User talk:Emufarmers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Emufarmers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Rob Church Talk | FAHD 02:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 66.27.70.252

This user continues to linkspam the chastity belt and the erotic sexual denial pages. As you can see by her "contributions" [1]

How can we begin the process to ban this user? zabadoh 23:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Are you that desperate?

You're gonna fight me now without hesitation? 24.188.203.181 21:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Look man it was just a simple misunderstanding that burned, understood? 24.188.203.181 21:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I just didn't agree with some stuff and look what happened. 24.188.203.181 21:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're gonna kill off my account, it would be wrong because of what I was trying to understand. 24.188.203.181 21:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing warnings from talk pages

Removing a warning straight out would, in my book qualify as vandalism. If necessary I would report them to WP:AIV. Archiving so as to hide them is a bit more iffy though, I don't regard it in the same way because they are well within their rights to archive their talk. If they continue to vandalise (other than moving warnings to archives), report them to AIV and direct the dealing admin to the archives as evidence of other warnings given. ViridaeTalk 09:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Liquid Snake

Hello: There's an RfC on Liquid Snake which you may wish to comment on. --Emufarmers(T/C) 05:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The conflict with User:Targetter and me (User:Ptkfgs) began with regard to a content dispute on British Shorthair. Should I add that to the Description section? (I have not participated in an RfC before). I do not want to endorse the description as-is, because I have not (and as far as I know, Targetter has not) been involved in a dispute on Solid Snake. —ptk✰fgs 05:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been paying attention to this mainly via the messages exchanged on talk pages; if this is actually several different conflicts going on, then you should make note of that; I'm not entirely sure whether you should modify the statement I made, or create a seperate one. (This is my first RfC as well, if it means anything; you may need to ask someone with more experience for guidance.) --Emufarmers(T/C) 05:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I will go ahead and alter the description; if you are willing to endorse the altered description I don't see how it could spoil the RfC. —ptk✰fgs 05:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think what we're actually disputing is not his actions on Solid Snake and British Shorthair, but his total incivility towards the lot of us. I would classify this as one single incident. Also, it looks like we have the 2+ endorsements on our side, and Snake's opposition. Are we ready to proceed with discussion? --Targetter (Lock On) 06:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that's accurate; additionally, I think it is accurate to note that the conflict probably arose out of the two edit disputes named in the description. I feel that the description and the selection of diffs accurately reflects the nature of the dispute. Snake Liquid still appears to be editing his response, so we might want to hold on the discussion until he's finished. I am going to sleep at any rate, so I'll look again tomorrow. —ptk✰fgs 06:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Thank you very much for the warm welcome! :) --Fopkins | Talk 04:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

HI,

I know that removing warnings is a violation of policy. Can you please show me where blanking one's talk page is otherwise prohibited? I have not been able to find it. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What's stated at Help:Talk page#Etiquette certainly seems to imply that continually blanking one's own talk page goes very strongly against Wikiquette and civil discourse, although the actual policy regarding such removals seems to still be in development, depending on where you look. This is an issue that seems to burst up in fits and spurts; I've observed several instances of people removing messages constantly, and such disputes do tend to get ugly. --Emufarmers(T/C) 14:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for you response. I sometimes have trouble locating policies, etc. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 15:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] strangely uplifting

Thanks for your feedback ("strangely uplifting") about my Wikipedia user page. Also, thanks for your work in dealing with vandalism. I often wonder what motivates editors who put a significant amount of effort into dealing with vandalism. --JWSchmidt 17:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] robin hood

i am developing this article no need for asistance. Please do not be offended i am just saying that you dont have to help if you dont want to. Miles Fallconet 09:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] regarding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Generally, it's good form to note why you're making a reversion.

