User talk:Flyguy649/Archive 6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Think gum
I am having trouble seeing this as article as blatant advertising. OTOH, I missed the fact that it was a recreation of previous articles. Taemyr (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Also could you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think Gum as moot? Taemyr (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- nm. Mixing Think Gum with think gum. Taemyr (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
WOW!
I didn't even get to go back to the Newpage patrol page before Daniel rubin was gone! WOW! Great editing with you. —ScouterSig 06:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I saw it on the new pages list and summarily deleted it. I didn't see that you'd nominated it until just now. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 talk 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Rafael Verga
Rafael Verga has been my best friend for the last 10 years and all that crap about him was false. The information was bogus. They didn't even get his date of birth right. I was on the phone with him when I was editing the page. I would really appreciate you checking the details before removing it. THE FACTS ARE ALL TRUE!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.69.192.82 (talk • contribs) 06:46, December 3, 2007
- Well, your changes were completely uncited and looked like vandalism. I reverted on that basis. -- Flyguy649 talk 06:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Removed Chichen-Itza Pizza and To the Centre of the Earth from List of Backyardigans episodes
Literally the only thing right about Chichen-Itza pizza is the synopsis and that's just a copy/paste from TV.com. Given that, I must assume the same of To the Centre of the Earth. HalfShadow 15:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright is a concept some people just don't get. And the fact that an encyclopedia is not a work of fiction. -- Flyguy649 talk 00:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Tom Burrows - Notable?
Having conversed with you in the past regarding the notability of cricket-related pages, I wanted to ask you if the article on Tom Burrows is notable. In my eyes, it's not, and I'm prepared to nominate it for AfD just to make sure. However, as you may recall, last time I did that with something cricket-related, I shouldn't have, as it was in fact notable. Is there some hidden cricket-related reason why this article might be notable, or are my suspicions correct? Thanks for any help you can offer ;). TheIslander 19:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay in response, but I've had limited Wikipedia time recently. Tom Burrows is listed on Cricinfo (link) and has played (very limited) first-class cricket for an English county. Although he has not had much of a career to date, he still seems to pass the notability guidelines for cricketers. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 talk 05:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Julia lindsey chot
Did you notice Saucepandiva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Arthurthompson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Tanoot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I saw you placed a note on Saucepandiva's talk page about these accounts. Quack. Either meat or sock puppets, I should think. I protected the article from creation. Hopefully that'll calm them down! -- Flyguy649 talk 07:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hope so. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
 |
The Barnstar of Reversion | |
| For reverting so many unhelpful edits and vandalism on Wikipedia I User Swirlex award you this Barnstar. |
User Penser
Please look into a violation of 3R by Penser who has reverted Alexander Graham Bell three times in a 24-hour period to his version. The issue of nationality was a "hot" topic on the talk page and a resolution in describing the scientist's nationality was decided upon. The lead paragraph is carefully written to indicate a main birthright as "Scottish" although an American citizenship was obtained. The amount of time spent in Canada is also discussed wherein all three nations have claimed Bell as their native son. FWIW, the user in question has also made some intemperate "attack" statements although I had earlier attempted to explain the issues on his talk page. Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
- He's not technically past 3RR yet, but I do think this issue should be discussed on the article talk page. I'll leave him a note, too. -- Flyguy649 talk 14:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
ongoing Bad Boys Blue vandalism
Why can't you protect the page that's been vandalized for the last 3 weeks by the same ip-hopping user (aka Atbbb)? Check the bbb links, if you'd like, see for yourself who's who. There's no ambiguity with formation names. It's only one retard with no life who wants the attention by trashing the article. 99.145.0.223 (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Replied at the article talk page. Essentially, there isn't enough vandalism to warrant protection. -- Flyguy649 talk 21:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Have a look at the article. I hope you're not gonna provide another lame excuse not protect the page this time. Thanks in advance. 99.141.233.107 (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, I created my account, so from now on I will not not be using IP's. Regards. Lionscitygl (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- My reason is not lame; it's grounded in policy. The policy states that occasionally vandalised articles are not to be protected. Bad Boys Blue is not vandalised that frequently. I'll monitor it, but I don't see the requirement for protection at this time. And I suggest you peruse WP:CIVIL. -- Flyguy649 talk 03:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good enough. Lionscitygl (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- My reason is not lame; it's grounded in policy. The policy states that occasionally vandalised articles are not to be protected. Bad Boys Blue is not vandalised that frequently. I'll monitor it, but I don't see the requirement for protection at this time. And I suggest you peruse WP:CIVIL. -- Flyguy649 talk 03:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, I created my account, so from now on I will not not be using IP's. Regards. Lionscitygl (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Have a look at the article. I hope you're not gonna provide another lame excuse not protect the page this time. Thanks in advance. 99.141.233.107 (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Unprotect talk page
