User talk:IanManka/Archive/8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17
Previous Archive | Topical Index | Next Archive

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 26 June 2006 and 22 July 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Contents

[edit] Re:Thanks for Supporting my RfA!

Actually, I'd forgotten all about it, but I remember I was really looking forward to getting one after you won. I can't believe that you're handwriting these, I really admire that. Do you ever get the urge to say 'No thanks for opposing my RFA' to people who opposed you? ;) Sergeant Snopake 22:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved comment from user page

You have blocket editing for ip 216.154.134.91 wrongly.

It is the people that complained about me that are the Vandals. I simply added my own article about the Ontario Regions. They kept deleting it without explanation. When I told them to stop they would not. I ask them to leave it and raise a dispute, but they just continued to delete my work without reason.

They are the ones that should be banned - NOT ME.

Please correct this ASAP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.25.90.30 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Dates on disambiguation pages

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I somehow got that reversed. --Usgnus 15:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hi Ian

I'm really confused, I have edit (two small edits) pages on the Ocenaides and Ianthes page. I haven't edited any further pages. Can someone else have the same IP address as me - or appear to have my IP address?

Thanks for your help - If someone is able to use the same IP address as me then please block it, I'd rahter be unable to edit than have acts of vandalism attributed to me

Thanks for you help IKM

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.38.169.59 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] 209.7.15.194

In light of this edit: [1] do you think this ip's block should be longer? Rjm656s 16:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information Request : Regarding Vandalism

Greetings, I am a systems administrator at a school with IP : 125.236.44.45. Our school has been blocked from editing Wikipedia articles due to vandalism. At our school we take these kind of issues seriously. We would like to explain to the vandal why it is not a good idea to vandalized the articles at Wikipedia.

Would you please provide any additional information about the vandalism. So our school is able to regain, editing access at wikipedia, and so we can ensure that this is not going to be an issue again in the future.

Thank you very much, you assistance with this matter is greatly appreciated.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smc.helpdesk (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Cristiano Ronaldo page

The Cristiano Ronaldo page has been vadalized a lot over the last few minutes. Maybe you can revert and put in a page protection for maybe a day or so? Kingjeff 17:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messages regarding Paul Bern

Paul Bern page, go on that talk page to see my point. Also, if you are administrator, get in touch with me, some email would be great, I hate to be called vandal when i try to fix things, ok... things got out of hand in the past because non of you wanted to listen to a reason, we need to unblock r marciano page, many mistakes, needs to be reverted, but if you want it like that, ok..."great" info too.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.220.153 (talk • contribs) .

This message was momentarily deleted by 64.107.0.160 when they posted another statement. It has been restored.

This message was deleted again, this time by 64.107.0.72.

See WP:SQUID for more info on this guy. Mak (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have makemi problem, every time I put information on Paul Bern, which is 100% this guy is after me, not only he, but Drsdqye, this is a slap in the face, even when I am correct most of the time, this administrative vandal reverts everything, when I try to put correct sutff reverts, when I put the death of Rocky Marciano's trainer for January 7th 1969, instead of Jan 9, reverted, everything reverted, I am no vandal, they created a vandal and 90% of the garbage against me is not true nor have I ever edited anything they claim they did, if I did, I only tried to make it as neutral as possible, they are simply evil people with their own interest, when I wanted to show evidence which deals with historical pdf, they did not want to listen... nothing, So I am requesting both Bern and Rocky site get reverted to what I posted and I posted according to Wiki policy and gave it the best neutrality possible.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.0.160 (talk • contribs) .

Hopefully new blood, new administrator we can do business together, since my time is limited, if I could email you that would be great. So we can fix some of those sites.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.0.160 (talk • contribs) .

Sir, I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. I do not know (1) who you are, (2) why you contacted me at my talk page of all places, (3) what I can do to help you with whatever problem you are having, or (4) what your problem is in the first place. If you can tell me any one of these things, I may be able to assist you.
Furthermore, I would ask that you not remove any comments from my talk page without my explicit permission. This may be considered vandalism. Thanks. Ian Manka Talk to me! 09:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I simply wanted some things to be reverted here, nothing more, nothing else, I hate people telling lies, that's all, vandalism is in your head and you need to look better at that, all I am saying vandal Mak blocked rocky site with wrong dates, i tried to change that, but, ah never mind this place is not good anyways...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.0.72 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Sysop promotion

Congratulations on becoming a sysop (administrator)! I wish you well. Marcus 19:35, 2 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 02:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your blockage of 65.116.102.4

I noticed that you have just blocked 65.116.102.4 for 2.718 months. (Is it policy to block people for e months?) 65.116.102.4 is a school IP address (my school's, incidentally); at the top of the talk page, it says:

This IP address, 65.116.102.4, is used by Wayzata Public Schools and is shared by multiple users of an educational institution. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking.

