User talk:Gurch/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 →

Contents

Thanks!

My RFA
Thanks for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 56 supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish beyond what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. east.718 at 02:40, 11/4/2007

Wikipedia has a new administrator!

Thanks!
Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed with 54 supports, 2 opposes and 3 neutrals. Thanks for your comments. I hope to exceed expectations; If you have any advice please feel free to let me know. Thanks again!. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤

re: Anwer

Did you really remove the link to Luna Santin's blog because you thought it qualified as an attack site, or were you trying to make a point (or point, if you're so inclined) with regard to all the heat and noise and drama surrounding BADSITES? — Dorftrottel⁠ 23:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Both – Gurch 06:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I was obviously aware of that. I think you could tell. — Dorftrottel⁠ 18:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

GlassCobra's RfA

My RFA
Hey Gurch! Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 61 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. Not sure if you'll delete this or not, but I still wanted to show my gratitude. I also wanted to tell you that I plan to do some work on the backlogs as soon as I'm done with these notes. Thanks again. :) GlassCobra 02:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for supporting me in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait till someone nominates me next time. Have a great day(or night)! --Hdt83 Chat 05:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Image:Qxz-ad107.gif

Help...Miranda 07:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. This is fixed. Miranda 09:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thanks for your comment at my RfA, it closed today with a final tally of 39 supports, 1 oppose and 1 neutral. I do plan to work on the backlogs, as soon as I get used to all these new buttons, and hopefully every little bit helps. henrik•talk 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you bunches!

Image:Admin mop.PNG Thank you so much for suppporting my RfA. I was promoted with a total of (44/1/0) - a vote of confidence from the community that I find humbling and motivating. I will not abuse your trust. Look forward to working with you! (Esprit15d 21:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

RFCs

{{ExampleRFCxxx|Talk:Lenticular lens}} DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

All I did was move the template from the article. Its content has nothing to do with me – Gurch 16:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Vladimir Savchenko

Please indicate in what way I vandalised Savchenko's article. Thanks. 216.194.2.52 19:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You didn't. That revert was a mistake, which is why I undid it – Gurch 19:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Running the gauntlet

Thanks for your help reverting the kids today, that was not fun. Keegantalk 03:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Revert

Thank you so much for reverting that nasty peice of work's damage, I very much appreciate it. This is Zanusi 07:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Borat

Popups got me again, as I accidentally reverted your revert of a vandalism on Borat. Sorry for the confusion. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin?

Hi there, I was considering nominating you for adminship, this seems long-overdue. Would you be interested and are there any potential problems that could come up in the discussion? Tim Vickers 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Long overdue? HAHAHAHA. Er, yeah. Thanks for the laugh, I needed that. You're obviously not aware that I self-nominated last week, and as you can see that didn't go too well. Thanks and goodbye – Gurch 18:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Damn. Well, your anti-vandal edits are appreciated by me at least, although I see why people were getting upset about some of your comments. Keep up the good work, we're going to need good vandalfighters when IP page creation is re-enabled! Tim Vickers 18:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

... no, we're going to need lots of administrators, which is the only reason I was re-requesting adminship... oh, never mind – Gurch 18:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Why did you withdraw? You would definitely have passed.--Avant Guard 18:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Huh? At 67/28/1, with support having fallen steadily for the last 12 hours, I would "definitely have passed"? You do the math – Gurch 19:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For reverting so many vandal edits before I can get to them. Avant Guard 18:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Graaagh!

Миша13 has gnawed at you! Gnaws promote Graaagh! and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the Graaagh! by gnawing at someone else, whether it be someone whose brainz you have eaten in the past or a tasty, fleshy human. Happy shambling!
Gnaw at others by adding {{subst:gnaw}} to their talk page with a gloomy message.

Миша13 19:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Jacques-Yves Cousteau

You beat me to it - saw the hist after I reverted and realised I hadn't gone back far enough. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 19:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that happens a lot – Gurch 19:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No one expects a Pigman admin!

