how I ended up finding your edit), so you can answer there if you like.

Thanks! --Umofomia 07:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. 141.154.234.84 13:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. 141.154.234.84 17:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 141.154.234.84 21:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 151.203.219.83 17:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay. If you legitimize Power violence because there happen to be a few scattered web pages, then you should have no problem if I post an article calling you a pedophile because I threw up some Geocities page that says so. 151.203.219.83 17:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very well! The pedophile article will go up. VfD it if you want! 141.154.233.44 14:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As before, see Talk:Power violence, or the comments in the "Hoaxes?" section below. -- Curps 17:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have seen that. What you are saying is that an article is immune from speedy deletion if there happens to be another random website floating around that substantiates the article. 141.154.233.44 18:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To be speedily deleted, an article has to meet one of the criteria mentioned at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is applicable only in limited cases, other cases go to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. I'm not making any of this up on my own, it's just Wikipedia policy: see Wikipedia:Deletion policy.
Please go ahead and read the pages linked to in the previous paragraph. No, seriously, read them.
The place to debate your claim that it's a hoax, or your claim that only a small handful of websites use this term, is Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, not here. For what it's worth, I've done some basic Google research that leads me to disbelieve both claims.
You have never explained your refusal to use the standard Wikipedia:Votes for deletion procedure. That procedure takes one week, from start to finish. Of course the outcome may not be to your liking.
-- Curps 19:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hoaxes ?

I'm afraid your comment was a bit cryptic. A hoax article intended to be a hoax (as opposed to reporting on a hoax) is a speedy delete. An article about a hoax definitely isn't. If there was a particularly borderline call I made, please let me know. Generally, I either rely on the CSD page or, if I'm doing new page patrol, try to only hit those that are clearcut. Needless to say, we all keep things that ought to go and cut things that ought to be deliberated from time to time, and I'm sure I've done so, but, until we get a solution to the overwhelming of VfD and CSD, we may have to put up with mistakes like that. Geogre 18:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleting that article is not a mistake. No-one, and I mean no-one, has cited an authority acknowledging power violence as a legitimate music genre. 141.154.234.84 21:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Take it to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (you might want to try signing up for an account first, since anonymous IPs don't have much credibility in Votes for deletion). You were invited to do so months ago, but failed to do so.
There are established procedures for trying to get a page deleted, which you are not following, despite previous discussion months ago. There are certain limited criteria for speedy deletion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, and this does not fit any of them. Sometimes admins liberally interpret "patent nonsense" to delete obvious hoaxes, but this is not an obvious hoax, in fact minimal due-diligence searching on Google leads me to believe that it is not a hoax at all.
It's not clear what you mean by "legitimate" musical genre. Inclusion in Wikipedia is not an endorsement, or a popularity contest, and has nothing to do with musical tastes. In general, if a topic is minimally "encyclopedic", it gets included. I don't listen to that kind of music and never heard of it before I noticed the article in the speedy-deletion category listing. Regardless, it is simply not a speedy-deletion candidate (again, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion) and your repeated attempts to inappropriately nominate it have crossed the line into vandalism.
You can go to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion and carefully read the instructions for nominating a page, and follow them. Read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and take your case to the wider Wikipedia community.
-- Curps 23:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] template notice

I did not necessarily make a judgment as to whether the topic was encyclopedic, it was just fairly obvious that the article, though, is merely a dicdef. So I was under the impression that that means it should be deleted, unless it is fixed. Please tell me where I have gone wrong.--Dmcdevit 02:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll defer to your expertise, sorry to trouble you. But if what you say is true, and dicdef should never be an (official) reason to speedy delete, why does Template:Deletetranswikied exist at all? It seems misleading (or at least it misled me).--Dmcdevit 02:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flag templates

I made more comments to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(news)#Flag_templates. Flag of the United States USA Flag of Earth Earth (SEWilco 08:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Please stop vandal

Please stop vandal Lysy which erases discussion's commentaries and calls other users "vandales" in Lithuania and Vilnius pages! How long will this hooliganism continue??? Please block him after 3 changes (regarding the rules)!!! He usualy does 10 changes per day. Antituteišas

[edit] no sign of protection

Please return the sign of protection to Lithuania page. I see you afraid of public opinion that Lithuania page is protected from Lithuanians. Antituteišas

I'm not sure what you're referring to. That page has not been edited since being protected. -- Curps 17:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] larsie

hey there, i hope everything with thet stealth vandalism stuff has been solved. obviously myself the real user of my account had nothing to do with it. is there any way i can get any reference to that junk deleted from my history pages? as it is an obvious scar on my otherwise good name from here on. i don't want it to affect me in the future. i can confidantly say that anything of the sort will not happen again as i have changed my account information (except user name) and have taken further steps to keep my information private and i no longer share my pc. --Larsie 21:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China" for page titles

Following the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of Mainland China-related topics, polls for each single case has now been started here. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thank you. — Instantnood 12:50, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Cheers mate. It seems people don't like my Barnstar, --SqueakBox 01:09, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC) and thanks again, --SqueakBox 21:39, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creedmoor

Creedmoor is also the name of a psychiatric hospital in Queens, New York.