I remember being at school and being unable to edit (despite being logged in) because of the above ban. I'm not suggesting you lift the ban, but just to give some additional information that may influence your decision. --Zarel 21:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that in one of your messages on my talk page, you mentioned something about signing my messages on Talk pages. It seemed to imply that I did not. However, as far as I know (and according to this page's edit history), I have signed my message. --Zarel 22:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see the problem. It seems I had raw signatures on. Thank you for the reminder. --Zarel 22:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review

You recently deleted an article I started, which after reading the policies I understand.

However, I am dissapointed you failed to send me a message that the article was under review for deletion; I could have brought the article under the WP:BIO guidelines. In the future please have courtesy to inform authors thier articles are outside of editorial guidelines, especially in cases where the author does not have a history of abusing wikipedia. Please try to follow the "If the article doesn't pass the test" guidelines offered by the article you used to justify the deletion with. Even if the articles need to be deleted, then the author is at least better informed when they write future articles.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oddwick (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyllis Busansky

We seem to have clashed heads - I closed the AfD, only to discover that you deleted the article a second later. I checked to make sure I hadn't edit conflicted with your closing, and I hadn't. Do you normally carry out the result of an AfD before closing the nomination?

At least we seem to be on the same page. Sorry, that sounds like an awful pun. What I meant to say was that at least we came to the same conclusion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I normally don't carry out the action before closing the AfD. In fact, I thought that I had clicked the "save page" button already on the page. Apparently, my computer/internet connection thought otherwise. However, for some reason, today I've been backwards -- doing the result, then closing the debate. That makes for bad edit conflicts and whatnot. Anyway, thanks for covering my tracks! Ian Manka Talk to me! 20:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, all day I have been dealing with "losses of session data" (one of which happened whilst replying). Ian Manka Talk to me! 20:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Funny, I was getting those continuously yesterday. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WHMT

Wow, it's already archived. Anyway, I think we should pair the opponents. My computer suggested the following pairing 1018 times (in a run of 2000):

IanManka Fetofs Dante Alighieri FeldBum

If you want to pair again, feel free, but we must get going! fetofs Hello! 15:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 84.146.243.10

I added this user to the vandalism page because he/she has trolled under a bunch of different IP addresses:

84.146.228.83

84.146.223.217

84.146.243.105

The user vandalized an administrator's talk page with this one:

84.146.223.217

The user was then warned by an admin for that above post on the admin's talk page, though no warning banner was posted:

User_talk:84.146.223.217

Are we supposed to go through the entire gamut of warning banners for each of the disruptor's unregistered IP addresses in a blatant case like this? J.R. Hercules 18:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's proper...

it's proper to reply dude, learn some manner@s!dont be like rest of the wiki administrative vandals!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.220.166 (talk • contribs) .

To what should I be replying to? It would help if you gave me a page name or referenced what you were referring to. Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 08:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

...for cleaning out the long list of vandals that I besmirched your AIV page with - your contributions to Wikipedia like that are valued by us RC patrollers! Cheers. --Killfest2 09:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FIFA Hosts

Re: Your comment on User talk:24.20.144.150:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams/Referencing templates indicates that Template:HUNfold was current from 1902 through 1945. --24.20.144.150 21:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why reverted?

Please explain why you reverted my edit to 2006 FIFA World Cup? It was a perfectly legitimate edit, and an important piece of information (the heading is tournament summary, not match summary) -- Tivedshambo (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Follow up - you claim that "Brazil were favourites" was uncited. They were number 1 seed (I must admit I thought this was in the article itself - I've just checked and it's on a linked page). Although this doesn't necessarily make them favourites, it is common knowledge. (I agree a reference would be technically required under the rules of WP, but if we did that for every minor detail in an article of that size, it would become impossibly large). Even so, if you thought that a reference was required, a {{fact}} tag should be all that is necessary, not a full reversion. Finally, can I suggest that where an edit is not obviously vandalism, you wait a few minutes before altering, as the original editor may be making changes (as I was at the time - putting the link to Brazil national football team, which incidentally also cited them as favourites). -- Tivedshambo (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested moves

I did review that section - you'll need to be more specific as to why you believe these articles should not be tagged as requested moves, then I can respond accurately. Fishhead64 18:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see! Thanks - I was just going by what other editors below on the page had done. I will make the necessary changes. Cheers! Fishhead64 18:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] College Football Project

Hi, and welcome to the College football Wikiproject! We are a group of editors who love college football and work to improve Wikipedia's coverage of this sport.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

If you have any ideas you would like to share or if there is any way your fellow college football fans can help you, please feel free to ask on the project talk page.