Wallowing in my RfA: This time it's personal...
My sincere thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 51 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. Doubtless it was an error to put one of the government-bred race of pigmen in any position of authority, but I hope your confidence in me proves justified. Even a man pure of heart and who says his prayers at night can become a were-boar when the moon is full and sweet. Fortunately, I'm neither a were-pig nor pure of heart so this doesn't appear to be an imminent danger to Wikipedia for the moment. Fortunate as well because were-pig hooves are hell on keyboards and none too dexterous with computer mice. If ever I should offend, act uncivil, misstep, overstep, annoy, violate policy, or attempt to topple the fascist leadership of Wikipedia, please let me know so I can improve my behaviour and/or my aim. I am not an animal; I am an admin. And, of course, if there is any way in which I can help you on Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to ask me. Despite my japes, I am indeed dedicated to protecting and serving Wikipedia to the best of my foppish and impudent abilities. I will strive to be an admirable admin, shiny and cool, reasonable and beatific. Pigmanwhat?/trail 05:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Post Scriptum: I believe my collaged graphic at left, which incorporates the WP globe and mop image, falls under the rubric of parody for my purposes here. Or is it satire? Regardless, it's a legitimate and legally protected First Amendment usage under US law. Complaints and allegations that this is an improper "fair use" image will be entertained on my talk page, probably with fruit juice, finger food and exotic coffees.


Thanks for the correction on Image:JollySwine2.png

You know, I knew I was going to make a mistake with the licensing on Image:JollySwine2.png due to ignorance and damned if I didn't. Thanks for the correction.

I certainly don't intend to press the matter and admit I'm not a professional in the field of copyright but my understanding is that the incorporation of a logo (like the WP globe) into a graphic which uses the image to make a political statement or parody-like commentary on the original image is not only legal but protected speech. I can't name the Supreme Court cases offhand but I know things like this have gone that far and been decided in favor of the usage. While such a use loosely falls under the "fair use" umbrella, because of the critical (as in "criticism") nature of the context of the graphic as a whole, it actually falls more under First Amendment protection. This is a fairly narrow and specific part of legal precedent and case law on copyrights. This is my understanding of the issues inherent in the image I created but I do not claim 100% certainty in the matter.

Ahem, however, all that said and as a new carrier of a mop and bucket here, I would be glad to remove the image from Wikipedia if you or anyone at the Wikimedia Foundation thought it a problem. It isn't my intent to (what's it called?) degrade the value of the copyright holders' image or to be contentious or argumentative. (As an aside, if you have a better understanding these issues, I'd love to be pointed at relevant info.)

Anyway, it's mostly moot since I really only wanted to use it for my RfA thanks note. It's main use done, I'd be happy to remove it from Wikipedia immediately if there are problems with it. Also, protected free speech elsewhere is one thing, but there's nothing that says Wikipedia must host such speech on its servers or under its auspices. (I do ramble on, don't I?) Cheers, Pigmanwhat?/trail 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, there's no need to remove it. I'll see if I can explain more clearly.
Use of the Wikipedia logo is (of course) permitted within Wikipedia -- we would be rather stuck if it wasn't. It's just incorrect to assert that it's available under the GFDL, and thus wrong to tag it as such. Of course fair use of the logo is perfectly legal, which is why you see it in news articles on websites and the like. However, Wikipedia doesn't allow fair use of content internally, outside of articles -- we have enough problems just getting fair use rationales for article images sorted out, so we (or rather the Foudnation) have decided to prohibit non-free content on non-article pages, Foundation-copyrighted logos obviously being an exception to that. Derivative works of images are, generally, subject to the same restrictions as the original images (except for those under "no derivatives" licenses, for which they aren't allowed at all, but neither Wikipedia nor Commons accepts images with such licenses. Free speech, the first amendment and what have you don't come into this, since it's just an internal media use policy. So to summarize, using it is fine, but the tag (and your statement that it was under the GFDL) were previously incorrect, and now fixed. That's all. Sorry to bother you. Thanks – Gurch 00:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A little thankyou

Thankyou for supporting my successful rfa which closed with 58 supports. If i am honest i am rather humbled by the unanimous support and i hope to live up to everyones expectations. If you ever need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks again. Woodym555 13:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


In case you're actually wondering

Re this edit - see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect/writing a good redirect. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Thanks – Gurch 17:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Celiakozlowski

thanks for the reference fix... will copy this format henceforth. cheers, Celia Kozlowski 23:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Recast of Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy biography

I'm looking for advice on how to proceed on the Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy article. You've shown some interest in the past. The article has become less of a encyclopedia-style biography and more of a series of book reports. I encourage you to review my proposal on how to proceed and leave your suggestions.HopsonRoad 12:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I made some minor formatting changes, similar to those that I have made to around 20,000 other articles. I have neither the desire nor the time to follow the development of all of these. My apologies – Gurch 17:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

