User talk:Guanaco/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See /Archive 1 and /Archive 2 for past messages.

[edit] Clitoris picture

May I know who deleted the clitoris picture ? Where is the discussion and consensus over this deletion? thanks SweetLittleFluffyThing 06:07, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There was no such consensus. This is a unilateral action of censorship by Guanaco. Completely unacceptable IMHO and it leads me to question his competency as an admin. blankfaze | •• 08:44, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I have not yet succeeded to understand if the picture was deleted out of censorship, or if it was a mistake in trying to fix a bug. I hope for clarification, and I am currently of the opinion it was a honnest mistake :-) Meanwhile, JamesDay - who fortunately still had the picture in his cache - restored it. SweetLittleFluffyThing

This was neither a mistake nor an act of censorship. All copies of the image are at Image:ClitorisNewLoc.jpg. Therefore, since Image:Clitoris.jpg is buggy and unused, it is a candidate for speedy deletion. Guan aco 16:18, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OKAY. HENCEFORTH, I solemnly SWEAR not to be on the Wikipedia during bouts of INSOMNIA. Apparently sleep deprivation affects my judgement and leads me to believe gossip and come to conclusions too quickly. I'm really off-base about this, Guanaco, and I hope you can forgive me, but at the time I wrote it, (most) everyone in IRC thought it was censorship, and my sleep-deprived-3AM-stupidity caused me to overreact. and react wrongly. i was CRAZY, INSANE, just weird last night. lankfaze | •• 02:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] About the edit to James Madison that you reverted

I saw this edited and didn't know whether to interpret as vandalism. I even wrote a True or false problem on this user's talk page. All comments please put them on that user's talk page, not mine. 66.245.14.250 01:12, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the information on his appearance on the $5000 is absolutely correct as I stated it. See www.currencygallery.org -Levente (209.213.....)

[edit] The Anti-Semitism article

Simonides has been bothering Adam Carr and others in other Judaism related articles, he is not just causing trouble with me in the anti-Semitism article. His shtick is that he deletes the sources that people add, then cries "There are no sources; it is just the unproven opinion of the Jews". Then when I add back the deleted sources, and add yet more authoritative sources, he deletes most of the sources again, and basically claims "This is just opinion; there are no studies!" This kind of lying-to-your-face is unacceptable in any communal project, let alone an encyclopedia. We can't allow him to edit out sources, claim no sources exist, and then revert everyone else's edits! RK 01:06, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Here are some more sources I was going to add; I understand that Simonides would just have reverted the article again and remove them, but the sources we have added are not for him; rather, the sources were for anyone reading the article. I feel that it is important that when big claims are made, multiple sources should be used if possible. Interestingly, the resurgence in anti-Semitism that Simonides denies exist is a fact that the EU, the Secretary General of the UN, and the ADL all agree on. RK 01:06, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

The sources are now included in the list of external links. Guan aco 01:21, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I reverted your edit as, being a substantive edit to a protected page, it was in clear violation of Wikipedia:Protection policy#Editing protected pages. I hope you'll understand. —No-One Jones 20:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Jewish magazine, Tikkun, ran a series of article on the resurgence of anti-Semitism across the world.

O.K., what's going on here? Simonides is deleting stuff in the anti-Semitism article again, and now the page is protected. What is the procedure for fixing this situation? As it is, it appears that Simonides is able to exclude whatever he wishes from the article, and the efforts of at least a half dozen other authors are discarded and ignored. Jayjg 23:35, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Editing protected pages

I would be very careful about editing protected pages. The protect policy very clearly states that no edits should be done, save a few, which your edit is not covered under in IMHO. Just unprotect the page and let the wiki magic take effect. If the wiki badness takes over, then reprotect, but you are compromising your integrity as an admin by editing a page when only admins can. Remember, you are not here to solve disputes. Burgundavia 21:09, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

I've already unprotected it. Guan aco 21:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Guanaco, I just wanted to say thanks for stepping in, and sorry if it landed you in any hot water. In my opinion the protection was timely and appropriate. -- Simonides 02:53, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Good job on old copyvios

