User talk:Hansnesse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive

Contents

[edit] AfD of Alice Childress

  • wow...i just cannot follow the instructions for AFD..is there a class on it somewhere? Kukini 07:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usammey (talk • contribs)

Took care of it, thanks for the heads up. Would have done it faster, but everyone is having connection problems. Are you having them too? - RoyBoy 800 07:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reverting my userpage vandalism. It's nice to know that other people have my back when I'm not here. -Colin Kimbrell 14:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • thankyou for reverting the vandalism done to my userpage. Regards, Blnguyen 02:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cohan

Whatever. If that character had simply deleted it and said "violation of wiki policy against (whatever)", I would have accepted it. Instead, he copped an attitude. At this point, I don't care what you do with it. I have taken it off my "watch" list. Wahkeenah 03:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: Cohan wrote the songs "Yankee Doodle Boy" and "Mary"; Allan Sherman did a parody of the latter called "Barry"; and Barry Bostwick sings "Yankee Doodle Boy" annually. Now do you get the point? It's kind of a minor Kevin Bacon moment. And it's not worth the irritation it has brought me from wiki's "I'm-better-than-you-even-though-I-don't-get-it" types. >:( Wahkeenah 05:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I hope the current solution is satisfactory. I do not think anyone indended offense at the inital reversion of the material, or subsequent reversion. I think everyong wants a better encyclopedia, and I'm glad we could discuss how to bring that about. Thanks for your work, --Hansnesse 20:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
You mean the "solution" of deleting it? Yeh, right. Wahkeenah 09:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't "controversial" until Keith-I-Am-The-Law stuck his nose into it. If you look at his talk page, you will discover that I am not the only one that guy has copped an attitude with. I don't see why his opinion is any more worthy than mine. Wahkeenah 19:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nonsense!

You are silly hanseese the only nonsence is you what I have done is not vandleism what you are doings. You are a frinkin Hypocrit. 207.81.122.3 02:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The edits I sent the messages about looked like this, which does appear to be vandalism. --Hansnesse 04:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jonathanbender

This user appears to have created a sockpuppet, User:Jonathanbender2. Since you were involved in the block of his earlier account, I thought you should know. -Colin Kimbrell 22:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] experimenting?!

That was not experitmenting I was simply puting in the right def. Here is Indian Defined in the dictionary: In·di·an ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nd-n) adj. Of or relating to India or the East Indies or to their peoples, languages, or cultures. Of or relating to any of the Native American peoples except the Eskimos, Aleuts, and Inuits. See you are wrong. Puting in a message is not vandelism by the way.207.81.122.3 00:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. The edits which I was refering to are this and this. You may note that this is quite different from the discussion on the talk page regarding whether the appropriate term is "indian" or "First Nation." In the edits above, the name of the local university is relabled "ASBESTOS University," (caps in original), two paragraphs are deleted, the Squamish language is changed to "Indian talk," etc. To me that is not the wording issue discussed on the talk page. The edits I link to above are those which the vandalism warnings were sent about. Thanks --Hansnesse 01:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme crime

Yeah, you're right. Next time someone makes such dramatic changes they need to leave an edit summary. To the outsider it looked like vandalism at first glance. Have a good one! ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 08:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George M. Cohan

This is fine with me, and I have responded on the article's talk page. But where exactly do you believe that I have flamed Wahkeenah? | Klaw ¡digame! 20:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • You're welcome, and thanks for the clarification and the effort. It's always helpful to have a third party in any edit war, no matter how minor. And to think, it's all because I watched Yankee Doodle Dandy the other night... | Klaw ¡digame! 20:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • "Nonsense" and "silly" are flame words, in my book. And apparently the 3-revert rule only applies to certain users. Wahkeenah 20:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Chang Design

Thanks for catching that one!! I thought I had them all. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 22:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks... =

Thanks for that advice. Yeah, I did realize that I accidentally put the vandalism warnings on people's user pages a few times... however, most of the times I did that I have realized I did and put it on their talk page. Thanks for the help. I appreciate it. -VincentGross 04:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You!

I appreciate you reverting vandalism on my user page. Kukini 05:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Lulz?

Where has your joyous grasp of youth gone, villian? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lulzworth (talk • contribs) .