2007 Steward election - tracking

Hey Gurch, hope this finds you well... The steward election for this year is coming up. Would you be able to run that statistics generating automation that you ran last year (which produced m:User:Gurch/StewardElections) again? If so, do you have any particulars about how stuff is formatted? There may be some changes in formatting but if we know what you need, could make sure things conform... discussion is going on at m:Talk:Stewards/elections 2007 about the mechanics, and nominations are set to open tomorrow (by the current plan). Sorry for waiting so long but I just remembered. If you can't run it, any ideas? Some other bot or automation that could? Share the code? Anything you could do to contribute would be awesome. Maybe the place to discuss is there, what do you think? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It will run as it did last time, when the voting starts in two weeks – Gurch 22:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

152.1.x.x IP Addresses

When sending messages to users who are on these (or other shared IP addresses) be aware that these IP addresses are used by the UNC system. In fact, the 152.1.x.x ip address you recently sent a message to appeared on a lab machine. Obviously the person who vandalized the "Hostility" article was no longer using it. While I'm not offended by receiving an effectively meaningless message, it's probably a waste of your time to try to message this set of IP addresses.

ResNET (the NCSU and UNC ISP's) do take improper and malicious use of school owned networks somewhat seriously. If you notice vandalism please contact resnet@ncsu.edu or help@ncsu.edu with the IP address and time of the post. If it is a dorm computer, they'll know who it was immediately. If it was a lab machine, the login information will tell them who it is. Likely at best they will simply send the user a warning email. This, however, would probably be enough to scare some of the students.

More serious forms of vandalism, such as threats, would likely result in either the student losing access or even a student-conduct hearing. Hope this info helps you. It applies to pretty much any IP used by universities.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.56.85 (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The message is not recent. I sent it ten months ago, when your IP address was assigned to someone else – Gurch 21:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha, seriously? It JUST showed up on the machine now. Anyways, I would suggest the rout of contacting resnet/university IT when it does happen. Much more satisfying results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.56.85 (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Look at the date stamp. Presumably the "new messages" bar showed up because it was never read by the original recipient, but it has been there nevertheless. Anyway, I don't have time to consult a list of IP ranges and start sending emails every time I want to warn an anonymous user for vandalism; there is simply too much of it. I imagine ResNET would also get pretty annoyed if they started getting emails from me every ten minutes – Gurch 21:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


Yes I saw the date stamp after you mentioned it. I'm not complaining or anything, but it does seem like Wikipedia is able to identify "shared IP adresses" on its own. This was obvious because the message you sent had a huge yellow-orange warning message saying it was sent to a shared IP adress at North Carolina State University. I presumed that it may inform YOU when you were attempting to use one. Of course I wouldn't expect you to look up every IP address you see, but for ones that are clearly shared- why not just message the ISP instead of the terminal. Messaging a shared IP address is a waste of your time.
Yes, resnet would be annoyed if they received numerous complaints about user abuse. Annoying a state-owned-enterprise is usually the best way to get something changed though. Anyways, I'm not attacking your diligence, just thought I was making a helpful suggestion. This isn't something intended to be hostile or anything.
There's a bot that uses some kind of lookup service and tags discussion pages for shared IP addresses – but only after you've warned them. Wikipedia itself doesn't know which are shared and which aren't; it tells you that you are not logged in to encourage you to create an account, but it does that regardless of what your IP address actually is.
Also, messaging a shared IP address isn't necessarily a waste of time. The message is usually posted only a few seconds after the edit to which it pertains. If whoever made the edit is interested in reading the message, they will be notified of it then. If they choose not to read it, then it will appear to whoever uses the address next, yes, which is not ideal -- but that is an inevitable consequence of using IP addresses to identify users, which we are forced to do when they choose not to provide any other information. If it bothers you, simply create an account, and log in before editing; you will then no longer recieve messages not intended for you – Gurch 22:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Stalking?

Thanks for fixing my typo here, I originally wrote "Editing war" but then decided on "Edit warring" and forgot to remove the first "-ing". Anyways, what's up with the accusation of "why are you stalking my contributions?" I am doing no such thing, and if we have happened to edit a few of the same things, I'm not aware of it. Ever hear of a coincidence or assume good faith? I just skimmed through your past few days of editing, and the only place I can see that we've both been is WP:AIV, so what made you say I was "stalking" you? -- HiEv 23:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing, you are marking almost all of your edits as minor edits, which should only be done for superficial changes, and not things like adding warning messages to user talk pages and such. You may have the "Mark all edits minor by default" setting turned on in your Editing Preferences, in which case you may want to turn that off. Thank you. -- HiEv 23:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"Stalking" and minor edits

I'm sorry, have I done something to piss you off? If so it wasn't intentional. I just want to know why you accused me of "stalking" you here. Could you please answer that question?
Also, no, moving the contents of a page into an archive is not a "minor edit", by removing over 8KB from a page you are making a substantial change to the page. Read Help:Minor edit if you don't believe me. It says, "Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text." Please, don't take this as an insult, I'm just trying to be helpful. -- HiEv 04:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice Work