I just wanted to say that I notice and appreciate the cleaning up of old copyvios that I'm too ignorant or timid to make a decision on or too lazy to do the complex removing of copyvio while leaving legitimate article work. moink 03:41, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lir, Michael, and Saddam

Since it's Lir intentionally violating the 3 revert rule, why not block him as well? RickK 05:04, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Your blocking and unblocking policy just leaves me lightheaded. What ARE you doing? RickK 05:46, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

It was found out that those sockpuppet accounts were not Lir, but actually Michael. So Lir didn't do anything but add the dispute three times. I think my blocks were exactly what Michael wanted. Guan aco 05:49, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lir apparently listed you at the now-defunct WP:RFROAA regarding this, and I moved it to WP:RFC. You may wish to respond there, or not. It is possible, perhaps likely, that the dispute will fail to meet the various criteria and be removed by someone else. Best regards, UninvitedCompany 16:21, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocking

Guanaco, PLEASE stop unblocking indefinitely-blocked Users without discussing it! RickK 18:55, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Why is it so important that all of Michael's accounts be blocked? He is free to create as many as he wants as often as he wants. Would you rather him edit anonymously, forcing us to dig through RC for his edits? That is exactly what happens when he is blocked. Guan aco 20:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Because it makes it even a second more difficult for him. And it lets us keep track of the style of editing that he has used before. And by unblocking him it gives him the idea that it's okay if he does what he's been doing. And why is it such a big deal for you? RickK 20:14, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

A second more difficult for him? Yes, it does take a second of his time to log out and begin editing anonymously, making it harder for us to watch him. If we want to keep track of his style of editing, we can use the list on Michael. Michael knows what he is doing is wrong, and will continue to do it whether we block him or unblock him. So why is it such a big deal for you? Guan aco 03:47, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Because it sends a message to your friends the vandals that vandalism is okay. Why is it such a big deal for you that they be unblocked? RickK 05:53, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dugout (smoking)

OK, I can see you un-deleting it. I still think it's pointless - perhaps it could be a component of some other article, but nothing more IMHO - but you're right that it didn't fall into speedy-delete territory. Maybe you could wikify it a bit? - DavidWBrooks 19:03, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hard ban

Why did you unblock hard banned user Bird? --H. CHENEY 02:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bird is hard banned? He seems to have only been permablocked. If you have any evidence of a formal ban, I'll be happy to reblock him. Guan aco 02:45, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Elyaqim

I'm just curious, why did you create Elyaqim's user page even thought it is blank? --Merovingian✍Talk 06:23, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

I believe it had to do with the vandalbot attacks. It's deleted now. Guan aco 06:49, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] LordZarglif555

Please stop creating work for people by playing with the blocks they have made. I find your actions extremely frustrating and hope that you will please stop. Maximus Rex 05:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to be less controversial when I'm unblocking users. Guan aco 05:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just stop unblocking. There is no reason that these accounts should be used again. What exactly are you looking to accomplish? Unblocking accounts that have been blocked for good reason will just piss people off unnecessarily. It also sends the message, unintentionally, that it is okay for them to vandalize. If any of these people did want to become useful contributors their first step should be to sign up for a new account. Maximus Rex 05:31, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree with Maximus Rex. Your actions are very unilateral and could be seen as an endorsement of troll behaviour. Please try to build a consensus before unblocking users that the community feels should be blocked. --H. CHENEY 19:02, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how you can say the community feels Lir and Bird should be blocked. Lir's comment on WP:RFA is not "admitting to trolling". And Bird was clearly blocked against Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Vandalism. The User:Bird account has never been used for vandalism, so it should have never been blocked for vandalism. Only Bird's IP addresses and usernames that actually have vandalized Wikipedia should be blocked. Guan aco 19:15, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What was the edit that you said was not a test??

What was the edit that you said was not a test?? 66.245.30.216 21:22, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It was a massive replacement of text that was clearly intentional [1], and it was probably done by the banned user Paul Vogel. Guan aco 21:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

True or false: Paul is the second strongest vandalizer of Wikipedia only to User:Michael. 66.245.30.216 21:26, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Very false. We have had automatic scripts that vandalize Wikipedia pages automatically and very persistent users like Rishartha. Paul Vogel isn't a vandal for the most part, but his edits are biased. Guan aco 21:36, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Could I get you to create an account? Just go to Special:Userlogin or click on Log in in the upper-right corner of your screen. It will only take a few seconds. Guan aco 21:39, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 152.163.252.102

152.163.252.102 has taken it upon himself to remove other people's comments and post all kinds of nastiness here. So I reverted. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] About Michael!