--Mecu 19:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Moved from under my RfA thank you box, which read: "Thanks to everyone who supported my Request for Adminship. I won adminship 54/6/1. Thanks again!"

you're welcome

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.165.161.15 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] 2022/2026 FIFA World Cup

You have a good point that both 2022 and 2026 are very far into the future, but the 2026 page was already nominated for deletion a few days ago. The added sources removed the nomination. I believe the 2030 page was deleted and blocked. See also the discussion on the user talk pages of Batmanand and Pelotas.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pelotas (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Block on 64.12.116.198

Hi, you just beat me to the above IP - I see you blocked it for 24hrs. Did you realise it's an AOL address? Convention is to only block AOL IPs for short period (half an hour or so) due to the constantly changing IP system that AOL uses. It may be worth considering unblocking in a while to avoid blocking lots of other users who happen to get assigned that IP. If you knew this and chose 24hrs deliberately, that's fine. Kcordina Talk 08:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Jews in Romania

I'm sure this was well-intentioned, but in fact you removed a link about a 19th-century artist, who deserves (and lacks) an article, apparently because an article about some other person of the same name was deleted as non-notable. I've reverted you. I fully understand how this sort of thing happens, but it suggests you may have gotten a trifle too mechanical about following these up. ~- Jmabel | Talk 01:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on FL:CE Page

The vandals are using IPs and have repeatedly done so. I understood the part about leaving a warning for a user who vandalises but for an IP? I am guessing that is what you are wanting.

I would like to request you guys look into it. If this admin intervention page is not the place to do that then where can I?

Forgive me, I am not a veteran Wikipedia user and as such it took me forever just to find this Admin intervention page. I am simply trying to report what is an obvious abuse by these individuals which has been going on for ssome time now. I recognize their IPs from the FL:CE forum as being banned users. I would greatly appreciate any help you can offer regarding this matter, whether it be instructions or anything really.

I know it might be very simple and easy for vetern Wikipedia users to know how to go about dealing with these things, but I for one as a new user am finding it very difficult to navigate and communicate with you guys and as such apologize if I am going about this the wrong way. Thank you for your understanding in this regard.

Please feel free to contact me via my MSN/email of e-mail address removed to prevent spambot harvesting

Primary vandal is 68.9.239.48

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dl0ad (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Block of 69.34.55.150

69.34.55.150 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

Thanks for blocking that anon user. Unfortunately, it is a character that has taken a disliking to me because I keep removing all his linkspam. He has a dynamic IP that has been in the range of 69.34.52-55.x and 69.68.198-199.x, as far as I've been able to tell. Any way to put a short-term block on that entire range? Neil916 01:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

He's already back as 69.34.53.97 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) Neil916 01:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an awfully big range for me to range block. I'd probably put ~500 IPs out of commission. Sorry. Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Understand. I've just been documenting things and am putting together a complaint to the ISP which should have longer effect. He doesn't quite seem to realize that his actions are easily reverted, but it's mildly annoying anyway. Can you semi-protect my user pages for 72 hours? Neil916 01:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. Let me know if any thing else happens (or if its in a closer range such as 69.34.53.x). Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 65.11.131.16

Please check out AIV - I don't think your ban worked.  Killfest2  01:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Don't worry, Samuel Blanning fixed the situation.  Killfest2  01:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Per your edits to 2016 Summer Olympics, you must be fond of wanting citations. Georgia guy 17:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

Good, I like it (especially seeing as I know that if I was doing it, I would have a lot of trouble keeping out the 'screw you, I'm an admin anyway' element - I'm so not ready for adminship ;) ). It's really impressive that your handwriting all of these, it's a refreshing change to that usual automated stuff). On the note of my last name, it's pronounced 'Snow' and then 'pake', rhyming with 'snake'. Sergeant Snopake 09:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not enough Talk edits

I had to go back and double check my logic, but my concern stands or at least was made by rational calculation. I was refering specifically to the (Article) Talk namespace where you had only 179 edits. In my view contributing to the encyclopedia involves discussing articles with other users which is best done in that name space rather than User talk since general issues usually benefit from having multiple perspectives. On the other hand it was meant more as a general suggestion for improvment rather than a stand-alone reason to oppose. I was primarily concerned that you might not have the 100+ substantive project space edits that I pretty much require. I have no objections to hangman, but I couldn't tell if you met my criterion. Well in any event, congradulations on being sysoped and best of luck with the (not so new anymore) tools. Eluchil404 12:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I do remember