Well done, sir! DukeOfSquirrels 19:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Would you mind telling me what you use to revert so many vandalism edits?! Your talk page appears to be very popular :PTiddly-Tom 19:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Software that I have written myself; the speed, however, is likely more a factor of the speed of my internet connection than of anything else – Gurch 19:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You ever thought of releasing for other editor (like VandalProof for example)? My connection is not great :P Tiddly-Tom 19:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It isn't really functional enough for general use – Gurch 19:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, keep up the great work ;) You keep going without a big wikibreak for a few months and I would be happy to nominate you for adminship. I think you would have a cracking chance now, but give it a few months and you should have no problems. Tiddly-Tom 19:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You really think so? Oh dear. You know, I really wish people would at least do some sort of minimal examination of a contributor's background before they say such things. No offense intended, but it just makes you look silly. Had you perhaps checked here, you would have been led here and then here, and finally here, at which point you would probably have thought to check here, and seen that in the context of all that, your offer means very little – Gurch 19:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Most people do not have such a complicated past as your self, you have to agree? I did do as you describe a "minimal examination of a contributor's background " before leaving the above, now struck out message in good faith. This does not appear to be the case with your above reply. I checked your user logs and noticed you had not blocked anyone recently, then checked a edit count tool which made it seem like you had only been editing in full for a few months. This made me happy enough that I should leave the above message. I am sorry if I have touched on a sensitive topic for you. Tiddly-Tom 19:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Odd. Your counting script must be broken; if you have a look at my contributions you'll see that I started editing in December 2005 and made, for example, about 8000 edits in March 2006, which I think can be called "editing in full". That's 20 months ago. Altogether I have about 79,000 edits; are you getting something different? If so, I suggest you use a different script, or perhaps actually look at users' history yourself rather than relying on a machine to do it for you in future – Gurch 19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, You are correct. I used this - and I know it only shows a maximum of 45,000 edits, but I did not realise that it would make out you started editing months after you did. You have to agree with me that it would have been a tedious task to go through all the pages of your user contribs though. I also would have read your user page if it was not just a redirect to your talk page. I apologize for my misunderstanding. Tiddly-Tom 19:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I shall adjust my userpage accordingly. Thanks – Gurch 19:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Tiddly-Tom 20:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

election bots

I don't know if you still run any bots, but last year you ran some very nice updates of ArbCom and Stewards elections. Is there any possibility of doing that this year? Cheers, NoSeptember 21:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

They will run as they did last year – Gurch 21:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. :-) NoSeptember 21:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


Thanks!

Howdy Gurch, thanks for participating in my request for adminship. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to implementing my nefarious sockpuppet plots. Thanks for supporting, even though you saw through my little scheme. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.

--TeaDrinker 05:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Irving Segal. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. StephenBuxton 12:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol. —treyomg he's backForrmerly Know As TREYWiki 16:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Golden Gate Bridge

Not quite sure why your edit summary says that you reverted one of my edits. I was trying to revert the vandalism from the IP that damaged the page (I'm using VandalProof to revert such infractions). I hope you don't take this the wrong way. No hard feelings. --DFW 15:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You reverted some of the vandalism, but not all of it, so in order to get back to a revision without vandalism, I had to revert not only the vandals but also you. This doesn't mean I think you did anything wrong. Unfortunately I missed the "h" at the end of the line, but it seems you have fixed that. Thanks – Gurch 15:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Meh

Advice please from someone I reckon is much more experienced than me! This makes me think that if 70.143.27.101 (you just warned them) is a school one then the IP is compromised - interesting collection of non en places it's been? Hope you don't mind - cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is "compromised" (whatever that means) or not is of little interest to me. If unconstructive edits are repeatedly made from an IP address, it can be blocked. If constructive edits are being made, or there are no edits at all, then I fail to see that anything needs to be done. In either case, the nature of the IP address means nothing; the only thing that matters is whether or not it is shared by many users, as this usually entails shorter block times or anonymous-only blocks. In this case, the IP address has been blocked for a short time once before, and will presumably recieve a longer block if it continues to make unconstructive edits. I neither have the time nor see the need to expend effort running all kinds of checks every IP address whose edits I revert. I issue warnings because people complain if I don't; all I care about is keeping the articles free of unconstructive edits. Thanks – Gurch 15:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks Gurch for reverting the miscreant who vandalized my page awhile ago - it's much appreciated! Rock15 talk/sign 05:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I gotta question for ya!