I've found a way to deal with our good friend Mike. I'm complaining to AOL about his ban-dodging. WhisperToMe 09:28, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Standards

Many could consider your block of User:68.36.175.254 to be censorship. Especially after you whitewashed their comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hcheney2 yourself... when those comments were negative towards you [2]. I believe you may have a slight conflict of interest, but instead of holding you to the standards you hold me, I am going to assume good faith yet again. --H. CHENEY 07:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you look at that user's contributions, you will see that he has been behaving terribly. [3] [4] This seems to be mostly about me now because I legitimately blocked him over the situation at his RfC. He misquotes, lies, removes comments, and vandalizes talk pages. This goes far beyond "admitting to trolling" or trolling of any sort. His behavior is not welcome here.

I have reverted myself to reinstate his comment. Guan aco 07:21, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have blocked that IP myself. Thank you for recusing yourself. Trolls like Lir are far worse than your little User:68.36.175.254. We can easily ban vandals, but trolls get patrons so they can continue their destruction without fear. --H. CHENEY 07:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Blog spam

May I ask why you reverted my edit to Blog spam? I removed the link to the blacklist on Wiki because it is clear from recent activity there that a sizeable amount of Wiki's participants do not want it there - to be fair, myself included. Linking to it from here gives it some credibility, and also a false appearance of reliability that is not present in reality, when as the subject of one of Wiki's interminable deletion wars it is as liable to be vanished as it is to be there when you try and see it. --Earle Martin 09:12, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You can remove it again if you want. It looked like a reasonable resource, but if everything you're saying is true, I really don't mind if it's there. Guan aco 18:47, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lir's RFC

No, the stuff cited in Lir's new RFC is not just personal attacks.

It's also for causing reversion wars. WhisperToMe 19:52, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Look at the timestamp for my endorsement. The revision I endorsed was this. Guan aco 23:59, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Plural marriage

Please go back and revert your article moves regarding Plural marriage and state your proposal for such a drastic change before doing so. I get weary of folks like you who have no respect for the time and effort and discussion that has gone into making and naming articles and make unilateral changes like you did with absolutely NO discussion beforehand. —B|Talk 00:01, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I will not revert my article moves. They were made perfectly within the guideline of be bold and the Manual of Style. If you have a problem with them, you can do it yourself, and then I will discuss it. Guan aco 00:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Newcomer, "be bold" is not the end all to be all rule, and it does not mean to go forward with drastic changes WITHOUT DISCUSSION and especially without any regard for the discussion that has already taken place on the same issues. To rationalize what you've done just shows that you are an uncooperative jerk. —B|Talk 03:30, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Where has this been discussed? I have better things to do than to waste my time moving pages back and forth. Guan aco 03:43, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. A lot of this has to do with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mormonism). Your initial move wasn't consistent with that convention. If you feel the convention could use modification, please contribute your thoughts on its talk page. —B|Talk 12:22, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Plural marriage" appears to be a better title than "Plural marriage (Latter-day Saint)". It follows these guiding principles listed in relative priority:

Use accurate titles and terms.
- "Plural marriage" is accurate. The Mormon/LDS use of the term is by far the most common, so if disambiguation is necessary, it can be done at the top of plural marriage.
Present titles and terms in a neutral point of view; avoid "endorsing" or "opposing" the views of any church.
- Neither of the titles are biased, so this isn't relevant.
Make it easy for readers to find articles relating to Mormonism and its various sects, their members, and their theology.
- If someone wanted to read about plural marriage, they would look for "plural marriage" and not "plural marriage (Latter-day Saint)".
Avoid disrespect without sacrificing NPOV policy. (See the media guide of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for terms it deems acceptable to use, but note that this is the Church's POV, and not necessarily the POV of other denominations or the media.)
- Again, both titles are equally neutral.
Prefer shorter titles and terms over longer ones.
- "Plural marriage" is 15 characters in 2 words; "plural marriage (Latter-day Saint)" is 33 characters in 5 words.
Prefer general Christianity and Mormonism articles (such as "Priesthood" or "Priesthood (Mormonism)") over more specific unidenominational articles, unless there is a significant amount of unidenominational material (such as "Priesthood (Latter-day Saint)").
- Plural Marriage (Mormonism) (incorrectly capitalized, but this can be fixed) already redirects to Plural marriage.