Fact! www.omh.state.ny.us

5 bucks says our vandal is operating from there. Heh. Rl 21:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heh, indeed. -- Curps 21:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] GB: Graphic Britain

I was in the process of submitting the article under the title GB: Graphic Britain. I'm not sure whether yourself or the user who submitted it for speedy deletion actually read my summary/discussion page, but it clearly explained this. The action taken has not benefited Wikipedia or myself. RSieradzki 00:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asteroid

hello Curps, some news about Minor Planets. 46514 (1977JA) now has the name LASSWITZ (Curd Lasswitz famous german author of science fiction) If you like please add this news in the list of minor planets in the wiki article HANS-EMIL SCHUSTER thanks Desertsky April 11th 2005

OK, it's done (and the Kurd Lasswitz article too). -- Curps 08:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

perfect an rapid as always, thanks, more news soon , latest in two month we will have one planet more, knind regards Desertsky

hi Curps, ref un-named planets Richard West: there is quite a lot, Richard is retired since about three weeks, difficult to get him; maybe on travel ?? Him and Lutz Schmadel I have asked about two months ago to give more information to wiki; thats all I can do; anyhow latest in July I will have more news about planets (two of mine in the making) Naming gets difficult now: only 100 objects are allowed per two month and only two per individual,

see you Desertsky April 12th 2005

[edit] Down the memory hole

I could have sworn I posted a copy of that comment myself to my own userspace, under that title. Posting it to Wikipediaspace may have been an overreaction, but as I said the first time I recreated the page, I simply could no longer remember if I had put that comment there, or something else -- or if there was something there already which I edited. My involvement in the project has spread to a number of pages -- I really have to look at my watchlist and contribs to see what I've done.

Whether I created the page, whatever the content, I don't see matters half as much as how the deletion was handled. If we begin to act in trivial matters with suspect method, it is a short step to substantial issues with suspect method, and this I abhor.

If Netoholic moved the offending page, I really don't see how he obliterated history or removed the automatic temporary redirect. Who helped him with that? Can you find out? You may be aware that ArbCom has temporarily enjoined Netoholic from some types of reversions; judging by the log times you Frazzydee showed me, his actions may have violated that injunction. If he had assistance in kicking sand over his tracks, I think that's a serious matter. Don't you? — XiongImage:Xiong2char.pngtalk 22:54, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

If a page is deleted, it no longer shows up in your contributions list or your watchlist.
From investigating the history of the deleted page (this is available for perusal by admins), I see that:
  • 03:17 UTC, April 10, 2005: You created Wikipedia:Down the memory hole, with edit summary perhaps one copy will survive on the system
  • 03:36 UTC, April 10, 2005: User:Netoholic moved Wikipedia:Down the memory hole to your user space at User:Xiong/Down the memory hole, and put a "speedy deletion" notice (Template:Deletebecause) on the resulting redirect, citing the page move (I believe he is not an admin, and cannot delete pages himself).
  • 15:59 UTC: Admin User:Mel Etitis acted on the "speedy deletion" notice and deleted the redirection page. Note the pages with a "speedy deletion" notice automatically get added to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, for attention by admins.
  • 19:54 UTC: You recreated the page by adding content with edit summary: what was here? maybe nobody knows
  • 22:17 UTC: Netoholic again added the "speedy deletion" notice to the newly created page, again citing as reason the move to your user space.
  • 00:29 UTC, April 11, 2005: While going through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, I noticed the page and deleted it, but left a message on your talk page at the same time, alerting you about it [2].
  • 07:19 UTC: You recreated the page by adding content with edit summary: more orwellian games
  • 08:26 UTC: Netoholic again added the "speedy deletion" notice to the newly created page, again citing as reason the move to your user space.
  • 09:47 UTC: Mel Etitis again acted on the "speedy deletion notice" and deleted the page.
I think moving the page to your user space was proper: any registered user can do a move, as long as it is not page-move vandalism, and given your edit summary (perhaps one copy will survive on the system) I think you knew at the time that the content didn't really belong in Wikipedia: namespace. Perhaps Netoholic notifying you of the move might have been courteous, but if the page was put on your watchlist when you created it, it would remain on your watchlist even after the move, under its new name.
Regarding Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), I don't know what may have happened there. Is it possible you simply clicked on "Show preview" rather than on "Save page", and failed to save it? That has happened to me a few times. It is currently impossible for any admin to delete any single version out of the history of the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page... under normal circumstances, this could be done in a cumbersome way, by deleting the page and then selectively restoring only desired versions. However, 1) this would leave a trace, as the deleted versions would still be available for perusal by admins, and I see no such deleted versions in the history of that page, and 2) number 1 above can't even be done at the moment, because this page and many others on Wikipedia cannot currently be deleted at all, even temporarily, due to technical issues involving a software bug in the most recent Wikimedia software (the "block compression" problem).
So it is beyond any admin's ability to send any contributions of yours to Village pump (policy) down the memory hole. Conceivably, a developer could do it, but from my personal experience most developers don't get involved all that much in editing or editing disputes.
-- Curps 01:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to pull up that detailed record. I can tolerate most things, but not being kept in the dark.