If your not an admin, than how are you able to use the revert function? Just wonderin' Icestorm815 (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can. Just go into the page history, bring up an old revision, press "edit", type an appropriate summary, and press Save. Alternatively, view a diff and click "undo", which has similar effects (though a different summary) when you wish to revert only one edit – Gurch 19:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've just been using the undo button, and never knew how to undo multiple vandalism edits. Thanks! Icestorm815 (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Heroic

Wish I had some great graphic to award for your work on reverting Omer Golan. That was one messed up article. Jackollie (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

well done!

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Well done mate, you always seem to beat me to the reverting of vandalism ;) I'm glad Wiki has dedicated users like you. Cf38 (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: salt page

I put the Main Page there so it's just one more obstacle to prevent its unprotection. If it does any harm or has any unintended consequences, let me know and I'll get rid of it. Cheers, east.718 at 20:47, November 18, 2007

cleaning up

Sorry - Auto Wiki Browser does spell checking automatically, and I normally catch the blatantly obvious... missed that one. SkierRMH (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Walgreens: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Jauerback (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL and Sorry

I must not have noticed your username when I left that message for you earlier today. You obviously don't need any advice from me to tell you how to warn vandals. I apologize that I didn't catch that sooner. Jauerback (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I get messages like that all the time, no need to apologize. And you're right, I didn't actually warn that user. What I think happened is the warning edit was submitted but it returned an error page rather than saving (everything was a bit slow at the time) and I didn't notice. Since you warned them anyway, it doesn't matter – Gurch 20:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Invisible Barnstar
For being with us for so many years, and for many years to come, raise a glass. Marlith T/C 05:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Though I've only been here two years; not that long really – Gurch 05:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, a editor that has believed in this magical cause for so long deserves thanks. Marlith T/C 05:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment from 208.198.188.2

Why do you keep changing out the FACT that Clerview has a gang called the ClearView Crew? Do you even know where Clearview is? I've lived there all my life and know for a FACT that there is a gang called the ClearVeiw Crew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.198.188.2 (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The text "GANGSTAS CVC fo Life! You can never ever get rid of the CVC. We be runnin Clearview for life! ClearView Crew up in yo face now! CVC...WHAT?!" is not appropriate material for Wikipedia – Gurch 04:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with it. I thought people were free to post facts and to add to the knowledge of this website. By taking that off you are denying the fact of this. May I add it in a more appropriate manner?
Yes, people are free to post content – and equally free to remove it if it amounts to little more than gibberish. Whether it will remain if you add it again largely depends on what you consider a "more appropriate manner" – Gurch 04:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

The Invisible Barnstar
Damn it! you always beat me to the reverts and warnings!;); you deserve this.Cf38 (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


NYR07

I created the article and was the only one editing it, which I am now editing on my sandbox. Lex T/C Guest Book 05:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. However, readers should be able to read what is currently there, and possibly make improvements, until you have finished the version in your sandbox. Redirecting to your sandbox would confuse readers and prevent anyone else making improvements. If you aren't comfortable with there being two versions of the article, work on the article directly. Thanks – Gurch 05:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that I am going by this extremely weird way of writing the article. I first write the entire section, than I cite it. (See here) By doing this, I would just form a dispute with editors. Also, editors would just begin to edit my work, and causing edit conflicts when I am in the process of writing and previewing the article. This is why I prefer to do it on my sandbox. Lex T/C Guest Book 06:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Pink

What the fuck? I didn't vandalize nothing! I just deleted the redirect so I could create a fucking article, I'm getting real fucking sick of the vandalism messages I keep getting whenever I clear a fucking page!--Dominik92 (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Then don't delete the redirect. Click "edit", replace the redirect with the new article text, and then save it. Also, provide an edit summary. If you remove all text from a page with no explanation, you will be reverted and issued with a warning, no matter what; we have no way to see what your intentions are – Gurch 06:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Shiny!

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Great work with the vandal fighting! You have beat me multiple times tonight! Tiptoety (talk) 07:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Mtmelendez

Hi Gurch. I was wondering if you would consider creating User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections for the 2007 elections? - Mtmelendez (Talk) 11:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes – Gurch 11:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 :) Thank you. There's about a week left before nominations close, and we'll have two days to prepare the rest of the stuff. I also contacted Mathbot's owner and he confirmed. This is going to be an interesting set of elections, so we'll need as many tools as possible to keep track. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 11:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Murielisit

I'm not currently into reporting vandals etc., so dunno where to post this. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)