Also, I advertently reverted your reversion when I was fixing the infobox, so if you plan to change it again, could you take care not to go just back to the version with the messed up infobox. Thanks!--Birdmessenger 21:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, looked at the history more closely and saw that you were trying to revert the broken infobox. My mistake.--Birdmessenger 21:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 :) Nuts; and I was already working on a politely-worded response noting the circumstances. (Popups don't allow for customized edit summaries; I wouldn't have reverted with popups if I'd intended to revert your changes.) --Emufarmers(T/C) 21:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Contact

Hi again. First, sorry for acting weird about being contacted. I'm somewhat paranoid about my presence on the Internet. I should probably set up alternate means for communication, as you suggested, but I have trust issues about giving that kind of thing out to the world.

Second, I really appreciate your vote of confidence. It really means a lot -- thank you. I'm afraid, however, that I don't have the time or the patience to be an admin. I feel admins are expected to conform to a high standard of helpfulness, one that I may be too lazy to adhere to, and I am rather one-sided in my contributions (which are overwhelmingly minor counter-vandalism edits). I've also only been here for around two months and I don't have a firm grasp of policy yet. I don't even know how much longer I'll be around, at least in a significant context, but I don't think I'll be leaving Wikipedia anytime soon. This is basically contingent on my workload in the next few months.

I also make numerous errors in my edits, and am probably not always as tolerant of vandals as I should be. Above all, I think putting the block button in my hands would be a bad idea, and I'd rather leave that kind of judgment up to experienced admins. Besides, the only benefit I can really see to adminship is this ability to block, which doesn't necessarily improve my chances of helping control vandalism. There are already scores of people who have become or will become administrators solely to lend a hand to AIV in times of large backlogs.

Sorry if I made this too long. I just wanted to let it be known that my recalcitrance to contact Wikipedians outside of Wikipedia is nothing personal, and that there are a number of reasons why I shouldn't be an admin.

I really do thank you for your suggestion. I've noticed many good edits by yourself -- maybe adminship is in your future. Again, I'm honored that you thought of me for this, and if you do want to keep this in a private channel, I can clear our conversation off my talk page. I may not be helping out in an administrative capacity any time soon, but I would be happy to add your user pages to my watchlist so I can help stop vandalism to them (not that I assume anyone would hold anything against you).

I am thankful for your gesture, and I wish you a happy editor tenure here. Maybe I will even be able to help you out down the road. If you ever need help with something, particularly an issue of vandalism, please feel free to contact me. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] David Gabrielle Martyn

I won't remove the tags if you at least allow users to see the article in its entirety. As of now, you continue to revert the article to its previous, disjointed version. Moreover, every time that I've provided external links, you or someone else has removed them. This is a very credible story of a very incredible man. I have my suspicions as to why you continue vandalize the article, which I will elaborate on the deletion page later. CDiPoce 01:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AIV

They stopped vandalizing an hour ago though. If they had been continuing to vandalize, yes, I could block without warning. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Could be. That page's patrolling is sparadic. Not as bad as WP:PAIN though. I swear sometimes that I'm the only admin patrolling that one. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re User pages

In most of the cases, they are new users and know nothing about red links yet. It is not a negative thing to remove those links. If they don't want they would just remove it or comment about it. I am an admin and i am here to make this place convivial and not to bother anybody. It is adviced to avoid red links anyway. At the end, it is up to the user h/self. Cheers -- Szvest 09:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

[edit] Spoken Article questions

I responded to your questions on my talk page, hope my answers help!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Herman Göring

I don't really know what you mean but here is my view. Göring received the Grand Cross of the Iron Cross, which is a higher variant of the Knight's Cross (both are based on the same enactment) which in return is a higher variant of the Iron Cross (also same enactment). I therefore would classify him as a recipient of the Knight's Cross since this comprises the Iron Cross as well. By the way Göring did also receive the Knight's Cross on 30 September 1939 as well.MisterBee1966 10:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I addressed your concerns. Please review!MisterBee1966 12:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your request for rollback

Emufarmers, per your request on WP:RFR, I have enabled your account with the rollback feature. Please read documentation on the tool, and remember that it is to be used for the removal of vandalism only—it must not be used to aid edit warring.

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me at my talk page. Anthøny 02:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)