In general, it is a bad idea to edit other people's userpages to add your views of them. I can appreciate the humor, however with hundreds such attempts at humor every hour, patience does run a bit thin. If you want to dispute the speedy deletion, you can pu {{hangon}} below the deletion notice, and explain on the talk page. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. --Hansnesse 07:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. This user has been continuously vandalizing pages, including my user talk page. Should I change the tag, or leave it the way it was? VincentGross 07:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I sure appreciate your help in this matter. It really is sad when certain users (ahem) can't grow up and act their age. I probably wouldn't have noticed anytime soon that my page was vandalized. VincentGross 07:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem with the user page - happens all the time. I wouldn't worry about the tag, but I went ahead and reported Lulzworth to WP:AIV. He is getting a bit much to handle. --Hansnesse 07:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that. I'm sure glad that he was blocked. He was causing a headache for a lot of people I know. It would be interesting to see if he continues to behave this way when he is unblocked. If he does, do we start over with the warnings, or does he get blocked automatically?? Also, how do you list someone to be blocked? Thanks. VincentGross 08:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EllenFoster

Thanks for tolerating my [[penis|randomness]], I hope you live a long happy life.

--EllenFoster 06:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I can appreciate the attempt at humor, but you may find with hundreds of acts of vandalism per hour, such attempts will fall on deaf ears. --Hansnesse 09:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

I put this same warning on the IP's talk page, you both have gone past the amount of reverts allowed in a 24 hour period. I know it's frustrating but revert warring isn't the best way to go about it. Can you please put a note on the talk page outlining the disagreement? Thanks! Rx StrangeLove 02:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the note and the quick action. There is a discussion on the talk page (under the title Timothy Alexander) which refers to one past version of the edits by 68.179.175.185 (talk • contribs). While I make every effort to respect the 3 revert rule, in this case I believe it was a pretty clear case of vandalism (the same edit has been reverted as vandalism now by four different editors). The issue was raised on Wikipedia alerts as well (which is how it came to my attention). It is the same edit as 68.179.173.206 (talk • contribs) was doing, as well as Atlant (talk • contribs). Thanks for your attention to the matter, --Hansnesse 02:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Got it, let me know if he keeps it up ok? Try and stay away from reverting though, if someone walked into this right now and blocked the IP they would probably have to take you with it just to be fair. Rx StrangeLove 02:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I've given him a 24 hour block for 3RR and legal threats. I've also reverted the page. Could you do me a favor and leave a note on his talk page outlining (once again I know) the reasons for your disagreement? He won't be able to respond anywhere else and to avoid any more polarization it might be good to keep a dialog going. I understand if you don't want to, but it might avoid a renewed edit war when the block ends. thanks, Rx StrangeLove 03:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, and I will comment on the issue on his talk page. Thanks again for your quick action. I am still researching the claims, but it appears that the motivation for adding the material may be to bolster some legal claim, or general vanity. Thanks again for all your help. --Hansnesse 03:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Rx StrangeLove 04:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page vandalism

Hi. Just a note to say thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Cheers TigerShark 02:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The same goes for me! Arundhati bakshi 06:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page vandalism

Hi Hansnesse,just cmae here to say thank you for reverting the vandalism off my userpage for that you get a smily face! (:-) J.J.Sagnella 17:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 69.138.229.246 Edits

Howdy, I don't want to second guess you here, and maybe you have some information I do not, but I don't think the edits by 69.138.229.246 (talk • contribs) were intended as vandalism. It seems to be a bone of contention on the Aloysius Snuffleupagus page whether that paragraph should be in there. As such, I havs started a discussion on the talk page of the article about it. In any event, I just wanted to give you that outsider's perspective. Thanks for all your hard work, --Hansnesse 05:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Not a problem at all Hansnesse- I don't know anything about the topic, but blankings with no reason given in the edit summary by an anon always raise my suspicions. Also, an example event on the December 1 article was removed, also raising my suspicions. I am happy to let the proceedings regarding the relevancy to proceed.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick reply! Since it seems to have been a misunderstanding, with your permission, I'd like to remove the warnings from 69.138.229.246 and make a note about using edit summaries and (ideally) getting an account. What do you think? Thanks again, --Hansnesse 06:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prod

It was removed by the creator immediately after placement, and I don't see that as a controversial/questioning move on his part (it was more akin to vandalism, and he did recieve a warning from me for it). I also wanted to question it a bit, as I thought this was referring to someone who was possibly well-known (from personal knowledge), and wanted to check on it before trashing it outright. --DanielCD 03:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

He didn't leave any explaination at all about why he removed it. And as a red link with only two edits, I automatically took it as a vandalism/newby move, not an intent to contest the tag. --DanielCD 03:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stirling