—Guan aco 16:27, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by AOL Members

America Online has a very dedicated group responsible for stopping spam and .. shall we say .. black hat activities. It may do you well to send a message to the AOL Member Services NOC (contact me privately) if you notice consistent vandalism from AOL netblocks eg, the 172/8 range (minus 172.16/12). Avriette Thu Jul 8 00:33:46 UTC 2004

Hi Guanaco, as there were no objections at Wikipedia talk:Bots for over a week, Guanabot is now marked as a bot on the English Wikipedia. Angela . 23:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Guanaco! Please get the sloppy looking ":" out of the fair use msg! It dosen't show up in the template itself (when viewed by itself), but it shows up inline inside image description pages.

Please fix and unlock the template if you can!

JediMaster16 19:48, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Template fix!

Guanaco! Please get the sloppy looking ":" out of the fair use msg! It dosen't show up in the template itself (when viewed by itself), but it shows up inline inside image description pages.

Please fix and unlock the template if you can!

JediMaster16 19:50, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The template is supposed to be used on its own line like this:

So if the ":" shows up, it's a problem with the image description page and not the template. Fix it by moving the ":" to its own line. Guan aco 23:47, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

{{fairuse}} is continuosly being put through "Summary" field in Special:Upload, and there's only one line for summary text there. Does this mean description page for each image must be re-edited right after uploading? ASN 11:08, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

[edit] Shrub

Hi Guanaco - I'd deliberately used the redirect [[George Walker Bush|George W. Bush]] so that [[George W. Bush]] (which gets edited very frequently) didn't keep on clogging up the 'Related changes' link which I use to check for changes to any of the listed shrubs. Mind if I change it back? - MPF 23:41, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't mind. Go ahead and change it back. Guan aco 23:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Four-stroke cycle image

Hi, I noticed you did some cropping and added transparency to Image:Four stroke cycle start.png. It caused some goofiness in the layout of the four-stroke cycle article, though, since one of the images is taller than the others now. I deliberately left whitespace around the images so they would be spaced out nicely in the article; such spacing could be achieved other ways, but that seemed easiest in terms of wikicode. Also, in adding transparency, it appears that you made some parts of the engine transparent that shouldn't be: I know it's very faint, but you can see the edge of the intake and exhaust ports, as well as the lower edge of the engine block where it attaches to the crankshaft. Those are supposed to be solid parts of the engine, and having them transparent makes it look like they're not there at all. Finally, your cropped image is larger (in filesize) than the original! So I hope you don't mind, but I will probably revert to the original version. -- Wapcaplet 15:38, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Guanabot

Hi Guanaco, I saw on Wikipedia talk:Bots#Guanabot that you are updating wikilinks such as [[twentieth century]] to [[20th century|twentieth century]], amongst other chores. Please note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Years specifies 20th century as the preferred style, although I know it's not unanimous. --Zigger 19:25, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

Okay, I will look at each link based on the context and the Manual of Style and choose whether to pipe it or to replace it entirely. Guan aco 19:48, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see you're running the disambiguationbot for several pages in parallel. If the reason is that it is otherwise going too slow, you could consider running it with the options "-throttle:1 -putthrottle:2" to shorten the time between requests. - Andre Engels 22:47, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I didn't know you could use "-throttle:" and "-putthrottle:". Guan aco 22:53, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Bots#Current_policy_on_running_bots it shouldn't edit faster than once per 10 seconds. I stopped the bot as ran faster than that. -- User:Docu