Please remove protection from the talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/qSig. While at it, please also insert \ symbol in two places on the script page Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/qSig, so ~~~~ becomes ~~\~~, and ~~~ becomes ~\~~ (unfortunately these get automatically expanded in user's monobook.js) ∴ AlexSm 18:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Done Sorry, I protected the talk page by mistake. Please verify that I made the correct changes. -- Flyguy649 talk 22:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Sixstring1965 Sock
Actually, the user you blocked - Innocentvictim - admitted to being SixString1965, so there I think that confirms that he's a sock, and not a suspected sock. One of the other users also caught an anon user, 12.72.53.178 who is yet another sock of Sixstring1965. Both just showed up today. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah. It's the template I know best. I'll go and play around with it. And I already disinvited the IP's participation. -- Flyguy649 talk 04:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am thinking that this might be yet another of Six' delightful little sockpuppets: Makemewish. the tone of the user and user talk page seem awfully similar to many of Six' past puppets. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am almost completely convinced that this is yet another sock. Should I run the SSP or RFCU, or is there an outstanding report for this wayward soul's nonsense? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not super-familiar with Sixstring's MO, and I don't have time to take a look right now. Alison is probably a good option as she is familiar with the sockpuppeteer and she's a checkuser. I will be back online later tonight (EST of North America, probably 4:00-5:00 UTC) and will take a closer look then. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 talk 02:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am almost completely convinced that this is yet another sock. Should I run the SSP or RFCU, or is there an outstanding report for this wayward soul's nonsense? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am thinking that this might be yet another of Six' delightful little sockpuppets: Makemewish. the tone of the user and user talk page seem awfully similar to many of Six' past puppets. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Nancy Reagan protection
Please protect this article!!! There has been a ton of vandalism edits, as well as edits that go against the MOS, POV edits, and those that are completely not nessecary. Again, please protect it. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, the featured article is generally only protected for very short periods of time, and there is not currently enough vandalism to justify its protection. If you disagree, feel free to request a review at Administrators' newsboard/Incidents. -- Flyguy649 talk 16:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Jane stole my taco? Hitler stole my wallet? Jane stole my wallet?
I see that you blocked User:Hitlerstolemytaco. Is that name really inappropriate? It's an odd name, something that I'd never choose myself or advise anyone to choose if asked. Is it inflammatory? It says nothing of Jews or Gypsies. The account was not used for vandalism. Wasn't there a film score called "Springtime for Hitler"? The public did not think that was offensive even though it had the name "Hitler" in the title.
Note: I do not support Hitler. Congolese (talk) 05:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the name is inappropriate. There is no way that a username with Hitler in it can be used to edit harmoniously. You are welcome to post to WP:ANI for a review if you wish. -- Flyguy649 talk 17:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
re: Vandalism warning
Sorry but the guy is conducting vandalism to other wiki pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.241.46.108 (talk • contribs) 19:48, December 27, 2007
User talk:128.241.46.108
Hello! I have seen you repsonded to the user earlier today. I am concerned because he is threatining to block me, because I have deleted the un-proper english trivia section, and fixed the refrences of I Love New York. Hopefully you could talk some sense into him. Thanks! --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- The IP can't block you, although he/she could report you. Hopefully the admin reviewing won't block. This appears to be a content dispute, which should be discussed on the article's talk page. I'll leave a note. -- Flyguy649 talk 06:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, great thanks for your help! --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Overzealous ?
Yes you were ...
This account was indeed an automated account, it was.... my bot.
NicDumZ ~ 16:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Before I blocked it, I checked the user creation log. If you had created it while logged into your regular account, it wouldn't have been blocked. As it is, it is unblocked, so there's no problem. -- Flyguy649 talk 18:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s, "B"s and "C" having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "D"s, "E"s and "F"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