I do vivdly remeber my comments. I shall message you shortly the reasons. I wish you all the best in your real life, as also here. --Bhadani 14:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA and my oppose vote

Let me begin by extending my congratulations to your for your recent promotion into the world of sysops (it isn't all that it's cracked up to be). And let me first say that I hope there isn't any ill feeling over my vote, as there is not any on my part. Now, you asked about my oppose vote, the IRC incident, and my linking to AGF. My linking to AGF was for a reason other than you mentioned. Many Seemingly always, whenever someone opposed in an RfA without any reason for the oppose, other editors seem to always harrass and patrionize the editor who opposed and try to figure out why, without assuming good faith that the editor has a reason for opposing. Now, I did not feel the need to expose my reason for opposing, and I still do not feel the need to explain my reasoning. However, I will tell you that the IRC incident was not the only reason I opposed, and in fact, there are several reasons I opposed, at that time. However, now that some time has passed, I don't know how I would voice my opinion if you were going through another RfA. More than likely, I would be nuetral. However, you are an admin, so that doesn't matter anymore. Anyhow, you asked me to have a look at your admin actions, and I did. Looking at your protections, you semi-protected several userpages, and said it was 72 hours. Now, I don't know the incidents surrounding the protection, so I'm going to AGF and bring the protections to your attention instead of unprotecting myself. Pepsidrinka 23:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Talk

So, let me get this straight. You're not allowed to edit your OWN user talk page? That seems really dumb, it's your own page --Movietrailer 19:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Star Wars references

I had been working on List of Star Wars references up until about three months ago, when I took a break. I now see that the article has been deleted as per the AfD discussion which occurred in my absence.

List of Star Wars references was originally intended as a resource for those people who needed to add citations to Star Wars articles. As such, not only were book titles and authors listed, but also edition numbers and format, years of publication, and ISBN numbers. Later, it was tentatively decided that the article should eventually be merged with List of Star Wars books once it attained a state of relative completion.

It is true that much of the article was redundant with List of Star Wars books. However, the latter did not have the extra publication information, while the former had nearly all the same novels, as well as a much more extensive list of sourcebooks and roleplaying sourcebooks (both sections which I had been working on). None of this additional pertinent information was ever merged into List of Star Wars books prior to the deletion.

The outcome of the AfD was 6 votes to delete, 4 votes to merge, and one neutral vote. I am not certain if this is considered a sufficient margin to form a consensus. I am not even sure if the voters actually compared the two articles: it could be argued that List of Star Wars references was a more comprehensive list than List of Star Wars books, and therefore should have been merged rather than deleted.

Nevertheless, I will abide by the consensus vote, and I would only ask if there is some way I can recover the content of List of Star Wars references. I'd like to copy the list to my user page, work on bringing it closer to completion, and then merge the various sections into the relevant articles. -- wacko2 05:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, and for copying List of Star Wars references into my user subpage. I'm not clear on one thing though: do you mean that I should get you to delete the subpage once I'm done with it and have merged the info? -- wacko2 05:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1984 Orange Bowl

This section contains data from BlueValour's talk page

As part of the cleanup of college football copyvios this article was stubified and rewritten. In order to cleanse the article of copyvio material would you please delete the history from, and including, this version. BlueValour 17:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So, just to confirm, you want me to delete 1984 Orange Bowl, and then replace the current version after the page has been deleted? Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
That is one option. Either that, or delete the veraion I highlighted and all previous versions (which may not be possible). BlueValour 17:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh. I learned how to do something new today: to delete partial histories. However, if anyone wants that text, they are going to be upset with me... it took like 6 deletions for me to get it right. Sigh. But it's done. Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for doing that so quickly and efficently. If anyone wants the deleted text just refer them to Top 100 games from where it came! BlueValour 17:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Barnstar moved to user page...

Thank you so, so much for the barnstar, it's like barnstar day! You know, The Halo has had, like, five today. Sergeant Snopake 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It has to be a record. I don't think anyone's ever had so many in such a short space of time. Sergeant Snopake 10:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
So he now has another, a RAOK. It's unbelievable. Sergeant Snopake 10:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the heads up on the Hangman Tornament. Aeon Insane Ward 03:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Previous Archive | Topical Index | Next Archive
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17
Current Talk Page