It's running more slowly now and has been unblocked. Guan aco 19:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Guanabot should not be changing kilometer to kilometre for US cities and other US topics. That's why we have redirects Gentgeen 04:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It does not change the actual text of the article. It simply bypasses the redirect like [[kilometer]] to [[kilometre|kilometer]]. Guan aco 04:50, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

but it does appear in text pop up boxes, especially for [[kilometre|km]], links. Gentgeen That isn't really a problem. The pop-up boxes are most helpful when they tell you exactly which article you are being pointed to. Guan aco 04:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In Talk:City of New York there was discussion about the article name. In that context, a user's reference to [[Los Angeles]] is different from [[Los Angeles, California]]. Some people thought the article on LA should be at the former title, while some preferred the latter. The bot's introduction of piped links somewhat confuses the meaning. I'm reverting these changes. More generally, is there any need to take the time to run the bot on Talk pages? It might make sense to exclude all Talk pages. JamesMLane 19:04, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Talk:City of New York has been added to the list of pages to ignore. Guan aco 19:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Michael

Michael is a hard-banned User and is not allowed to post to Wikipedia under any circumstances. His postings are to be reverted on sight. RickK 22:35, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales is an exception to this rule. The top of Jimbo's talk page makes it very clear that he wants to see every message posted there. Guan aco 22:37, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking/Unblocking

I honestly can't tell whether you're a good-faith contributor or whether you're a troll looking to make enemies. In good faith, I'll assume the first and offer an unsolicited word of advice: Plenty of other sysops are attentive to vandalism and capable of instituting blocks. You don't seem to be able to manage blocks without causing angry, frustrated objections from users who aren't often prone to either anger or frustration -- so maybe you should avoid blocking, altogether. Leave it to those who can handle it without creating controversy, and direct your efforts elsewhere. Cribcage 22:57, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A job for you bot

Gedday, is there any chance using your bot on doctor, most of them should go directly to medical doctor (aka physician in North America)? best wishes Erich 00:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bot edits

OK, thanks for the note. Much of Wikipedia talk:Geographical names naming policy (proposed), and Wikipedia:Geographical names naming policy (proposed) directly concerns the redirects. Of course the bot is undermining one of the main arguments there (that since the majority of links are simply to the city name rather than to the city, state form, the articles should be at the simple city name). older≠wiser 19:50, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Images in Ifd

I have replied to various images you listed on Wikipedia:Images for deletion, see the trauble with each one, solve the problems with each, remove them from the old dates and re-list them. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:54, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

The images were placed in the articles after they were listed on IfD so I have removed and deleted them. Guan aco 00:22, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] This is ridiculous!

You reverted your own vandalism! 66.245.23.108 00:16, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, look at the diff. I was unprotecting the page. Guan aco 00:18, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] BCE Redirects

(I haven't noticed any changes like this yet, but I wanted to pre-emptively add this comment to make sure none occur.)

I've recently created redirects from dates using the BCE convention to the actual pages using the BC convention. I've also been going through articles and changing date links of the form [[301 BC|301 BCE]] to [[301 BCE]]. Please do not bypass these redirects! They're in place in part so that we can begin to determine relative usage of BCE vs. BC conventions (by looking at "what links here" for the date pages), and to keep ease of use for BCE and BC more on par with each other. If these redirects are bypassed, tracking BCE usage will be much more difficult. --Wclark 01:14, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

[edit] Transformer Pics

I fixed those references you pointed out to what show they were from. I took some of those screencaps myself from my video collection. --DragonZ

Okay, thanks for telling me. I would suggest that you not upload any more fair use images until it is decided whether they are going to be allowed on Wikipedia. For the discussion, see Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Guan aco 02:18, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you delete USinVietnam.jpg

Why did you delete USinVietnam.jpg? I've not seen a more clear example of fair use since I've arrived. The photograph of Kim Phuc Phan Thi is one of the defining images of the Viet Nam war for Americans and the world. If you were to do an image search of Kim Phuc Phan Thi, you'll find multiple news agencies using this photograph, including the BBC and CNN. You'll find multiple universities using this photograph. There are no problems with using this photograph. Stargoat 13:02, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It was listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and there were no objections to its deletion. You are probably right about it being fair use, but there is currently a discussion about deleting all images with {{fairuse}}. If you want, you can reupload it and explain why its use on Wikipedia is fair use on the description page. Guan aco 16:06, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vandals

Well, that was quick. I went to revert it and it has already been done. You're in good hands. Mike H 02:32, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)