I wrote quite a few words in reply before deciding most of it was unimportant. I don't really care that the page was moved or deleted; I've recovered from my understandable attack of paranoia -- "just because they're out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid" It's on the Pump and {divbox} is no longer under attack.

I think nothing you did was wrong, and although I want to talk with Mel Etitis, I don't think he acted in bad faith either. I want to know why he speedied a temporary redirect that is put there to prevent the sort of confusion I experienced -- the now-you-see-it-now-you-don't slight of hand -- but I'll warrant he just took Nh's {db|moved} at face value. You speedied too, but you noticed me; which notice I just failed to notice.

Leaving aside all of that, I want your opinion on this, specifically: The record shows that Netoholic moved the page, then speedied it 3 times. Is this a direct violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Netoholic_2#Temporary_injunction? — Xiong熊talk 03:05, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Merging fragmented discussion (including this entire section) into User:Xiong/Metahole. You may want to delete the merged content. — Xiong熊talk 04:39, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

[edit] from Lithuania

May be you remove all personal attacks on Lithuanians as well? See: Talk: Vilnius We very "hope". Antituteišas

[edit] Continuing vandalism

Piotrus is vandalising Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth text. Antituteišas

[edit] personal attackes

Please remove personal attackes of Piotrus in Talk: Vilnius. Živinbudas

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for protecting the Oliver North page. --Holdek (talk) 06:01, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pashtuns

I am keep writing in Pashtun Talk Page regarding Pashtuns Tribes list but couldn't find any solution or reply from any body. Thanks taking part in this matter.

Haider 13:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Image:WikiThanks.png Hey Curps, thanks for dealing with all that vandalism, especially on my user page! I had already gone to bed. Cheers, TIMBO (T A L K) 17:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Page protection

Please protect Pelican Shit from creation also. -- Stevey7788 04:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] redundant protected edit on Ward Churchill

Hey Curps, the sentence you added at the bottom of the intro to the protected article Ward Churchill is redundant, at the very top we already state his claim of native american heritage is disputed. I posted other suggestions on the talk page what do you think? One of the suggestions was about how the 9/11 essay controversy is the primary controversy yet the article doesn't summarize it in the intro while at the same time the article does describe the discrediting controversies in some detail in the intro (plagiarism, can't prove native american heritage). I think these discrepancies should be fixed. zen master T 22:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

but shouldn't we be summarizing the 9/11 essay controversy in the intro, not just the discrediting controversies? Why don't you think we should summarize the 9/11 essay controversy in the intro at all? It's too redundant to mention the heritage controversy twice in the intro, it should be removed from the very top since you want it at the bottom to be a part of the discrediting controversies. zen master T 22:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Saying Churchill didn't think the 9/11 victims were innocent kind of quotes him out of context, read his response statement on the controversy. Churchill basically was saying if the U.S. delivers death and destruction around the world we not only can't feign innocence when it is returned, but also the U.S. financial centers may be contributing to that death and destruction around the world. Churchill compares the 9/11 attacks to the U.S. Military's usage of "collateral damage" when civilian areas are hit around the world. Perhaps we should quote from Churchill's response statement in the intro so clarity is as pristine as possible? zen master T 22:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you really think it's appropriate to be editing the article after you protected it? RickK 23:47, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Probably not, in hindsight. I just wanted to create something of a compromise version, since there were a couple of valid elements in the other version that seemed to have been reverted away in the flurry of edits. Anyways, the editing is at Ward Churchill/Temp now. -- Curps 00:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yep, I think that is the best solution. -- Viajero 11:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)