In response to your comments that "the court" has to establish the succession to the earldom, this could not be further from the truth. Scots Peerage Law does NOT work like that. This is exactually what I am speaking of when I say that I do not intend to argue with people who do not understand Scots Peerage Law. In approximately 18 years I have had extensive dealing with senior government officials in the United Kingdom and Canada, including the Queen herself. I have sat in the House of Lords, in the Peers Gallery (I am not a UK citizen and cannot be a working Peer) AS THE Earl of Stirling (that can be confirmed via the House of Lords, hence the entry giving the House of Lords as a reference). I have been contacted by UK cabinet members, in writing, as the Earl of Stirling. I gave specific reference information to the case that was before the EU Human Rights Court (this was a case over the male only rules of succession; not a case over my assumption of the titles; it was referenced by me as a outside source to establish that I am not just makeing this all up; you have to dig to confirm it ~ it is totally unfair to just say that you can't locate the case!). I have followed Scots Peerage Law in considerable detail with my assumption of the titles (some specific reference material was given by myself; that COULD HAVE been checked into). I have NOT been legally challenged in any legal venue in about 18 years over my right to the Earldom (under Scots Peerage Law one assumes the title and then and ONLY IF SUCCESSFULLY challenged in a proper legal venue does one lose the rights to the title; in fact, due to the specific history of my claim and the changes in the law/House of Lords rules/etc., there is no legal way to challenge my succession at the present time, and this was referenced by me). I was the Honorary Scottish Editor at Burke's Peerage close to 20 years ago under the late Harold Brooks-Baker and I have extensive documents/etc. that can prove this; where is there evidence that I WAS NOT the Scottish Editor? There have been comments that the "government" does not recognize me as Earl of Stirling. I would dearly like to see some WRITTEN EVIDENCE of this. I am not involved in Wikipedia except that I sought to update the information on the Earl of Stirling. There was a series of comments made that are false and I insist that Wikipedia not continue to deflame me or to continue to list the Earls of Stiring without listing me. Everyone there seems to get very upset that I have mentioned my legal rights, sorry this is a most serious matter and I will not let it go away. In reviewing the comments made by others, I see no evidence that anyone has done any serious research into this, or that anyone knows anything about the complex field of Scots Peerage Law. A peerage is a very serious matter, and in this case the peerage is linked to a set of historically important Canadian honorific hereditary offices-of-state. I have held off taking the matter to the law courts, because I am trying to be reasonable and I have no general objection to Wikipedia except what has happened in my specific case. But I want you to understand that what has been happening here is a most serious matter that I cannot allow to continue. Stirling {{subst:unsigned:68.179.175.185}}

Thanks for the reply, I have moved your comment on my talk page to Talk:Earl_of_Stirling#Further_discussion, and posted a reply there. In the interest of involving other editors (this is a consensus process after all), I wanted to keep it in a more accessible spot. Thanks again for the note. --Hansnesse 01:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks but

thanks but I created israelactions used hte inuse tag , while working on it with in 5 minutes it got deleted two times and now i can even recreate it. i cant believe someone of the people on here. any suggestions?

[edit] Q-Q plot

If the captions to these illustrations can be altered so that they say "Q-Q plot", then the illustration would be suitable for the new article titled Q-Q plot. Michael Hardy 21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem --Hansnesse 06:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My user page

Um...why did you screw with my user page?

I rewrote it in Olde English (Yes, the entire thing) and added a userbox, and then you just reverted it all. WTF, mate?

Just because I wasn't logged in doesn't mean it was vandalized.

Thanks for watching out for my page, but dude. Don't do that again unless it's really actually vandalism.

Thanks.

216.11.222.21 17:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you are refering to the User:Flameviper12 revert. I apologize, what I saw was a major change to a userpage from an IP address which already has many vandalism warnings. I had assumed it was vandalism. --Hansnesse 17:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, you apologize and...whatever. I don't care, really. I don't.

But that one part was rather troublesome, the part about vandalism warnings.

Um...that's my IP address on a school computer I use. I never get any messages...so WTF? Alright, that really makes no sense. But that's my problem. Now I know someone will help fix my user page should it become botched once more, or WoW'ed, or vandal...ed.

All forgived, Flameviper12 17:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent comments

Actually I am not really trying to fight vandalism, but actually I am just trying to add redundant comments to get a feel for Wikipedia, because I am a very new user. Please let me know if it would be better to stop this. --69.232.218.27 05:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! The only reason I would hesitate to warn people more than once about the same act of vandalism is that reporting to WP:AIV is usually done after four warnings (with a few exceptions). With extra warnings placed for the same vandalism, it is possible that someone would miscount and report after fewer incidents. But do keep up the great work! Thanks, --Hansnesse 05:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More trumpet vandals

I noticed that you reverted some recent vandalism to Trumpet. There's another one on there and since I'm fairly new at this (haven't read up enough on reverting and the appropriate warnings, etc.), I thought I'd ask you to revert it and take the appropriate action. Thanks. Special-T 15:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I have gone ahead and reverted the vandalism. If you want to read more about reverting vandalism, check out WP:VAND. Thanks again, --Hansnesse 16:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top Synergy's friendly approach

Dear Hansnesse,

What's your opinion about not posting links on an article by myself but rather introduce Top Synergy and the proposed link to a suitable editor for said article? He or she will decide whether or not the relationships topic enriches their article.

If you see this proposal positively, please help me to define who would be the most suitable editor for an article. Let's take Brad Bitt again as an example.

As usual, I appreciate your time and helpfull training in Wiki editing.

Midas touch 14:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I see nothing wrong with proposing adding the link on an article's talk page (click the discussion tab at the top of an article). You may want to start with a few articles (and be sure to add them to your watch pages, so see when people add discussion). If you can discuss why this is a benefit to the article per Wikipedia:External links, you may get further. Great idea! --Hansnesse 19:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Hansnesse,
Please visit Tommy Lee's discussion page and advise if the post I made makes sense and withstands wikipedia's ethic codes.
Thanks, Midas touch 05:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message from Benfranklinlover

Hey Hansnesse. Thanks for sending me a welcome e-mail. I really like American history and Japanese things. But heres a question; how do you find out what someone edits. Well, e-mail me back when you can. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benfranklinlover (talk • contribs) .

Great question. A quick way to view someone's edits is to click the "my contributions" at the top of the screen, then replace your name with their user name. There are also various links to their contributions, but this is the easist method I know. Incidentally, wikipedia makes it easy to sign your comments, just use four tildes (~~~~) and your name and a date will appear. Thanks, --Hansnesse 20:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tregoweth

As you well know, you deliberately sic'ed a deletionist admin on the bill of attainder article; someone who would simply revert back to a version by one of his friends, not matter how much time and how many versions and how much work had to be reverted to achieve this goal. That was not very nice of you. Perhaps you should, in the future, engage the author rather than the deletionist and un-American (and I do not mean non-American, I mean un-American, sort of as in HUAC) admin. -- 68.122.127.227 07:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the problem: Neither you, nor Tregoweth nor Str1977 wrote a single word of that article. Is there something about it that you do not like. Please work with the existing material. It is well-supported by the information contained within the links, if you bother to read them. Simply reverted to some version that was created by a friend is a sign of ignorance. Clearly you can use you mind and do better than that. Of course, it might take more than the 15 seconds it took you to revert; if you do not have the time to do a better job, please guide your attention to one of the other million-plus Wikipeida articles that are available to you. Perhaps you would find working on that highly Important articles on the Tardis, which is also today's exhalted featured article. -- 68.122.127.227 07:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I am so sorry! It is TARDIS, not Tardis. I am sure it stands for something very important but far too complex for my tiny, narrow mind to comprehend. Please forgive me in my ignorance! I certainly did not mean to offend. -- 68.122.127.227 07:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I am just a user, and have no interest in investigations into ARBCOM rulings. You were banned, as the edvidence seems to indicate, so I handed off to the first admin I saw. Since the matter continues, I reported it to VIP. I have neither the time nor the interest to debate the merits of your edits or your case, nor is it my place to do so. I consider the matter closed. --Hansnesse 07:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good catch!!!

I had just gone back to move it, and :::poof::: you had done it for me. Kukini 16:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WTF

Benfranklinlover 22:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete my paragraph on Chiiori, Hansnesse? All the facts came from the website and my dad has been there. I would like it if you put the paragraph back.

[edit] User:Midas touch - a note

Hi, I see that you've been engaging with this editor. However, his placing of notices on talkpages would also be considered a sort of spam - these edits also get picked up by Google and hence, this can also be seen as spam. I see no need for RfC; if editors have all been reverting his edits to the articles, it means that everyone of those consider it to be spam. btw, you seem to be doing some great work. Keep it up, --Gurubrahma 09:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I too wish to thank you for your having engaged Midas touch in conversation apropos of his adding the astrology links to celebrity pages. I wonder if you might recount, should you have time, what the consenus was when you posed the relevant query at the village pump; I assume that the discussion was not archived to any talk page and was thus lost. The issue, in response to one of Midas touch's "May I insert the link?" queries, is underway at Talk: Tommy Lee. Thanks, Joe 05:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I am astonished that there has been more than 1 minutes discussion about the topic of linking to outside sites that promote pseudoscience. I have taken the time to delete much of the link spamming Midas has done on the talk pages of numerous famous bios. Astrology is pseudoscience and Wiki is not here to promote psudoscience, be it astrology or tarot card and palm reading. We don't link Johnny Depp articles to tarot card reading sites, why would we link to astrology sites? You'll note the cancer article does not link to healing magnets or magic crystals. None of those subjects are deemed reliable. I have formally asked Midas to stop link spamming talk pages and I am formally asking you to please familiarize yourself with Wiki policies before encouraging someone who is link spamming talk pages. Mr Christopher 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Franklin Wilson

Alright Hansnesse. Franklin Wilson's son here to inform you that the article on my dad was entirely true- the book in question was written by David Gutman in 1987 and features a picture my dad drew shortly after Lennon's death.

All the best

Alfolioli